Whedonesque : Comments on 20459 : Buffy Movie: Vertigo Entertainment and the Kuzuis in talks to do a Buffy feature film.

Can I just be the first to say "no thank you?"

And rather politely I might add. I just don't think we need it.

The Xan Man | May 26, 04:30 CET

Oh dear lord...

buffywrestling | May 26, 04:30 CET

Umm... yeah. That sounds like a FANTASTIC idea. #sarcasm

Made. Of. Fail.

Haunt | May 26, 04:30 CET

This is a travesty. I have no other words for this.

whedon is GOD | May 26, 04:31 CET

This is the worst idea I've ever heard of. Buffy, without Joss? How insulting.

CarolP | May 26, 04:32 CET

I for one do not believe this, simply.

ETA: Okay maybe I will believe it but don't see it gaining interest b y studios and such. Also as a fan I might check it out just as many Trek Fans did with the reboot and they on average have said it worked, but Buffy is Joss which is why the original movie didn't really work. Buffy minus Joss and people that Joss hires (because let's face it he picks great writers) is just not right.

Also it is simply too soon for this kind of reboot.

This is all obviously my opinion.

[ edited by Stargyn on 2009-05-26 04:37 ]

Stargyn | May 26, 04:33 CET

Yikes, can anyone say box office bomb? It could possibly do worse than the original 1992 version. At least that one was trying to bank on the popularity of Luke Perry's 90210 fame at the time. What would the new one have? It wouldn't even get current Buffy fans support.

Out of Objects | May 26, 04:33 CET

Oh my god, what a fucking horrible idea

If a studio is interested in making a Buffy movie why wouldn't they approach Joss? I mean, Joss's stated reason for thinking a movie will never happen is that noone is interested in funding it. Couldn't this mean that this studio would be willing to fund a Joss-made Buffy movie instead? Not that I'm dying for one; I'd much rather see Ripper get made

Let Down | May 26, 04:34 CET

While I'm not saying its something that couldn't be "rebooted" at some point, I don't think you can reboot something less than 20 years old. It's still too fresh.

Like Star Trek, enough time has to pass and the franchise has to have been "dead" long enough for the hardcore fans to put up with any change and even support it if it means getting a chance to see their favorite characters again.

This would have been like releasing Abrams Star Trek in the 80's with Roddenberry and a majority of the original cast still beloved and vital.

azzers | May 26, 04:35 CET

The fans have been willing to ignore the Kuzui's arrogance for years, mostly because we only care about the end product (i.e., the essential Whedonness of Buffy and Angel, despite the Kuzuis insisting on taking credit). I can't imagine they realize what a &*#$storm they are about to stir up...

HairyLime | May 26, 04:36 CET

I hear it will star Priyanka Chopra!

The One True b!X | May 26, 04:37 CET

"Vertigo and Kuzui are looking to restart the story line without trampling on the beloved existing universe created by Whedon, putting the parties in a similar situation faced by Paramount, J.J. Abrams and his crew when relaunching 'Star Trek.'"

Except for the whole Gene Roddenberry being dead and Joss being alive. If it were 40 years from now and someone wanted to relaunch/reinvent Buffy, I'd say go for it -- Shakespeare gets reinvented and relaunched all the time, so why not Joss? But it's way way too soon now.

Eileen | May 26, 04:38 CET

OK, this 'rebooting' idea is getting WAY out of hand ...

alittledarkcorner | May 26, 04:38 CET

Their idea of canon is that "Into each generation a slayer is born" but how does that get around the canon that the Slayer has to die before a new one is called? Or wasn't that bit in the original film? Oh god...They aren't going to bring back the menstrual cramps of impending vamp tussling, are they??

buffywrestling | May 26, 04:39 CET

I don't think "no" is a strong enough word.

CarpeNoctem | May 26, 04:39 CET

While I'm not saying its something that couldn't be "rebooted" at some point, I don't think you can reboot something less than 20 years old. It's still too fresh

I'm more of a purist than you. I don't want to see a remake ever and, in fact, I'm not even very keen on Joss's idea of rebooting Buffy as a stage musical. That said, you're absolutely right that it's even more ridiculous when the show only just went off the air not that long ago and is still being continued in comic form by the creator and show writers

Let Down | May 26, 04:40 CET

I just got sick. Everywhere.

cordelia_chaser | May 26, 04:41 CET

I would never imagine news of a Buffy movie could ever make me less than estatic. I'm just mad now.

kimkim | May 26, 04:42 CET

maybe the vampires will sparkle ... or whatever else twilight did with them.

alittledarkcorner | May 26, 04:42 CET

Do. Not. Want.

jlp | May 26, 04:43 CET

I'll reboot my foot in their a**.
This would be a disaster.

glenn_btvs01 | May 26, 04:44 CET

No may not be a strong enough word, however, um...no.

Buffygrrl | May 26, 04:45 CET

Oh bloody hell. Can I be the first to say BINO (Buffy in Name Only)?

Oh, so now I get to be one of the hardcore fanbase who resist any attempt to remake the franchise! What fun!

Boooo!

SteppeMerc | May 26, 04:45 CET

Oh bloody hell. Can I be the first to say BINO (Buffy in Name Only)?

Except it wouldn't be in name either, since it'd be a new slayer.

The One True b!X | May 26, 04:45 CET

A reboot of Buffy?

"Yes, that's exactly the most appalling thing you could have said."

CrazyKidBen | May 26, 04:45 CET

I think with the right writing team this could be good, and with the wrong writing team this could be bad. Is there any more rational stance to have at this point?

rocknjosie | May 26, 04:45 CET

does the site policy against attacks bar us from factual statements like "Fran Kazui is a vile leech who would kill a puppy for a quarter!" ? Just wondering.

ETA: "vile leech" isn't strong enough. Anyone got a better phrase for a talentless hack trying to grab credit for something she deserves none for while garbing herself in this bizarre "Roy has respect for asian cultures" b.s. that makes it seem like she's on some insightful life mission other than being a useless waste of protoplasm?

doubtful guest | May 26, 04:46 CET

They can't be serious.

hitnrun017 | May 26, 04:47 CET

Who do they expect to see this? Much of the fanbase will refuse to watch it (though some will watch it from morbid curiosity) and will indeed be hostile to the movie. The original movie doesn't have a fanbase and anybody unlucky enough to have seen the original movie won't be rushing to the cinemas. I suppose they'd be going for a new generation of teens (just the other day my housemate spoke to a 16 year old girl who had never even heard of Buffy; I was appalled :) ). Still, if this happens (and I really hope someone has enough sense to abort it) I think it will flop badly

Let Down | May 26, 04:49 CET

I was just about to login over here at Whedonesque to post this article. I am absolutely outraged by this news. A Buffy movie will not be a Buffy movie without Joss Whedon, I'm sorry.

jiggyfly | May 26, 04:49 CET

Maybe this is Kuzui's revenge for all the comments that the writers and Joss have made over the years. I know we're Joss fans, but he hasn't been kind or silent about the people who originally helped him even if his vision did get distorted by them. Still, spitting on the producers is not generally a good thing in Hollywood.

And now that I think about it, doesn't Kuzui's Revenge sound like a condition caused by a regional amoeba? Just a thought.

azzers | May 26, 04:50 CET

I hear Mylie Cyrus has some availability.

TamaraC | May 26, 04:50 CET

You know why Trek worked? Because the original cast are all in their late 60's, early 70's or dead. Gene is gone...and they kept the all of the characters

SMG is barely out of her 30's and Joss is so alive... and you can't do it without the Scoobies, no f'n way

I think this would piss me off to the nth degree.

A Joss movie, with the real Buffy would be awesome. But not this.

jelac07 | May 26, 04:51 CET

@doubtful guest, I think you should tone it down because that statement does cross the line into a personal attack.

Anyways, this sounds like a bad idea.

crazygolfa | May 26, 04:51 CET

A Buffy movie will not be a Buffy movie without Joss Whedon, I'm sorry.

It wouldnt be a Buffy movie. It would be a slayer movie. (I get that the article plays up the reboot angle, but it's bullsh*t. It'd be nice if people didn't pick up their incorrect terminology just because they hate the idea.)

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-05-26 04:51 ]

The One True b!X | May 26, 04:51 CET

NO!

I think that is simply put, don't you? Personally, I would rather watch Twilight (which I disgust with every fibre of my being) then watch a Buffy "relaunch" without Joss, and Sarah playing Buffy.

badwolf | May 26, 04:51 CET

What exactly do they own the rights to? Could theoretically Joss make a "Fray" movie that premiered the same date?

IMMORTAL | May 26, 04:51 CET

Can we get the Jonas brothers as the Hyena pack?

azzers | May 26, 04:51 CET

They tried to do something similar for TV a few years ago, but it never made it very far. By excluding characters like Spike, they step over legal issues with Joss and 20th. From memory, at least, that was the idea.

[ edited by gossi on 2009-05-26 04:53 ]

gossi | May 26, 04:52 CET

Just like the Star Trek fanbase stayed away from this recent reboot? Or how the Batman fanbase stayed away? Reboots are big money these days, and with the right story this might be worth it. No it won't be Buffy but it'll be a story about the line of slayers, and I'll go watch it.

rocknjosie | May 26, 04:52 CET

Huh?? I mean... huh!?!?

NYPinTA | May 26, 04:52 CET

Oh sure, now that Twilight came out and made zillions, vampires are back in vogue, True Blood notwithstanding, the Kuzui's want to do a reimagining of the Buffy mythos? I think the timing is suspect but even though I waxed silly at Twitter about this, I don't think any film the Kuzui's mounted would rival/disrupt/overshadow what Joss has accomplished and I'm not going to get verklempt about it. It seems like Mutant Enemy would own the Buffy name, but that's for him to work out with them.

Tonya J | May 26, 04:53 CET

Except it wouldn't be in name either, since it'd be a new slayer

The article doesn't say anything about a new slayer, just that the supporting characters will be gone. If you're not going to keep the Buffy name and title, you may as well just start your own new vampire franchise.

jlp | May 26, 04:54 CET

Here here doubtful guest! Its sickening that those... people... got credited at the beginning of every Buffy and Angel episode (and getting money from it is obviously far worse!) but to do this...

It is despicable. I have not a problem with reboots of some things, or EU stuff. I read all the Star Wars books, love the Angel and Buffy comics. But thats the thing: Buffy is still going on. This may well be worse than that horrid live action Avatar: Last Airbender that casts white folks as all the Tibetans and Inuits and Indians as the Japanese and Chinese people. In short, DO NOT WANT.

Ahemm... Let me channel my inner Shatner....

"KKUUUUZUUUUUIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!"

SteppeMerc | May 26, 04:54 CET

rocknjosie:

Speaking as a Trekkie, I can tell you that the reason we didn't stay away was because we had been without a Trek for a long time and we saw our beloved franchise was dying if not already dead. We WANTED it to succeed because we missed our franchise.

Buffy doesn't have that problem yet.

azzers | May 26, 04:54 CET

The article doesn't say anything about a new slayer...

It does if you read it.

One of the underlying ideas of "Buffy" allows Vertigo and Kuzui to do just that: that each generation has its own vampire slayer to protect it. The goal would be to make a darker, event-sized movie that would, of course, have franchise potential.

The One True b!X | May 26, 04:55 CET

They're talking about keeping the title BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Just FYI.

gossi | May 26, 04:56 CET

..Bzuh ? Without Joss or any of those characters - what's the point ? Meh.

a little pez witch | May 26, 04:56 CET

I hear Mylie Cyrus has some availability.

Oooh, are we thinking musical?

jcs | May 26, 04:57 CET

The last thing we need is to have the Buffy name distance people even further from the TV show! It's already hard enough to convince new people it's a brilliant classic. Argh! Unless Whedon is involved, I don't want this to happen. At all. There's just 'bad' written all over it.

mikejer | May 26, 04:57 CET

They'd have a new slayer that just happens to also be named Buffy? I find it more likely that they need to keep referring to it as "Buffy movie" as long as possible to keep the attention flowing.

The One True b!X | May 26, 04:57 CET

Well, at least it will be a switch, Joss fans try to STOP a Buffy movie. No Joss! No Buffy!

Vinity | May 26, 04:57 CET

Eeeep. This is the worst idea ever!!!

I know she had some rights to the Buffy character because of their deal way back to make the original movie. But, would she be able to pull in any of the other characters -- because that would just be so wrong if she ever could touch Angel or Giles or Willow or Xander. I may not sleep tonight.

geekgirl_2006 | May 26, 04:58 CET

I don't even want to know.

Pleasant dreams all!

brinderwalt | May 26, 04:59 CET

But, would she be able to pull in any of the other characters -- because that would just be so wrong if she ever could touch Angel or Giles or Willow or Xander.

Is no one reading the article?

The new "Buffy" film, however, would have no connection to the TV series, nor would it use popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike.

The One True b!X | May 26, 04:59 CET

Speaking as a Trekkie, I can tell you that the reason we didn't stay away was because we had been without a Trek for a long time and we saw our beloved franchise was dying if not already dead. We WANTED it to succeed because we missed our franchise.

Exactly, I am a Trekkie as well and I was dying to see Star Trek. We hadn't had anything in so long and it kind of made sense to reboot it, if it was done right. And it was...done right, that is.

This Buffy reboot would be ...well I can't even think of the right word. B A D

jelac07 | May 26, 05:00 CET

So what's the deal with the Kuzuis and why does everyone hate them so much? I wasn't around back in the day. Anyone care to enlighten me?

snakebyte | May 26, 05:00 CET

If I had my hands on that pie I would milk it for all it was worth too.

You can milk pie right?

Litwal | May 26, 05:01 CET

doubtful guest: insults masquerading as rhetorical questions are still insults. No more personal attacks, please, on the Kuzuis or anyone else.

SoddingNancyTribe | May 26, 05:02 CET

No and no and no and NO. The only reason there's any interest in a Buffy movie is because of the success of the TV show, not the first movie. A TV show that the Kuzui's had nothing to do with besides the token nod to them working on the movie attached to the end of every credit shot. Worst idea ever. Hostile? Uh yeah.

A Buffy movie without Whedon = FAIL. And I'd like to echo that this is insulting to Whedon to relaunch his universe in the spirit of the new Star Trek movie when Whedon is still steering the story of his universe.

Is no one reading the article?

b!x, the rage has clouded our vision.

[ edited by Emmie on 2009-05-26 05:14 ]

Emmie | May 26, 05:03 CET

I am actually offended by this idea. Wow.

Jobo | May 26, 05:03 CET

Is no one reading the article?

Probably not. I know I haven't. :)

Of course, as I said before I think I'm probably better off in the long run not knowing.

Update: ...I broke my own rule (I read the article). I don't really see anything worth commenting on about this... yet.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2009-05-26 05:09 ]

brinderwalt | May 26, 05:04 CET

What would be the new slayer's name? Lauren Conrad?

TamaraC | May 26, 05:05 CET

Bix, they tried to do something a few years ago with it as a TV show. The idea was something of the lines of Buffy gets frozen and wakes up in the future. All her friends etc are gone. It allows you to keep the brand name (BUFFY) and not pay Joss/Fox ('cos his unique characters are gone). I don't know if they're looking at that here, but I'm willing to bet a large amount of money they will do anything they possibly can to keep 'Buffy' there. With a different face.

gossi | May 26, 05:06 CET

A world of ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

I'd rather see a movie about the Kazuis played by muppets.

Nebula1400 | May 26, 05:07 CET

They could set it in some unspecified future, where the myth of the vampire slayer has evolved into "Buffy" being a title.

The One True b!X | May 26, 05:07 CET

Buffy in a space station, Buffy reimagined as BarbarellaBuffy, Buffy at the North Pole, Buffy restores peace at a Tibetan Monastery, Buffy Defeats the Chupacabra down in Mexico ... oh, the possibilities are endless, I tell you! The laugh factor potential is boundless.

Tonya J | May 26, 05:09 CET

I doubt this will even happen anyway, to be honest.

Two reasons:

a) Most studios are actually smart. They know Trek and Batman worked because they had amazing creative talent behind them. If I was a studio, unless they had Joss directing it, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

b) I'd like you to meet 20th Century Fox's lawyers.

gossi | May 26, 05:09 CET

Since its likely to be held up in court for years, it doesn't take a whole lot to imagine that to get to a final product, some "changes" to the proposed format and casting will be made. My guess: it's to force a hand or two into participation.

Peanut Noir | May 26, 05:10 CET

I don't think this is something that I would support. It actually makes me nervous as a fan of the series.

goodridd | May 26, 05:10 CET

Gotdammit... seriously can the Kuzui's just fuck off?

Thuddles | May 26, 05:11 CET

My thoughts exactly, gossi.

TamaraC | May 26, 05:11 CET

You know, now that I think about it... they may be in talks but I don't think this will get done. Besides the fan flack (which would be considerable) the studios have been rebooting marquee blockbuster franchises. Even Star Trek had blockbuster potential at one time (and does again now).

Part of the reason Joss can't get funding is because Buffy has always been a cult phenomenon. Yes, it has potential to make money, but most studios don't feel like they can hit a home run with it or the movie would have already been made.

I mean what could they add to the franchise that it didn't already have? Only thing I can think of is more explosions and I don't know what that would have to do with vampire slaying... Everything else was covered.

azzers | May 26, 05:12 CET

gossi beat me to it...

azzers | May 26, 05:13 CET

I'm all for a BUFFY reboot... in 20 years. Now is not the time, and this is certainly not the way to do it. And I have no clue what audience they would be attempting to target. Fans of the show will boycott it, and anyone who didn't watch the show scoffs when they hear the title BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. I'm not sure how that adds up to Box Office Gold.

WindTheFrog | May 26, 05:13 CET

The One True B!X, the article wouldn't come up for me in the link but I responded from the comments here cause I couldn't help it. Maybe that is why people don't have the facts straight? I googled the link and now I HAVE read the article and I'm even more upset. For one thing.....darker than Buffy???? I assume they mean the movie cause our Buffy got pretty dark. God, now I'm going to have to drug myself to sleep tonight :(

Vinity | May 26, 05:13 CET

The new Buffy would be named Miranda and would be the result of a botched attempt to pacify the citizens of Sunnydale by a mysterious group called The Initiative Alliance.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-05-26 05:15 ]

The One True b!X | May 26, 05:15 CET

gossi, you are a ray of hope and knowledge in these dark times, and I hope that you are right.

Also, I think I'm a bit scared that I am happy about Fox lawyers, and that they are on 'our side' (whatever that means). I imagine them like the lawyer fellow on the Simpsons that always represents Mr. Burns or any big time company.

SteppeMerc | May 26, 05:15 CET

The comparison with the new Trek movie kind of bugs me, since that's an alternate reality kind of thing that still keeps the original universe intact, where as this doesn't sound like they are going to do that. If they could do that. Which I don't think they could...

Edit: words to clarify what I meant.

[ edited by NYPinTA on 2009-05-26 05:20 ]

NYPinTA | May 26, 05:18 CET

SteppeMerc, some of the Fox lawyers are really cool people who I kind of like. IJS.

TamaraC | May 26, 05:18 CET

If 20th shut this down I'll love them long time, ten dollah.

I've just been investigating this and noticed 'Vertigo Entertainment' have a working relationship with Sarah Michelle Gellar.

gossi | May 26, 05:21 CET

So what's the deal with the Kuzuis and why does everyone hate them so much? I wasn't around back in the day. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Most people (Joss included, I believe) hold them responsible for completely distorting his original vision of Buffy in the original 1992 film, back before the series was on TV.

It wouldnt be a Buffy movie. It would be a slayer movie. (I get that the article plays up the reboot angle, but it's bullsh*t. It'd be nice if people didn't pick up their incorrect terminology just because they hate the idea.)

Regardless, the Kuzui's were already responsible for making one terrible movie set in this universe, I think most fans would be rather upset or even offended to see them continue to do so.

Everyone keep in mind that, despite the Kuzui's retaining any kind of rights to the franchise, even the Buffy movie script was written by Joss. Everything that resulted from it (both Buffy and Angel on TV, as well as the movie) were all written by Joss and were created from his own brain. I really hope against all odds that Joss also retains some kind of veto power in blocking this movie from happening, I really do.

jiggyfly | May 26, 05:22 CET

Sorry TamaraC, I'm sure they are, didn't mean to insult them (like I said, they'd probably be on the side of not making another movie, which is a good thing). Its just that I'm taking a bit of time to see Fox in the light other than the one I have painted it in all these years. I know a bit more about their workings now (how 20th Century is separate from the other branches pretty much), and obviously the Dollhouse renewal has certainly blown a hole into any sort of argument for everyone at Fox being soul crushing.

Just give me time to adjust to this new view of them, and forgive any residual feelings. Of course I'll never change my mind about Fox News, but that's a whole nother critter.

[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-05-26 05:25 ]

SteppeMerc | May 26, 05:25 CET

You've got to be kidding me....

How could they even think of doing this? It's unbeliveable, I don't even want to think about it...

vampmogs | May 26, 05:27 CET

i'm one of the sad few that actually saw the original movie. it's actually why it took three years (not persistently of course) of nudging by a friend who was a whedon fan to get me to watch the show after it went off the air (2007ish?), which of course led me to the great love of whedon's work, particularly angel (tho i love all his stuff).

the only good thing about the movie was paul reuben's performance.

i wouldn't even bother to torrent this "reboot."

kefka | May 26, 05:27 CET

I'd be okay with a reboot movie of the Slayer mythos with all new characters, but only IF it was done under Joss' supervision. I don't even need him to write it; it could be, say, Tim Minear and David Fury, or any other writer sanctioned by Joss. But NOT if the creators of the tale are left completely out of it.

The Star Trek reboot would have worked closely with Gene Roddenberry if only he weren't already dead, so instead they worked with his son Eugene and his widow Majel, who even provided the voice of the computers in the movie before her own death, plus they included Leonard Nimoy in the cast to provide a link to the old series. This Buffy rebbot would be like if whoever inherited the old Desilu production company decided to make their own Star Trek without consulting anyone involved in the original. It's Just. Not. Done.

deanna b | May 26, 05:27 CET

Strange to finally be grateful to 20th Century Fox's lawyer brigade. Does this mean we've signed a contract with ~~W&H~~ FOX in order to save our ~~son~~ Buffyverse?

Emmie | May 26, 05:27 CET

Lets look at this another way:

The article ALSO says that they do not rule out Joss's involvement. If the Kuzui's are primarily producers, could this just be their effort to get the funding for something BEFORE they approach him?

Yes, this is looking at this in a half-full scenario... but it could be that the relationship between Joss and the Kuzui's is in such disrepair that they can't come together unless they hand him a ready-to-go project.

Edited for a horrible punctuation gaffe.

[ edited by azzers on 2009-05-26 05:30 ]

azzers | May 26, 05:27 CET

Fox are responsible for paying all these people we love and giving Joss the money to create these universes we care about. As much as people might like to rag on Fox, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have this site and this fandom. It's quite funny really - throughout Dollhouse I've been one of FOX's biggest supporters here in terms of exec involvement and such. People might think I don't like 'em, but no, I kinda love 'em*.

*Excluding FOX News.

[ edited by gossi on 2009-05-26 05:29 ]

gossi | May 26, 05:27 CET

SteppeMerc, you and I will always agree about that other critter. :) I just like to remind people that a giant multi national corporation is just made up of a lot of individual people who are usually just doing the best they can and getting a paycheck to pay the rent. No real demons are employed. :)

TamaraC | May 26, 05:27 CET

This is a horrible idea. 30 years from now, I probably wouldn't mind at all.
But now? When I am dying to see my beloved show with my beloved characters played by my beloved actors back on some TV or Movie screen somewhere? No.

As an original Star Trek fan, I was ready for the re-boot. Everyone is dead, or 70. I was excited as soon as I heard about the casting of Quinto as Spock because that totally worked.

By the same token, I have never watched any other Star Trek episode than the original series. I loved my series too much to watch the Next Generation or anything else.

[ edited by Xane on 2009-05-26 05:31 ]

Xane | May 26, 05:28 CET

Dude I just got done watching the original Buffy movie for the umteenth time like an hour ago and now this news! :( I'm one of the few who loved the original movie and loved the show and I DO NOT want another Buffy movie either with or without the original characters/actors. Leave the series be.

holypotatoes | May 26, 05:30 CET

From what I've read the Kuzui's hold a portion of the rights to the Buffy character, so I assume 20th Century Fox holds a piece of that pie and would have to be involved.

For those who haven't read the article, Fran Kuzui received Executive Producer Credit on both Buffy and Angel.

In an interview she's also claimed to bringing the idea of incorporating martial arts to Joss, so take that for what it's worth.

So anyway, Buffy episodes were made not written nor directed by Joss and they turned out alright. Don't be so quick to poo poo everything. And I'm sure although Joss hasn't been approached they want to at least bring him on as a consultant.

rocknjosie | May 26, 05:31 CET

Why not just write an original slayer vs vampire flick? Why does it need to be attached in name only? If you're going to gut the original story anyway there's no point in calling it "Buffy" or anything of the sort. The Buffy fans will avoid the film with a ten foot pole at the mere concept of Joss not being involved and the non-Buffy fans will avoid it because they didn't like Buffy to begin with.

What a tasteless joke.

MP | May 26, 05:32 CET

Ha. This is genuinely funny.

GungaDin | May 26, 05:33 CET

b!X I don't think it's at all clear from this article whether they intend to use the character of Buffy. Yes, the article says that one idea they want to toy with is that every generation has its own slayer. But there's no quote to support that and if they decide to do the 'Buffy goes to the future' story then this would explain the comment - there would be a future slayer and the character of Buffy. Plus they do refer to it as a 'relaunch' which suggests it will have Buffy (and perhaps Pike and Merrick). And saying that it won't include characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike but not mentioning Buffy in that context suggests that they do intend to use Buffy. And really I'd be shocked if their plan for this movie didn't involve the character of Buffy. The very minimal interest that there would be in the movie would evaporate immediately. The actual Buffy mythology from the movie is more or less 'young girl fights vampires'. If there's no Buffy Summers they might as well just do a different movie with that basic idea

Let Down | May 26, 05:33 CET

If you're going to gut the original story anyway there's no point in calling it "Buffy" or anything of the sort.

There's is: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. International brand franchise.

gossi | May 26, 05:34 CET

Buffy episodes were made not written nor directed by Joss and they turned out alright.

They were all made under his supervision, with his script input, and with his final approval on every aspect, however.

jlp | May 26, 05:36 CET

WTF? I didn't see this one coming.

Invisible Green | May 26, 05:38 CET

So, uh, this is disgusting. If this actually happens, I will actively protest against it and work towards it's failure.

zuzuspetals11 | May 26, 05:38 CET

Worst. Idea. Ever.

jul_weiss | May 26, 05:39 CET

Everyone hates the original movie? I love it! It was the reason I watched the show when it premiered.

This is such a nutty idea. I'm a little shell-shocked by the prospect. Blasphemy!!

twinkiefoo | May 26, 05:40 CET

And can I be the last (so far) to say "no thank you".
Worst idea in the history of ever. I feel like I need a shower now.

Shey | May 26, 05:40 CET

zuzu, ditto.

gossi | May 26, 05:41 CET

I will also be protesting if this happens. This is TERRIBLE. It's seriously making my blood boil thinking about it.

[ edited by ShanshuBugaboo on 2009-05-26 05:42 ]

ShanshuBugaboo | May 26, 05:42 CET

There's is: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. International brand franchise.

But it won't work. Buffy fans are very informed individuals. They aren't that stupid to fall for such a cheap trick. Without Buffy fans there is no franchise to cash in on.

MP | May 26, 05:45 CET

no, a world of NO!

A Buffy movie can only happen if Joss is in on it and if SMG plays Buffy.

angry_puppy | May 26, 05:45 CET

MP, most people I've met on the street who like Buffy don't have a clue who Joss Whedon is. When we did the red carpet for Serenity in London, people kept pulling me over and asking if it was The Buffy Movie as they thought Summer was Sarah.

gossi | May 26, 05:47 CET

They may not know who Joss is, but if they were fans of the show & they see a Buffy movie made without him, they're really gonna miss him.

jcs | May 26, 05:51 CET

jcs, after they've seen it. $$$$$$$$$$$!

gossi | May 26, 05:51 CET

*slightly open mouthed stare*

But... there's so much more to tell about Buffy & co. The only reason to go backwards in storytelling is to help move forwards. What satisfaction would I get out of erasing 8 (14 w/Angel) 'years' of emotional attachments?

So many good ideas don't get made, I can't really imagine that this bad one will come to fruition.

Besides, how many 'people' have tried to kill Buffy & co before?
It only works if Joss says so.
>:)

C | May 26, 05:52 CET

Can't wait to see what inevitable pubescent Disney songstress gets cast as our new Slayer!

I'm sure this will be a wonderful double feature with MTV's Rocky Horror remake.

Arsenal | May 26, 05:54 CET

Nauseating.

kazzmere | May 26, 05:56 CET

I dare say that any smart Buffy fan would boycott this movie were it to happen. Does Joss not have IP over the idea, regardless of whether they produced it or not?

I don't think a studio would be allowed, say to do a spin off of gossip girl or lost, without the creator's permission.

Right?

Ivalaine | May 26, 06:10 CET

What? How? What?
Make it stop.

NuVanessa | May 26, 06:10 CET

~~Can't stop the signal.~~ We must stop the signal! It's coming from the wrong tower and will lead all unknowing travelers astray.

Emmie | May 26, 06:13 CET

WHAAT?!
NOOO!!
Just..NO.

JotheCat | May 26, 06:13 CET

I dare say that any smart Buffy fan would boycott this movie were it to happen. Does Joss not have IP over the idea, regardless of whether they produced it or not?

I dunno, I think I'd probably see it out of curiousity. I'd be interested to see just how bad it ends up being (if it happens)

Let Down | May 26, 06:14 CET

Ivalaine, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that although Joss is the creator of the TV series, I think the Kuzuis own at least part of the the rights to the franchise. I'm willing to bet the reason they've gone public with this (it's all over the press worldwide now) before consulting Joss is that they will try to sidestep him on it. I can't imagine a universe where Joss would be like 'Oh hey! You want to reboot Buffy without me! Okay then, that's a fab idea!'.

gossi | May 26, 06:15 CET

Heinous. I want the word reboot destroyed.

madmolly | May 26, 06:18 CET

Of course, having gone public, the fast-spreading reaction is a pretty resounding "WTF?"

The One True b!X | May 26, 06:19 CET

Re: Joss involvement. There's no way I see him being involved in this. I'd be shocked if they asked him given that he's made his feelings about the original movie clear and he's partly blamed Kuzui. And I'd be even more shocked if he accepted the offer (unless they wanted him to write and direct and even then I'd still be a little shocked if he accepted)

You know, this is a pretty Jossian twist on events. People have wanted a Buffy movie for so long and then it's announced and it's exactly what we don't want. It's just like everyone wanted Willow and Xander to get together and then when they do it's at the wrong time and noone wants it anymore.

Let Down | May 26, 06:19 CET

By the way, I just read that Joss Whedon stormed off the set during the making of the original Buffy movie and never returned. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?

Let Down | May 26, 06:21 CET

Considering he was at the wrap party in those fabulous clothes...

Who knows, anyway. I think the point is this is a terrible idea from Vertigo and I'd be extremely surprised if any studio was stupid enough to get involved and risk incurring the wrath of Fox in the process.

gossi | May 26, 06:25 CET

Hmm, a Buffy movie without SMG.
Why, that's as logical as letting Steve Martin become Inspector Clouseau, or George Clooney become Batman.
Better idea: create a new Slayer whose name is NOT Buffy, and have Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry be the girl's parents. Once they find out their daughter clobbers the evil undead, they look at each other, and say, "well, welcome to the family business, kid."
I'd rather have that, thanks.

impalergeneral | May 26, 06:25 CET

Let Down, if he did storm off he must have come back because there's video of him at the wrap party. It's buried in the depths of youtube.

Adding another resounding "NO" to the chorus.

uptheapples | May 26, 06:27 CET

I don't know too much about Kuzui, and I obviously don't know her personally so calling her "evil" is a bit of a stretch, but from everything I've read etc. it seems that she just didn't/doesn't seem to understand what it is about Buffy that makes it special.

ThorpeWithoutShrimp | May 26, 06:32 CET

I devoted a page on my website to the original Buffy movie. It's on this link, if anyone is interested. It includes an excerpt from an interview from the Onion where Joss recalls what it was like on the set.

impalergeneral | May 26, 06:38 CET

Speaking as a Trekkie, I can tell you that the reason we didn't stay away was because we had been without a Trek for a long time and we saw our beloved franchise was dying if not already dead. We WANTED it to succeed because we missed our franchise.

Also because it was done by somebody who makes GOOD movies. And what do you know? This one is GOOD.

We've already seen what this particular group of people can/will do with Buffy, and it's made of fail. I hope the Fox lawyers put an end to this silliness in a hurry.

library hooligan | May 26, 06:41 CET

I just read this other story (http://www.airlockalpha.com/news426383.html) and it sent me here to see the fallout.

I just ... I just ...

No. I vote no.

What do you mean I don't get a vote? NO, I said.

No.

Ghalev | May 26, 06:43 CET

I know that we're all a rather biased forum on this subject but I feel like the people most interested in the character of Buffy are all of us and we're the ones most opposed to this horrendous idea.

I'm really hoping this doesn't get any further, but if it does I'm sure we'll all be organizing a fan boycott against seeing what will undoubtedly be crap.

InevitableTraitor | May 26, 06:51 CET

You know, I'd be totally up for a movie about another Slayer--a Slayer in the past (Nikki? Someone else?) or in the future (Fray, etc.). I think that could be brilliant. However, I'd want Joss's complete approval on it, even if he didn't actually write it himself. But since it doesn't look like that's what would be happening here at all....

Just no.

[ edited by Lirazel on 2009-05-26 06:57 ]

Lirazel | May 26, 06:57 CET

I'd be totally up for a movie about another Slayer--a Slayer in the past (Nikki? Someone else?) or in the future (Fray, etc.)

A Nikki movie would be awesome.

The One True b!X | May 26, 07:00 CET

[ edited by Peanut Noir on 2009-05-26 07:09 ]

Peanut Noir | May 26, 07:01 CET

*twitch*

Lunakitty | May 26, 07:01 CET

If there's no Whedon involvement, this movie is instant-boycott for me. It's hard to believe that they could be so out of touch to attempt something like this without Joss.

archon | May 26, 07:01 CET

Peanut, Joss gave an interview the other day saying there would not be another Buffy movie unless he announces it with the cast. And that it basically wasn't going to happen.

This whole thing is about money, and that's rarely how a good movie begins formation.

gossi | May 26, 07:08 CET

I feel sick, and not in the good way :/

If they make it totaly different, like set in the 1700s Japan, then maybe. But its still a travesty to exclude Joss.

Satai (with Punsch) | May 26, 07:10 CET

You know, I'm really sick of this reboot fad. First it was sequels, then it was prequels and now it's reboots. New stories, anyone? It's like eating reheated food. Once in a while it tastes great (nuBSG) but usually it's just a different kind of stale.

And as a Trekkie who doesn't think much at all of the new movie (partly because I was never a TOS fan but mostly because I wanted the franchise to go forward), I think this is an even worst idea. I would be skittish with Joss involved (about a reboot: a Buffyverse movie that builds upon what's already there, that I'd love), without Mr. Whedon? No way.

nyrk | May 26, 07:13 CET

Oh god, please no.

ria | May 26, 07:14 CET

Look, this could in NO way be construed as a good thing for Buffy fans. It will confuse people and give us a false sense of...well ANYTHING, really!

And this is not even because I'm on Whedonesque and obviously believing in the powers of this holy house, but come ON. The movie was the LEAST successful part of the Buffyverse. How could anyone think this would be a good idea?

Arobow | May 26, 07:21 CET

We get a Buffy movie...........but not the one we wanted. Is a vengeance demon involved? It's like the Whedonesque WishVerse.

miss-likes-to-fight | May 26, 07:21 CET

But would it be canon? ;-)

beergood | May 26, 07:21 CET

Does that mean Pike will be in it?

Simon | May 26, 07:23 CET

If I wanted to watch a reboot of Buffy without the witty dialogue and clever scenarios of Joss Whedon, I'd just watch Charmed.

will.bueche | May 26, 07:23 CET

Yeah, if this movie makes it to theaters somehow, I'll watch it out of curiosity.

But that watching will take place on my computer. Thank you, modern world :)

Jobo | May 26, 07:25 CET

Joss in The Independent the other day:

I think it’s not going to happen, a reunion movie is extremely far fetched at this point given where everybody is. I think its time to stop the rumours.

Of course, this one isn't a reunion movie. ;)

The One True b!X | May 26, 07:25 CET

uh oh

RheaM | May 26, 07:31 CET

Batman got Chris Nolan, Star Trek got JJ Abrams leading, plus Damon Lindelof and thet Orci guys whose first name I can't recall right now. What do we get. Fran Kuzui +1. Really?

Would studios really go for it? Or what gossi just said a few blocks above.

Numfar PTB | May 26, 07:31 CET

I will hang myself if this is made.

jnr616 | May 26, 07:34 CET

Huh. No studio & no writer... just really only a glint in somebody's eye, then. A Hollywood glint, if you know what I mean...

Found this recent-ish article on Fran. Interesting. Loved the title: "From box office hit to the serenity of temples." Funny.

Soooo - hopping back on the Undead Wagon, huh? Yeah./Stewie's voice

They re-wrote the original Buffy to make the story "lighter" (or "liter") but now they want to put all that rich dark extraction... back in. 'Cause, ya know, times have changed.

Man, I wish I could do Stewie's voice. I would so do this whole post in Stewie's voice, I swear. Yeah.

I dunno, y'all. Maybe the world just ain't ready for this. Anyway, I thinketh notsomuch.

But funny. I needed a chuckle.

And only of mild interest, but here's Vertigo's list of stuff from imdb (yes, I know.)

1. Alone (2011) ... Production Company
2. Creepshow (2011) ... Production Company
3. The Ring Three (2011) ... Production Company
4. How to Train Your Dragon (2010) ... Production Company
5. The Roommate (2010) ... Production Company
6. The Grudge 3 (2009) (V) ... Production Company
7. The Uninvited (2009) ... Production Company
8. Possession (2009) ... Production Company
9. Quarantine (2008) ... Production Company
10. My Sassy Girl (2008) ... Production Company
11. The Strangers (2008) ... Production Company
12. The Echo (2008/I) ... Production Company
13. Shutter (2008/I) ... Production Company
14. The Eye (2008) ... Production Company (in association with)
15. Assassination of a High School President (2008) ... Production Company
16. The Invasion (2007) ... Production Company
17. The Grudge 2 (2006) ... Production Company
18. The Departed (2006) ... Production Company
19. The Lake House (2006) ... Production Company
20. Eight Below (2006) ... Production Company (uncredited)
21. "I'm from Rolling Stone" (2006) ... Production Company
22. Dark Water (2005) ... Production Company
23. The Grudge (2004) ... Production Company

On twitter, Cabri started roughing out the plot for her own script for this. Since they don't have a writer yet, I think we should all get together, flesh out a WHEDONesque extravaganza (with lots of explosions and things that blow up real good) and submit it to them.

Or we could write it and sign it Josh Whedon. Joe Swedon. Jazz Whildren.

Whatever.

QuoterGal | May 26, 07:39 CET

Whatever happened to "Don't panic until we see a purple-signed post"? If this project actually moves out of the realm of the hypothetical and into development, I think Mr. Whedon would at some point post something along the lines of, "Okay, there is indeed a 'Slayer' movie at this stage of development, here is how much I am (or am not) involved." He's been pretty good about keeping folks up to date so far and I think his lawyers/agents will keep him on top of what's happening if he doesn't hear directly. Joss has said, "Until I say it's happening, there is no 'Buffy' movie" more times than he's said "Shiny," so I'll take him at his word that Joss silence=no movie at present.

Shapenew | May 26, 07:43 CET

This could of course be a way of getting more money from 20th Century Fox i.e. "hey give us more revenue from the franchise or we'll bring out a crappy movie".

And as for asking or consulting Joss, I don't think they have to. Course the bad publicity will seriously cripple any chances the movie has. The Kuzuis underestimate the power of the shippers.

Simon | May 26, 07:44 CET

Joss has said, "Until I say it's happening, there is no 'Buffy' movie" more times than he's said "Shiny," so I'll take him at his word that Joss silence=no movie at present.

Except that, remember, this was always in the same context as that Independent quote I pasted above: A reunion movie. And this is not a reunion movie. (That said, I tend to side with those expressing the notion that other forces and factors will interfere with this idea.)

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-05-26 07:46 ]

The One True b!X | May 26, 07:46 CET

Maybe they're just testing the waters. Seeing if the fans, on hearing about a Buffy movie, would react by saying, "I don't care who does it, just gimme more Buffy," or by saying... well, read this thread. Fortunately, they can read this thread.

I dunno, I don't know how anything works. Just seems like it'd be a good way to gauge the temperature of the fandom. And then, of course, if we liked the idea, they could get into serious discussions about it.

Jobo | May 26, 07:46 CET

OMG! We could get McG to direct it! :)

cabri | May 26, 07:47 CET

Buffy: Salvation: Full Throttle.

The One True b!X | May 26, 07:48 CET

Maybe they're just testing the waters. Seeing if the fans, on hearing about a Buffy movie, would react by saying, "I don't care who does it, just gimme more Buffy," or by saying... well, read this thread. Fortunately, they can read this thread.

Well a lot of the diehard Bond and Star Trek fans were up in arms about their franchises getting rebooted and they got blithely ignored. But those fandoms were far bigger than ours. So I dunno.

Simon | May 26, 07:51 CET

LOL.

The One True b!X | May 26, 07:51 CET

The number one reason that Star Trek worked as a reboot is because the script writers & director wanted to be as true to the fans vision while drawing in new people and it worked.

The Kuzuis, who own the rights to Buffy (and by extension, anything in the Buffyverse), had no interest in pursuing the correct statement & intent of Joss' work.

I say redo Buffy when Sarah starts collecting Social Security and things will work out better. We've used our power as fans of Joss to bring back Dollhouse, chastise Fox for Firefly's demise, and to bring Serenity into fruition. Now, we can use our power to crush the idea of this remake.

I, for one, hope it lands like diarrhea in a punchbowl at prom. While I'm willing to take a step back to see how things unfold and maybe see a trailer, this will only occur when donkeys fly!
[snipped]

[ edited by SoddingNancyTribe on 2009-05-26 07:56 ]

Desertpuma | May 26, 07:52 CET

Well a lot of the diehard Bond and Star Trek fans were up in arms about their franchises getting rebooted and they got blithely ignored. But those fandoms were far bigger than ours. So I dunno.

Well, I'm thinking that those movies were gonna do well even without their die-hards, because they have a reach beyond the people who, you know, dress up and such. Buffy has always been a series that depended on its hardcore fans, though, so in this case their support would matter.

Or maybe I overestimate my own worth.

[ edited by Jobo on 2009-05-26 07:53 ]

Jobo | May 26, 07:52 CET

If we are as powerful as DesertPuma says, I think we should use our power to rid the world of the scourge of diarrhea in a punchbowl at prom.

The One True b!X | May 26, 07:54 CET

They only own a portion of the rights, Joss would have to sign off.... i cannot see that happening.

Everyone just needs to continue to trash the idea so they go away.

BTW, the only way a Buffy movie could work is if the fans show up and i can say if he is not involved, that wont happen.

pongluver | May 26, 07:54 CET

I remember there was a campaign to boycott Casino Royale because they didn't like Daniel Craig having blonde hair. Or something.

gossi | May 26, 07:54 CET

Desertpuma - no place here for that kind of abuse. Thanks.

SoddingNancyTribe | May 26, 07:57 CET

J.J. Abrams respected the original premise of Star Trek and included things one expects to see in Star Trek such as the guy in red.

So far this team hasn't said anything to show that they are going to acknowledge, let alone respect what has already been created. This is the problem that I have with it. Why would I even want to go near it? The original movie is so bad that I wince at its mention.

I'm not adverse to seeing a Buffy movie just so long as it is in line with Joss Whedon's creation. At the very least, with the TV series. It would be great to see the incorporation of the comics but to be honest, this is probably beyond the Kuzui team.

Just Another Fan | May 26, 07:58 CET

A comment from a co-worker when I mentioned this: "There's money to be made with a minimum budget".

Eerikki | May 26, 07:58 CET

Bond and Star Trek are well established franchises of 30+ years too when they were rebooted.

Vertigo is known primarily for doing cost-effective horror films and The Grudge series is what Sarah's attachement to them as been. Uninvited & Roommate have Megan Fox in them. They are even redoing Creepshow. If there was ever a studio that could do it correctly, they would be the ones to do the dark side of it.

From the article, they approached the Kuzuis not the other way around. So if it does get made, then expect it to be much more of the horror with much less of the wit.

Desertpuma | May 26, 07:59 CET

As far as the rights go, by the way, I've heard two stories (that don't necessarily conflict) about how Joss got involved with Buffy the show.

Story 1: Gail Berman calls him up, says, "I'm a huge fan of that movie you wrote, wanna do a show?" And he says, "lol yeah!"

Story 2: Gail Berman calls up Fran, says, "I'm a huge fan of that movie you directed, wanna do a show?" Fran says, "Sure, but we gotta get that Joss guy's permission." Joss says, "Sure, but only if I get to be the guy behind it."

Story 1 seems more likely, but I thought I'd confirm. And if it is story 2, that would imply that Joss has veto power over anything Buffy, even from before the show, no?

The more I think about it, though, the less likely story 2 seems. What contract would give the writer of a movie power over a potential franchise? A bad contract indeed...

Jobo | May 26, 07:59 CET

gossi: "I remember there was a campaign to boycott Casino Royale because they didn't like Daniel Craig having blonde hair. Or something."

True, but all 63 petition signers remain steadfast in their vow to never see it. Respect!

cabri | May 26, 08:00 CET

Exactly, eerikki. Since your average viewer has no clue who Joss is, it's a viable franchise to make a bit of cash from.

gossi | May 26, 08:03 CET

This feels a little bit to me like the Kuzuis are unhappy that they are no longer getting any checks from the amazing television show that was made out of their terrible movie. So what to do? Manage to create something new and interesting? No! let's capatalise on the ignorance of a large portion of the audience who don't know who Joss Whedon is and make a terrible film out of it. Thus ruining the brand! Woot!

The big difference between this and the Star Trek/James Bond reboots? Star Trek had been passing from hand to hand for over a decade before and the brand was already tainted by inferior shows, and James Bond has been portrayed by a bunch of different actors under a series of different writers/directors. Both "reboots" were essentially about trying to find what was great about them originally. Buffy hasn't become a tainted brand, it's seven seasons of quality television, 5 seasons of a quality spinoff and a handful of official comics that continue the story, period.

rabid | May 26, 08:04 CET

rabid, they get residuals from everything as i understand. Merchandise, DVD's, Reruns, even the comics. That looks to be the extent of the rights. It is common. Anything Joss does with the name, they get a chunk of, but that does not mean they get the same freedom.

Trek and Bond i agree are different. Trek has 30 seasons of Television and 10 movies (before the new one) and bond has like 22 films and tons of books, there is far less risk in rebooting those franchises. Far more people to watch them. Buffy has not that luxury. It lives and dies with the fans.

pongluver | May 26, 08:14 CET

I wasn't a huge fan of Abrams' Star Trek, for the record--I thought it was fairly middling--but it was a reboot of a franchise that's forty years old and was already a shared property of different writers/directors, and the film had respect for the original story. This is a reboot of a ten-year-old franchise whose creator is still alive, well, and churning out stories.

This one is a ludicrously bad idea.

WilliamTheB | May 26, 08:17 CET

No!

That is all.

catalyst2 | May 26, 08:20 CET

BLASPHEMY! Buffy without Joss is like a night without stars.

Anyway, it'll never happen- all the industry needs to do is look at the Kazui's Box Office record before shoving them out the door.

Though it's a pity they didn't use their magical production 'powers' to do something for the 'Buffy Animated' series, as we all might have been a little more supportive.

missb | May 26, 08:21 CET

This is a fucking joke, right?

dispatch | May 26, 08:32 CET

This is karmic revenge on all the people who've been pushing rumors of a Buffy movie. The rest of us just get caught in the crossfire.

jclemens | May 26, 08:44 CET

This is quite silly considering SMG is still young enough to play the part of Buffy and Joss hasn't lost his mind from senility yet. It's also quite maddening to imagine. I'll pass.

cheryl | May 26, 08:45 CET

Where does FOX fit into all of this? Don't they also hold some rights. Wouldn't Kuzui/Sandollar/Vertigo need to coorperate with FOX to get this done? And would FOX backstab Joss like that?

Allycat | May 26, 08:48 CET

I guess people in the Business know by now that our Joss has one of the most passionate Fandoms ever. Sure, maybe the DVD sales show that we are not the only ones watching Buffy anymore (and yay to that), but the reason why TV-Buffy was good was because of Joss.

And here I thought personal feelings had no place in business. So why not swallow the pride and approach Joss, asking him to do the script? This would be the wise way of doing things. This would get everybody on board.

Harridan | May 26, 08:58 CET

So, wanna complain to someone? Here is the contact information for Roy Lee, the major producer spear-heading this thing. It's his company info so don't feel like you're violating his privacy.

Let Roy and Vertigo Entertainment know how you feel:

[I'd rather we didn't pass around email addresses - Simon]

[ edited by Simon on 2009-05-26 09:16 ]

The Dark Shape | May 26, 08:59 CET

The problem I have with the Star Trek/Batman/Bond reboot comparison is that those franchises were running out of steam. Bond did okay sales wise, but was met with a shrug. Star Trek series and latest movies didn't do well at all and Batman was just plain ridiculous before Nolan. With Buffy, even the comics are gold! (and I don't even like comics.)

Coen | May 26, 09:03 CET

Oh goody! And next can we remake Schindler's List with Zac Efron in the lead? < /sarcasm>

This just couldn't be a much worse idea.

Giles'chainsawchick | May 26, 09:03 CET

Only a tiny fraction of Star Trek and James Bond fans were protesting the new movies. Even most of the Trek fans who dress up at conventions were either supportive or just vaguely wary of a new movie, not angrily opposing it. The large percentage of BtVS fans who would oppose this dwarfs the small percentage of Trek fans who opposed the new movie. After all, the Trek movie actually included all the characters from the TV show, which this WON'T. It's like making a Trek movie based on the original pilot, ignoring the entire series and unimportant characters like James T. Kirk, Dr. McCoy, Sulu, Chekhov, Uhura, Scotty, etc.

deanna b | May 26, 09:10 CET

Star trek is a vessel (no pun intended) it's a sandbox for hundreds of ideas and characters. It's a lexicon of itself.

Buffy is the vision of one man. The movie stunk. The series was one of the best of all time. Without Whedon, I have no interest.

Andy Dufresne | May 26, 09:12 CET

deanna b: "It's like making a Trek movie based on the original pilot, ignoring the entire series and unimportant characters like James T. Kirk, Dr. McCoy, Sulu, Chekhov, Uhura, Scotty, etc. "

But perhaps both movies would have a Pike. ;)

cabri | May 26, 09:13 CET

That can't be true. Man, after all we've done to try to bring back the Buffyverse, now this...
Wilde was right, "When Gods want to punish you, they give you what you prayed for."
Let's hope that 1) Joss gets involved, or 2) It doesn't happen.

Léo | May 26, 09:13 CET

You know part of me would be tempted to watch this...

Anyway if it bombs then our 0.01% chance of a Joss buffy movie probably decrease...

SmileTime | May 26, 09:19 CET

A few people have mentioned the legal situation, and said that it wouldn't happen unless Joss (and FOX?) signed off on it. I hope that's true and will wait to hear more about it on that front. I can't imagine Joss ever signing off on it.

dispatch | May 26, 09:19 CET

I wonder how they will sell it

"From the people who brought you the first Buffy movie"

A few people have mentioned the legal situation, and said that it wouldn't happen unless Joss (and FOX?) signed off on it.

The whole Buffy rights thing is a unholy mess. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Dolly Parton owns part of the character as well (seriously).

Simon | May 26, 09:23 CET

I'm guessing we can count Brian Lynch in the "bad idea camp" now: his tweet

[ edited by nyrk on 2009-05-26 09:23 ]

nyrk | May 26, 09:23 CET

Never gonna happen.

*Runs to get popcorn and watch the fireworks*

debw | May 26, 09:24 CET

Though to give the Kuzuis credit, they've managed to unite the fandom. I didn't think that was possible.

Simon | May 26, 09:25 CET

Will people hate me for suggesting this isn't such a bad idea?

Obviously we all want Joss to write and direct it, and we want all our favourite characters back on screen, but that dream is becoming less and less likely as the years go on. As long as this really is 'the next generation' slayer, and is set in a seperate continuity, I don't see how it would take away anything from the series that we love so much. The first movie sucked, but we seem able to forgive that in light of the strength of the series.

That being said, I can't wait to see Joss' reaction to the news.

thrillingheroics | May 26, 09:29 CET

To quote Jim from the Vicar of Dibley, "No, no, no, no, no, no!", (unless Joss is involved of course).
And also, kinda ironic Vertigo is involved as I'm feeling a bit dizzy right now.
*goes off to watch Buffy for antiemetic relief*

RollingInKittens | May 26, 09:33 CET

A Joss-less Buffy movie = Obscene!

Effulgent | May 26, 09:36 CET

Boo!

No Whedon, no watchy. Total blasphemy in my opinion, and I am finding it hard to believe that anyone could be so blind as to think they could make Buffy without Joss. I'd rather read the comic books or have the 'verse die out quietly, than see someone else running around that playground and getting mud all over our swingset. Two thumbs down.

If I wanted to watch a reboot of Buffy without the witty dialogue and clever scenarios of Joss Whedon, I'd just watch Charmed.

True story, BTW. Glad I'm not the only one who saw Charmed as a blatant rip-off of Buffy!

Prophecy Girl | May 26, 09:37 CET

I very much hope this isn't some kind of vengeance kick of the Kuzui's as some have mentioned... but maybe they are just looking to cash in on the series more. The smart thing to do would be to respect the franchise and look at what made it popular and where it is today and go from there (as others have mentioned with recent popular reboots), but I really don't know if they have that ability (or even the desire to do so).

Like gossi mentioned, if Fox cared, they do have some pretty outrageous lawyers, which in my opinion are our best (and probably only) defense against this project going forward. Of course, they might be ordered to make it so that they just get a bigger cut without actually caring about the quality of the movie, heh.

archon | May 26, 09:42 CET

Wierd. I don't feel annoyed or angry with Kuzui et al. I just wonder why they think it's a good idea. Like many have said already - who is going to be interested in watching this?

Instead of saying they're going to make another Buffy movie, why not say they're going to create their own story inspired by Buffy? That would be pretty much what it sounds like they're going to do anyway, but without the many problems associated with saying they're going to remake Buffy the Vampire Slayer, without Joss Whedon.

forcorreo | May 26, 09:53 CET

Devin at Chud makes a couple of good points.

This, in case anybody at Vertigo is reading this, is a terrible idea. Just a miserably bad one. Unless you come up with something brilliant (and you won't. The brilliant idea has already been had), you're doomed. You'll make a movie better than the original but not as good as the TV show. And what's worse is that you'll have not just a legion of geeks against you - Buffy was really popular with the entertainment media cognoscenti, the people who you're going to need to get behind your new film if you want to push it to the masses as something different from the TV show.

Simon | May 26, 09:57 CET

Fans: Joss is Buffy. Buffy is Joss. She's a fictional character, he's a writer director guy. Two sepperate people sharing one fandom.

Vertigo exec: So do we suspect there might be some kind of connection between Joss and Buffy?

(I should be sleeping. Sorry)

[ edited by kimkim on 2009-05-26 10:08 ]

kimkim | May 26, 10:01 CET

Three simple words!!! NO FU*KI*G WAY!!!

Gazzy | May 26, 10:04 CET

Buffy with a Vengeance
Buffy and the chamber of secrets
Buffy: The Golden Age
Buffy escapes from Guantanomo Bay
Buffy: The Lost Island
Buffy Returns

aus-mitch | May 26, 10:05 CET

Who is Dolly Parton?

And I was wondering what the situation with the rights is. I mean, I get that Joss has more say over the supporting characters, since he invented them on his own, and that that may be the reason why they don't wanna use them, but why did Angel have the Kuzuis credited as executive producers? Does their grasp over the Buffy character extend to spin-offs not concerning that particular character?

wiesengrund | May 26, 10:06 CET

Dolly Parton. Who does indeed part own Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I was presuming Simon was joking!

gossi | May 26, 10:19 CET

I only have one thing to say: Joss, PLEASE LOG ON and give us your two cents on this!

Side Note: I have little to no interest in a reboot without the guiding hand of Miss Puppythighs.

J Linc | May 26, 10:25 CET

There may be a way for Joss to spin this all in his favor. Perhaps he can finally get 20th Century Fox off it's ass to finance a proper continuation (if only to mark their territory). That way, the Kazui's can drop this nonsense and get paid without fucking up the brand. If they want to start fresh but still use the "Slayer" mythology, why not tap Whedon to adapt "Fray" into a feature?

[ edited by Barry Woodward on 2009-05-26 10:43 ]

Barry Woodward | May 26, 10:36 CET

Dichen Lachman as Fray. For the win.

gossi | May 26, 10:42 CET

Do not want!

daylight | May 26, 10:44 CET

I had no idea Dolly was the 'doll' in Sandollar Productions. Learn something new every day.

jlp | May 26, 10:46 CET

Nice idea, Barry!

J Linc | May 26, 10:49 CET

Eww, this was the same studio responsible for the My Sassy Girl remake?! Eww.

I doubt it will even happen, but in any case, I wish this project a miserable death.

UnpluggedCrazy | May 26, 11:01 CET

Oh, dear gods no. Just NO. XD

And what, lol, umh, maybe I'm just being real slow or not getting a joke or something but I gotta ask, does Dolly Parton really own part of the character? XD

But yes, sounds like an awful idea.

EDIT: No matter. XD Apparently, yes she does. Haha. Weird. XD

[ edited by druzilla on 2009-05-26 11:06 ]

druzilla | May 26, 11:05 CET

It doesn't sound like it will be about Buffy.

"One of the underlying ideas of "Buffy" allows Vertigo and Kuzui to do just that: that each generation has its own vampire slayer to protect it. The goal would be to make a darker, event-sized movie that would, of course, have franchise potential."

So it doesn't really sound like they'll use "our" Buffy, maybe not even another version of her. It won't be a re-make, it will be something else.

I hope. Then I might be able to appreciate it.

I hope they'll just make the movie about another slayer, in another time, not a alternative verion Buffy.

"Kuzui later teamed with Gail Berman, then president of Sandollar Television, bringing back Whedon to make the TV series, which was produced by Fox TV and launched on the WB in 1997. Kuzui and Sandollar received executive producer credits on "Buffy" and its spinoff, "Angel.""

If think I might have heared about the Kuzuis before, but I'm not sure. Did they actually have anything to do with the series, or did they just own the rights or something?

Skytteflickan88 | May 26, 11:10 CET

Okay. I'm going to word this really carefully, because I'm not trying to upset anyone, so bear with me.

When I first saw this link, I had the instinctive upheaval of rage and defiance at the idea of Buffy without Joss. But, after I took a moment to think about it, I tried to look at it rationally.

I haven't had the time to read every comment, but I agree with rocknjosie. I don't know the intricacies of who owns which rights, but from what I understand the Kuzuis orchestrated Buffy ever seeing the light of day way back in the beginning, so it seems to me they have every right to do this, as upsetting as it may seem. The idea of Buffy without Joss may seem antithetical at first, but I think it's an idea that deserves a chance. The vampire slayer mythos is a concept with a lot of elbow room, and I think it would be interesting to see something fresh come out of it. I'm not implying anything previous has been substandard, just that I think new things can be good.

It might be blasphemously awful. It might be an interesting reimagining of the idea. It may as yet never happen. But, and again not trying to be antagonistic, I do think organizing any kind of effort to stop a production like this because it might be bad is shortsighted and unfair, to both the people working hard behind it and the viewers who may enjoy it, even if you or I do not.

captainforehead | May 26, 11:21 CET

Reboot? Please.

There's Joss and Fray.

'Nuff said.

WhoIsOmega? | May 26, 11:22 CET

It isn't just Buffy without Joss although lets face it, who really wants to watch Buffy without Joss? It's the idea of Buffy without SMG and the scooby gang every bit as much, imo.

Buffy is Joss, portrayed by SMG. As a fan, there is no Buffy without Joss and SMG.

cheryl | May 26, 11:34 CET

I don't buy the the idea of "It'll fail because the creator [Joss] disowns it." Alan Moore was the creator of Watchmen, he disowned the movie, and the movie still did well.

That point aside... this new movie is a bad idea. My struggling hope is that this is a PR ploy to bring Joss and the original cast to the negotiating table.

SteveP | May 26, 11:36 CET

putting the parties in a similar situation faced by Paramount, J.J. Abrams and his crew when relaunching "Star Trek."

No. If you're trying desperately to justify what you're doing in terms of a reboot, you may not want to compare it to a reboot that completely ignores pretty much all of what has gone on before. Compare to Batman Begins? Yes. Compare to a semi-decent sci-fi film with sad attempts at Star trek characters bolted on? No.

Then again, if you're trying desperately to justify a Buffy film with Joss Whedon, you may possibly be Comical Ali.

williamthebloody1880 | May 26, 11:36 CET

I read the news and remembered a quote by Cordelia: "What freakin' bizarro world did I wake up in?!"

Lao Tzu | May 26, 11:49 CET

Williamthebloody:

How does Star Trek ignore what came before? Did we get a Batman Begins/Casino Royale reboot? Nope. Leonard Nimoy branched out a new playhouse. And the references big (Spock Prime) and small (the apple) show a film lovingly created for fans as much as mainstream. Roddenberry would have loved the movie

Andy Dufresne | May 26, 12:05 CET

Eww, this was the same studio responsible for the My Sassy Girl remake?! Eww.

Yeah, and The Ring and The Grudge (and their many sequels) too.

As an Asian fan, I cringe and tremble with horror. My Sassy Girl was one of my favourite rom-coms... I refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Elisha Cuthbert version.

non sequitur | May 26, 12:11 CET

Business, like nature, abhors a vacuum. There is a market for a Buffy movie, there has been for almost a decade. Joss and his own stars have waffled waffled waffled at the idea, knowing there was a demand, knowing they'd probably have fun, but always putting it on someone else (Sarah: no script yet. Joss: no money yet, etc) to get the ball rolling.

Well, here's what that yields -- the two people most identified with the project get elbowed out because the obnoxious hangers-on who still have legal rights to it, the Kuzuis, were not in fact born yesterday and realize they can make themselves some money filling the demand of the market.

Maybe it's not too late for Joss to get back in front of this and get involved.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2009-05-26 12:19 ]

KingofCretins | May 26, 12:12 CET

THe suckiest idea that ever sucked.

I hear it will star Priyanka Chopra!

Maybe as Cordy.

BTW, I didn't like the Trek movie.

redeem147 | May 26, 12:14 CET

Re-booting Buffy is nothing like re-booting Star Trek. The comparison is really quite dim.

Andy Dufresne | May 26, 12:20 CET

I realize it's early, and may not do much to stop them, but petition against this?? http://www.petitiononline.com/nbmwjw/

thisyearsgirl | May 26, 12:38 CET

Screaming into the wind. It would be more worthwhile to get a campaign going to the Kuzuis and Vertigo to tell them that the success of a movie turns on the involvement of and enthusiasm of the Buffy fanbase, and the best way to get that is to involve Joss and not completely abandon the canon. Remind them that "Batman Begins" still had Gordon and Alfred. That "Star Trek" still has the main 7 characters. Convince them that the Scoobies are as inseverable from a "Buffy" movie's success as those other characters are from "Batman" and "Star Trek".

KingofCretins | May 26, 12:42 CET

The most interesting thing that's come out of this is the idea that there might well be studios willing to fund a Joss-made Buffy movie. If a studio is willing to pay for hte Kusuis to do it surely htey'd be willing to get Joss himself to

Let Down | May 26, 12:44 CET

kimkim said:

Fans: Joss is Buffy. Buffy is Joss. She's a fictional character, he's a writer director guy. Two sepperate people sharing one fandom.

Vertigo exec: So do we suspect there might be some kind of connection between Joss and Buffy?

Wait a minute.. BEN IS GLORY?!

Prophecy Girl | May 26, 12:53 CET

I doubt a studio could afford Joss and the cast to do it (and make the pic worthwhile in terms of profit). If they could, they would. The Vertigo plan here - from a business point of view - is pretty solid. By ridding themselves of Joss and the cast, they can produce this for next to no money, and profit from the international brand name Joss built for the show.

gossi | May 26, 12:54 CET

Of course they could also negatively effect perception of the franchise for Fox, which is why Fox should keep a very close eye on this one in my opinion.

gossi | May 26, 12:57 CET

Well 20th Century Fox's milking of the franchise has been both legendary and tacky so it might wake them up a bit. I have a feeling we wouldn't be in this mess at the minute if they had given Joss enough money to make the Spike DVD movie.

Simon | May 26, 13:04 CET

Y'know, if I'm honest I doubt Joss wants to do Buffyverse stuff at the moment. He's pretty busy doing, well, everything else ever. He gave us almost 10 years of his life for Buffy, so I think that's fair.

[ edited by gossi on 2009-05-26 13:08 ]

gossi | May 26, 13:07 CET

Please don't happen.

TwisTz | May 26, 13:07 CET

I won't watch anything Buffyverse if Joss isn't somehow associated.

Connor Angel Chase | May 26, 13:24 CET

All this is is cashing in on the vampire craze right now. Which is ironic.

streetartist | May 26, 13:28 CET

Well, this was a helluva way to start the day. Nobody's interested in giving Joss the money to do a film/spinoff/etc, but they're willing to go to the people responsible for the crap movie? The one that prevented me from even trying the series until near the end of Season Two? Excuse me while I go yack up my breakfast burrito...

Rowan Hawthorn | May 26, 13:38 CET

I wonder if we'll get sent audition emails like we got for Wonder Woman.

Simon | May 26, 13:38 CET

I still can't believe anyone would want to actually organize an effort against this. If you think it's a bad idea, I understand that. But attempting to sabotage this because you (meant generally, not at anyone specific) as a fan don't like the idea seems just silly to me. Again, I think it's hugely unfair both to the people behind this and the hypothetical audience, all of whom are entitled to this effort, whatever result it may produce.

[ edited by captainforehead on 2009-05-26 13:42 ]

captainforehead | May 26, 13:42 CET

Rowan, there's no outward indication at all that Joss ever *asked* for money to do these things.

If Joss is waiting for a studio to just come kiss his ring, if Sarah is waiting for Joss to have a script, and the studio is waiting for some clear ambition by the cast/crew, then it would *never happen*. Everybody laid the responsibility on someone else.

The dirty little secret is that if Joss wanted to make such a movie, he'd have gone after it, like he did "Serenity". He didn't, but didn't want to just tell fans that, so it became this answer about "well, if the people with the money wanted it, yadda yadda".

KingofCretins | May 26, 13:43 CET

The dirty little secret is that if Joss wanted to make such a movie,

The truth of the matter is that he did try to get the Buffyverse DVD movies made and he got offered a pittance by the money men and so he walked. And I don't blame him.

Simon | May 26, 13:45 CET

If by "these things" you mean movies or tv movies, you would be mistaken :). There were discussions involving both, IIRC. The reason Serenity got made isn't because he "went after it" it's because he was interested in doing it and Mary Parent asked him in for a meeting. That's the dirty little secret of how Serenity got made - that it wasn't because of fans buying DVDs.

zeitgeist | May 26, 13:45 CET

No, thank you.

The optimistic part of me thinks this is ridiculous and will get killed by Joss/Fox/whoever. (The really optimistic part sees this is a way to a Buffy movie, but she's kinda delusional)

The pessimistic part says it'll happen, it'll be a mild success (who in the wider public knows who Joss is? Buffy was big here in the UK and I could see a film of the same name being a success - heck even people boycotting it would probably make more turn out to see what all the fuss is about) and it'll ruin the chances for any Joss-led Buffy continuation in the future while also denting the reputation of the franchise.

If the latter wins out count me in on any protesting.

I suppose there should be a third option where the film is great and brings a whole new set of fans to Buffy. Severely doubtful though.

Leaf | May 26, 13:46 CET

So, yeah this seems aesthetically... dubious. But I'm not necessarily 100% against it. As long as it steers clear of the Whedonian territory and they set it up as something completely different, it could be fine.

The legal stuff is really complex since the Kuzuis own the rights to the original movie, which they licensed to Fox for the tv show, whose rights they do not own. So, if they want to make a movie in the Buffyverse, it has to be the Buffyverse as defined in the movie (with original or typical genre additions), not as defined in the show. That's why there can't be any TV characters but also, probably, none of the other unique TV Buffyverse elements (demons? Witchcraft? Who knows? Those might all be typical).

Septimus | May 26, 13:47 CET

If I was to combine all the bad ideas in the history of time, I still couldn't put together something worse that this idea.

Buffy without Joss OR SMG? That's like chocolate without the chocolate.

NimNams | May 26, 13:48 CET

I feel sick.

missmuffet | May 26, 13:48 CET

God, I take one day off to spend time with my kids and look what happens. My own take here is that this is wrong on multiple levels. But beyond that, while Buffy the show has amazing cultural cred, I cannot see how a reboot can help in any possible way, especially if, as the article notes, it is to be dark. Buffy is a self-enclosed universe now, with people who study it and use it as college teaching texts, and I think a reboot is just a horrid idea. however, I think a movie that is based on the original show, with the original case, could be a great thing. There is also part of me that feels that this announcement is part of a developing negotiation process. Buffy with Joss is like an oreo cookie without cream filling- or, well, add your own metaphor here...

Dana5140 | May 26, 13:49 CET

I'll assume you meant w/out Joss, Dana5140 :).

zeitgeist | May 26, 13:51 CET

ETR involuntary repetition.

[ edited by Septimus on 2009-05-26 13:57 ]

Septimus | May 26, 13:54 CET

This brings to mind what I like to think of as the Hollywood questions:

1)What's in it for me?
2)What's in it for you?
3)If your motives are all that altruistic, why does your agent look so happy?

Related, of course, is that old standby:
What have you done lately?

(Has anyone else ever wondered why the Kuzui's IMDB pages are quite so sparse? Have they really done so little, or doesn't anyone care enough to keep the record on IMDB up to date?)

I didn't like anything about the BTVS film, and watched the show despite it, not because of it. Do we really need more of THAT? I think not.

Scraggles | May 26, 14:00 CET

I'm really just astonished at the idea of comparing the situation with Buffy - barely 6 years off the air, with all the cast young and Joss still fortunately with us and writing his genius butt off - to the Star Trek situation.

Green Queen | May 26, 14:02 CET

Have I misread the calendar? Is it April Fool's Day?

Kirochka | May 26, 14:03 CET

Well, with all the metaphors floating around I'd like to offer this:

I'm A Poached Egg" by George and Ira Gershwin

I'm a poached egg without a piece of toast
Yorkshire pudding without a beef to roast
I'm a haunted house that hasn't got a ghost
When I'm without you.

I'm a mousetrap without a piece of cheese
I'm Vienna without the Viennese
I'm DaVinci without the Mona Lis
When I'm without you.

I'm Las Vegas without a slot machine
I'm a gypsy without a tambourine
I'm Napolean without a Josephine
When I'm without you.

I'm a doctor without a single pill
I'm a lawyer who never drew a will
I'm a dentist without a tooth to fill
When I'm without you.

(bonus points for those who can hear Rosemary Clooney singing this)

So if it's the Buffy movie canon I take it there will be cramp, a mole and flying Vamps?

Leaf | May 26, 14:05 CET

This just un-made my day because it fails so hard.

thegingerpire | May 26, 14:07 CET

EW.com has an article up about this now.

ShanshuBugaboo | May 26, 14:09 CET

In other news:

The same studio is planning a new Lord of the Rings series, without any reference to or use of the characters, plot, or world created by J. R. R. Tolkien.

It is said to star Will Ferrell, Sacha Baron Cohen, Howard Stern, and Lindsay Lohan.

(I keed, I keed... but it makes just about as much sense to me.)

filops | May 26, 14:14 CET

I quite like the title of this blog post. Empire also has an article up, in fact its all over the interwebs now (perfect for me to procrastinate over rather than working).

For previous discussion of the Kuzui's here is the last Whedonesque link about them (I think).

[ edited by Leaf on 2009-05-26 14:23 ]

Leaf | May 26, 14:22 CET

That's... odd.

And no.

Meltha | May 26, 14:26 CET

Fox should have approached Joss about this years ago. Give him the money to continue the Buffy cash cow. After several hours to sit on this new development, I am still amazed at the brass in the concept. The fact that it's now making news is sickening.

cheryl | May 26, 14:30 CET

So...
Any chance this much negative publicity will make them think about approaching Joss?

J.I.G. | May 26, 14:32 CET

Y'know, I was contemplating a "reboot" of the Sherlock Holmes tales (yes, another one). Except, in this "new, improved" version, Holmes and Watson (played by Will Smith and Ben Stiller with excruciatingly bad British accents) are really over-the-hill and over-the-top actors hired by Mrs. Hudson (played by Angelina Jolie) to disguise the fact that she solves all the crimes while whipping up a fabulous Yorkshire Pudding and deflecting the suspicions of James Moriarty, a young and daring investigative reporter who's determined to expose the charade until he succumbs to the young widow's charms.

Frak me...

Rowan Hawthorn | May 26, 14:34 CET

Personally I disliked the original movie so much that it prevented me from watching BtVS on TV for years. Finally I realized that the difference was the involvement of Joss Whedon. So why would I ever be interested in these people wanting to remake their bad movie without Joss?
Frankly I wonder if the link even belongs here at Whedonesque, but of course with more than 250 posts it isn't likely to be taken down! lol

embers | May 26, 14:37 CET

There has already been a reboot. We all watched it for seven seasons. Then we bought the DVD's and comic's.

There can truely be no other. This is uber bad.

Cpt. Starbuck | May 26, 14:40 CET

Never got all the hate against the Kuzui's, but now I totally do. These people just suck so badly. Using Joss' brilliant work on Buffy to sell a totally unrelated product, damaging the brand name and reputation of the project, just an easy way to make a quick buck (as if it wasn't enough they made money on Joss back for years while he was doing the show).

Actually seems kind of odd they didn't came up with this earlier, without Joss & co it should be pretty easy to make this on the cheap and the brand name seems strong enough to make some money out of it.

And the worst thing: it doesn't even seem to be intended as just a cheap, crappy sequal, which people will get is not in any way an indication of the quality of the series, but a huge profile thing designed to set up an crappy Buffy franchise, competing with Joss' beloved one.

Only good thing: the emphasis in most of these articles on Whedon not being involved, it having nothing to do with the TV series and it likely sucking. Hopefully that will limit the damgage if this ever get's made.

the Groosalugg | May 26, 14:41 CET

Today I learned that Vampires are real.

ShanshuBugaboo | May 26, 14:43 CET

Though Joss did have plans to do a Buffy sequel back in the late 90s.

"Whedon, Fox vamping" -Variety, June 1998

Whedon is also developing a "Buffy" feature, based on the WB netlet's TV series, which itself was adapted from the original Whedon film of the same name.

Simon | May 26, 14:46 CET

Fox or Joss can stop this, right? I mean can they REALLY do this without them?

cheryl | May 26, 14:47 CET

Oh noes.

That's the plural of no.

Craig Oxbrow | May 26, 14:50 CET

Never got past the first season of Buffy. I probably wouldn't go see a Whedon-directed SMG Buffy flick. But this I might give a go at if it looks decent enough.

Barclay | May 26, 14:56 CET

Yeah, this is just a silly idea. I can't imagine it will go anywhere, but if it does, it will in no way affect me at home with my DVDs. So who cares?

Joiya | May 26, 14:56 CET

It seems that Fran Kuzui comes out about once a year with some new Buffy idea. The last article I remember reading about her two or three years ago (which article has vanished from the internet) was about how she wanted to return to the lighter, bubble-gummy side of Buffy, because she disagreed with how dark the series got. Now she wants to go dark. Whichever the wind blows, I guess.

Personally, I don't give this a chance in hell of being realized, but stranger things do happen in Hollywood. However, I've always figured that the Kuzuis have been a major stumbling block for any Buffy-based movie by Joss, too, since Fran Kuzui has long wanted to go back to her vision of the character.

Like nearly everyone else here, I think this is a terrible idea. I have managed to make it through the Buffy movie from start to finish only one time. It is beyond bad. I cannot imagine anyone seriously funding another Kazui vision of this 'verse.

Edited to make a sentence more clear.

[ edited by palehorse on 2009-05-26 15:11 ]

palehorse | May 26, 15:05 CET

Ive gotta admit i am a little curious by the idea because it would be good to see someone else's interpretation of what Buffy could be, but another side to me is saying i dont want to know because Buffy is one of my all time favourite whedon shows and i dont want it to be ruined by the thought of somebody other than Joss doing it.
I think i would actually go and see this if it was in the cinemas, but i dont think i'd enjoy it if the cast wasnt in it. I dont think this could be pulled off by anyone else other than the cast and crew involved in the Buffy TV Series.

gingyfromshrek | May 26, 15:07 CET

I love that Variety article Simon. All those big plans at Mutant Enemy, good times.

Usually when something I really like get's made into another form , I'm enthousiastic about the potential (for example with the a A Song of Ice and Fire tv-series) or at least think: well, it can't possibly hurt the original (Michael Bay's the Bird remake f.e.) Never really got those people affraid of something being less good than the original. Guess I just don't care about those things like I do about Buffy, really getting it now. Though I do guess it's different in that the Buffyverse is actually still alive (so the good franchise and Joss name could be hurt by this).

[ edited by the Groosalugg on 2009-05-26 15:09 ]

the Groosalugg | May 26, 15:08 CET

Betcha five bucks they don't make the movie.

That said, while Whedon's the main reason Buffy has been important and so forth, I can imagine someone else telling a good Slayer-mythology story. Wouldn't have the same feel, and I probably wouldn't bother seeing it (let's face it: stupid goddamn premise!), but it's possible. And that said, I second everyone who said you probably couldn't do such a thing now; nonprostitutes know this is Whedon's universe and story. That knowledge will fade in a decade.

waxbanks | May 26, 15:17 CET

ZG- oh, yeah! :-)

Rowan- Laurie King's books featuring Holmes and his wife (Irene Adler, natch) have already done that... :-)

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2009-05-26 15:25 ]

Dana5140 | May 26, 15:18 CET

This is total BS, and I can see seriously forsee Joss getting all medieval on them if they try to push it, regardless of what legal right(s) they might have with regards to the 'Buffy' name (I didn't read the article).

And even IF this gets very far, they're going to have to deal with the massive BtVS fanbase (including some of Joss's most loyal actors) grabbing pitchforks and marching down on them like an angry mob.

DigificWriter | May 26, 15:18 CET

I'll be very interested to hear Joss' opinion on the matter.

Mine? It feels wrong to reboot a series that is still thriving strong. It feels even more wrong to do so by ignoring everything that made it work (the supporting characters, the actors, Joss' brain ect)

Carmie | May 26, 15:20 CET

Holy crap, what happened to all those ME plans? I hadn't heard about any of that stuff

Let Down | May 26, 15:20 CET

Y'know, I was contemplating a "reboot" of the Sherlock Holmes tales (yes, another one). Except, in this "new, improved" version, Holmes and Watson (played by Will Smith and Ben Stiller with excruciatingly bad British accents) are really over-the-hill and over-the-top actors hired by Mrs. Hudson (played by Angelina Jolie) to disguise the fact that she solves all the crimes while whipping up a fabulous Yorkshire Pudding and deflecting the suspicions of James Moriarty, a young and daring investigative reporter who's determined to expose the charade until he succumbs to the young widow's charms.

Ever seen Without a Clue? Wonderful little Holmes/Watson spoof where Watson's the genius detective, Holmes an actor hired as his beard, and Mrs Hudson quite a capable old lady indeed. Michael Caine as Holmes, Ben Kingsley as Watson. My family used to watch it over and over again when we owned, like, four movies total on VHS back in the day.

waxbanks | May 26, 15:21 CET

OH DEAR GOD...No...No...No.

jabby | May 26, 15:21 CET

I officially audition for the part of 'Bander', Buffy's cute but not-cute-enough socially retarded male friend.

gossi | May 26, 15:27 CET

I truly think this is blasphemy.

Exactly what kind of "dark" are they going for? Different grays?
Light black?

Gods, this is a terrible idea.

I know! I can audition for the part of Heather (or Holly) Buffy's geeky computer friend!

[ edited by whedon is GOD on 2009-05-26 15:33 ]

whedon is GOD | May 26, 15:31 CET

I would just like to remind people of the facts we know:

The Kuzui's have been approached by dudes from Vertigo and they're developing a Buffy project.

This has not been greenlit by a studio, this is in preproduction. Do you have any idea how many projects make it out of this stage? A minute fraction.

Can we take the threat level down to yellow, please?

rocknjosie | May 26, 15:31 CET

Maybe a Slayer movie but it must have Joss. No Joss, I'm not going to the movie.

Dietcoke | May 26, 15:32 CET

This quote from Fran Kuzui annoys me:

"It was Roy's interest in taking Buffy into a new place that grabbed us."

This implies that the existing Buffy material didn't take Buffy into a "new place." That's totally wrong -- geographically, stylistically, and thematically. In the TV show seasons 6 & 7 are very different stylistically and thematically than seasons 1, 2, and 3. And now the comic extension for S8 takes Buffy into places that the TV show wouldn't allow. To take Buffy to a "new place", Joss is the one to get you there.

SteveP | May 26, 15:37 CET

"Can we take the threat level down to yellow, please? "

Are you absolutely sure? It will mean changing the lightbulb.

debw | May 26, 15:37 CET

The sad thing is this could really work if it were a different slayer in a different time, so long as they adhered to the continuity and stuff and were respectful of the original series. I'm thinking fleshed out Tales of Slayers kind of thing.

Film noir '50s slayer would be cool.

Sadly this won't happen. I don't think it actually will happen either though, so that's a bonus.

Vortigun | May 26, 15:39 CET

The sad thing is this could really work if it were a different slayer in a different time, so long as they adhered to the continuity and stuff and were respectful of the original series. I'm thinking fleshed out Tales of Slayers kind of thing.

Thats a much better idea than completely rebooting the Buffy series, I'd love other Slayers story other than Buffy's Story, because i love the Buffy story as it is.

gingyfromshrek | May 26, 15:48 CET

This rumor made me throw up in my mouth a little.

Saturn Girl | May 26, 15:49 CET

The sad thing is this could really work if it were a different slayer in a different time, so long as they adhered to the continuity and stuff and were respectful of the original series.

That would require at least a modicum of imagination...so yeah, unlikely :/

[ edited by ShanshuBugaboo on 2009-05-26 15:51 ]

ShanshuBugaboo | May 26, 15:50 CET

The same studio is planning a new Lord of the Rings series, without any reference to or use of the characters, plot, or world created by J. R. R. Tolkien.

It is said to star Will Ferrell, Sacha Baron Cohen, Howard Stern, and Lindsay Lohan.

Lol forever.

Is anyone else afraid that this WILL get made, and that it will star Abigail Breslin as the featured Slayer? And now I'm going to have nightmares of Robert Pattinson playing the inappropriate love interest as well.

Though on a silver lining note, maybe they can get Alan Rickman to play a Watcher.

Prophecy Girl | May 26, 15:55 CET

No. Just...no.

mouse | May 26, 15:56 CET

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I am old enough to remember that time between Star Trek TOS and the first movie, when things would come out about how Paramount wanted to recast everyone for the movie. The idea felt a lot like this. 30 years later, it was do-able, in the 1970's, it really wasn't.

Sigh

Simon, Mutant Enemy seemed to have a lot of things on the fire in 1998. Wow. Maybe people who think that Joss can wave his magic wand and make money appear for any project he REALLY wants to do, should take a look at the list of things that they were working on in 1998, that did NOT happen. Joss is not God. If you don't care about quality, you can turn out something for very little money. If you have a recognizable name to play on, you can make money on any piece of crap. Happily that does not sound like Joss. I hope it is not the Kuzuis style either, though this makes it seem like it may be...

newcj | May 26, 15:58 CET

Maybe Kiefer Sutherland can play the new Buffy's watcher.

Caroline | May 26, 15:58 CET

The sad thing is this could really work if it were a different slayer in a different time, so long as they adhered to the continuity and stuff and were respectful of the original series. I'm thinking fleshed out Tales of Slayers kind of thing.

Two words: Fray. Movie.
Two more words: Now. Please.
Last two: With. Joss.

Prophecy Girl | May 26, 16:00 CET

And Dichen.

gossi | May 26, 16:01 CET

Latest tweet from Dr Horrible:

"Oy".

Hilary | May 26, 16:04 CET

Heh, nice reference debw!

On a side note, how do pronounce Kuzui? I'm reading it as KA-ZOOIE and frankly its just hilarious, kazooie-kazooie-kazooie, hehehe! Well I'm entertained, and to be honest I think that's about as far as the Kuzui's(hehe)ability to entertain stretches.

... oh and yes, I think a Fray movie would be, wait for it, legendary!

Thuddles | May 26, 16:10 CET

Ummmmmm.....this can't happen.

If this happens, there goes ANY chance of a big-screen SMG Buffy movie.

FRAAAAAAAAK!!!!!!!!!

Riker | May 26, 16:11 CET

If you go digging in the interviews the Kuzuis occasionally do, what you discover is an ever-shifting story about how they were what made/could again make Buffy great -- fighting skills/martial arts, when to go light/go dark, etc. When you see a comment from Gail Berman or other people linked to the original show, you tend to see high praise of Joss, pride in helping bring what was cool about his vision to the screen, essentially no attribution of interesting stuff to the Kuzuis.

If you go digging in interviews with Joss, you see a guy who goes out of his way to show appreciation for people he thought supported him, or brought something cool to the table, whether producers or execs or writers or actors or others. He seems to be especially supportive of the writers whose careers he was involved with, and has, in the comic medium, been fairly active in not just in writing his own stories, and not just in letting writers from the BTVS series give their own takes, but in luring talented writers he respects into writing whole arcs. And yet, once the original opening press junket stuff for the original movie faded, he stays, at best, circumspect, in his comments on the Kuzuis

My objection here is not to the idea of a reboot in and of itself. I don't object to the various non canonical novels and comics about Buffy. I don't object to a well-handled reboot now (with Whedon's involvement) or in the future (when I predict Marti Noxon's granddaughter or Jane Espenson's grandneice or somesuch bringin' the pain). Other than the unfortunate but obligatory producer credits we can't avoid, I object to the active involvement in any way of the Kuzuis because I neither trust their motives nor believe they have anything creative to bring to the project, and I believe that close reading of the available evidence suggests that Joss and the extended clan of his other past collaborators hold roughly similar views.

It is not that I even fear there is a chance in hell they'll get their own project made -- I object to their continuing attempts to hype thier own dubious contributions to BTVS, to act as if they are entitled not only to a share of the profits and "executive producer" credits that are the result of that unfortunate contract long ago, but to a share of the reputation and respect that has accrued to the idea of BTVS through the hard work carried out by others entirely AFTER the Kuzuis ceased to be active contributers to BTVS.

doubtful guest | May 26, 16:17 CET

a world of no.

marymary | May 26, 16:17 CET

It would be ajoke if this happened this way, although it did work out great for Batman.

syber | May 26, 16:20 CET

Fray movie written and directed by Joss. With Dichen as Mel. Would be made of all known varieties of win combined. Shoo, kazooie types. You're getting smudges all over the shiny.

Taaroko | May 26, 16:22 CET

Why a Fray movie? We already have her story.

If anything, we need a big, epic finale for the SMG Buffy verse. That should be the priority Buffy-related film, not a remake or Fray.

Riker | May 26, 16:28 CET

Horrible idea. My (idiotic) friends already make fun of me for watching a show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and if this came out it would be the end of me.

I would love to see a reboot-in 25 years. There are a ton of ideas-Fray, Nikki, a total reboot, whatever. Right now is not anywhere near the time. You can't have a Buffy reboot without Joss, Giles, Xander, Angel, Spike, etc. If there is a reboot in the future, I want anyone other than the Kuzuis directing it. No is not a strong enough word.

No chance in hell it happens anyways.

evillevi | May 26, 16:30 CET

I'm reading it as KA-ZOOIE

Buffy with a Kazoo - she blows her own fighting theme before taking on the Chupacabra. I like it. ::Makes note to add Kazoo to my script::

I'd just like to say to the folks talking about hanging themselves and suchlike. Please don't. We might need the rope in a futuristic Terminator Salvation world to trip the machines. Really, I think there is no need to worry about this film.

Tonya J | May 26, 16:35 CET

I agree with Riker. If Joss is going to get to do a slayer movie, make it a Buffy one. Fray might be cool, years from now.

cheryl | May 26, 16:37 CET

There aren't even words for how much NO I'm feeling.

AliciaJo | May 26, 16:39 CET

I really don't think we need a Buffy movie. Didn't Joss say he would ignore the comics? I find that sadmaking... Would love a movie in the Buffy world that followed the Fray storyline.

I also just think it is impractical to get the whole Buffy cast back together too. Fray would be more manageable IMO.

Vortigun | May 26, 16:41 CET

Dana5140: Laurie King's Sherlock Holmes novels feature his wife, but her name is Mary Russell. Don't knock them if you haven't tried them--or even bothered to read reviews.

Of course, I haven't seen the Buffy movie--but I have read the reviews. So I share the general lack of enthusiasm for a sequel to the mess that was made of Joss's idea.

not_Bridget | May 26, 16:42 CET

I agree with everything doubtful guest said. Exactly. They've been profiting off the fruits of other people's labors for years. Woohoo legal contracts. The Kuzuis have already been shown inadequate to drive the creative bus, so will someone please tell them to let go of the wheel?

Emmie | May 26, 16:42 CET

Check out the results (and page comments) of the Entertainment Weekly PopWatch poll -- fans are surely voicing their anger and/or lack of enthusiasm.

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

J Linc | May 26, 16:45 CET

Unthinkable.

Tim Minear | May 26, 16:49 CET

not_Bridget the movie was pretty bad. There is a youtube clip somewhere that is a behind the scenes last day of shooting cast party for the movie which shows a young Joss saying right into camerae something like "It was funny when I wrote it." So even during filming Joss knew it was being mishandled.

This is the main reason I do not want to see a movie done by these people without Joss...cause even with him the first time around the movie still had some major suckage. (Even though I do love it for it's cheesiness.)

AliciaJo | May 26, 16:50 CET

Nice post, doubtful guest. I agree with it all.

As to the pronunciation of Kazui -- I've not idea what the actual pronunciation is, but I've always pronounced it Ka-zooie -- and every time I think about the name, I cannot help singing it (in my mind) to the music of the chorus of Shi-Poo-Pi, from The Music Man. (That may be an obscure reference for most people here, but that was my father's favorite musical, and I've seen the film many times and performed as a background figure in community center productions of it. So the song stays with me.)

ETA: Thanks, TM, for weighing in!

[ edited by palehorse on 2009-05-26 16:51 ]

palehorse | May 26, 16:50 CET

In reference to that article J Linc posted: even if this is the worst thing ever, I would still like to believe it will be better than Twilight-lite. Mainly because it would be very difficult to make anything more abhorrent.

Vortigun | May 26, 16:52 CET

It's safe to say that I will be giving this a miss if it ever comes to pass.

Is it actually in anyway likely or do these kind of kites get flown on a regular basis?

mgmn | May 26, 16:53 CET

Thank you, Tim. It is unthinkable. And really quite silly.

Tonya J | May 26, 16:57 CET

Nice of you to stop by, Tim!

J Linc | May 26, 17:05 CET

Dana5140, waxbanks, I actually knew of both those, but haven't read or watched either.

Caroline, thanks loads. Now I'm really gonna be having nightmares...

Tim Minear, howdy and I agree - I've been trying to put it out of my mind ever since I heard about it (yeah, fat chance, I know...)

Rowan Hawthorn | May 26, 17:11 CET

All right. The man said it, so I'm not thinking about it.

I'll do have a subconscious link of Kuzui with stupid.

poltergeist | May 26, 17:14 CET

I'm agin' it just like everybody else. The thought of what the advertising and posters would be like makes me woozy. To have to face a barrage of Buffy/notBuffy clips and trailers and E! hype would be very wearing.

lycoming | May 26, 17:14 CET

Thanks admins for adding the reaction links (even if it means I don't get my first front-page post).

fcphantom | May 26, 17:16 CET

Oh this is such a bad idea, even if it is still in the pre-stages. Without Joss, it would be so bad and not stay true to his vision. If the Kuzuis' want a vampire movie to cash in on the success of Twilight then maybe they should think of some original material and keep their hands/brains out of the Buffyverse. Again, BAD, Bad, bad idea.

activebrowncoat | May 26, 17:18 CET

I'm going to go introduce someone to season one and forget this ever happened.

lookitsjulia | May 26, 17:20 CET

Hey, palehorse, you're not the only one who knows the entire libretto to The Music Man...*snuggles you*

And I'd snuggle Tim Minear for showing up, but I'd be way too intimidated.

Edited because my comma frenzy once again overwhelmed me.

[ edited by cronopiogal on 2009-05-26 17:25 ]

[ edited by cronopiogal on 2009-05-26 17:25 ]

cronopiogal | May 26, 17:20 CET

It's clearly quite thinkable.

And, no, Cheryl who asked -- ME and 20th Century Fox would very likely be completely powerless to stop such a movie so long as it didn't step on their dilineated copyrights. Why wouldn't they be? There's no "creative superiority" test in intellectual property law.

This still feels to me like folk reaping what they fail-to-sow -- all we've had from actors and writers since Season 7 ended was wishy-washy answers about their level of interest in or opportunity for a "Buffy" movie. In the meantime, we've seen "Batman" relaunched fromn campiness successfully (relevant to "Buffy"-as-movie). We've seen "Star Trek" relaunched from obscurity successfully. We've seen a niche-audience TV series made into a movie successfully with "Sex and the City". And we've seen vampires come back into popularity in book, TV, and film ("True Blood", "Twilight").

The only fault here would lay with anyone who has the nerve to act surprised, wouldn't it?

It might not be too late for this to turn into a joint venture -- I can't imagine 20th Century Fox wanting to just watch a Buffy movie made by someone else cash in on the chance without comment, no more than Joss would. Vertigo and 20th Century Fox could finance it together, and the Kuzuis could basically do what they did on TV -- collect a check.

KingofCretins | May 26, 17:23 CET

KoC, 20th may be able to contest they still have the rights to the characters, that sort of thing. They sued Warners over the Watchmen movie, and won.

I think it's bad to suggest it's Joss's or the actors fault for not doing a movie already. Them wanting to make a move, not wanting to or being too busy to do it doesn't mean somebody else has the right to rip off Joss's iconic character.

[ edited by gossi on 2009-05-26 17:28 ]

gossi | May 26, 17:26 CET

Pass. Really, it's ok. I'm good. Don't go through all that trouble.

Nolan | May 26, 17:26 CET

Seriously, no thanks. The movie doesn't need a reboot, nor does the series. Yeah, sure, Season 8 would've been cool to have (in more than comic form), but let's just respect the end of it all for now, OK? IFF Joss&Co want to pick it back up sometime, I'm all for it. A reboot of the original movie, though? Sure seems "convenient" as the above posters have mentioned re: Twilight success.

Sproing | May 26, 17:29 CET

I don't see how 20th would have a copyright in any character that didn't originate in the stuff they made -- i.e. Spike, Angel, Willow, Xander, Giles. The Buffy character herself? Nuh uh.

There's no "rip off" here. If Joss sold the script, he sold the script. It's not the Kuzuis' fault that he didn't take the George Lucas approach to his story.

I'm not exactly thrilled by the idea of this kind of relaunch, but I have to pour water on the arguments of basic fairness I'm seeing. The Kuzuis aren't doing anything they don't have a protectable legal right to do. With "Watchmen", FOX had a deal that hadn't extinguished itself. I'd have to read the case, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2009-05-26 17:33 ]

KingofCretins | May 26, 17:32 CET

A Buffy without Joss or any of the original cast? They want the movie to be a success, right? I can't imagine any of the hardcore fans wanting to see such a movie.

ern | May 26, 17:35 CET

Yeah but the Watchmen movie was still made anyway. I don't see how that would help us unless the plan is to sue them for an amount of money that they can't possibly pay, alternative being that they have to give up the rights once and for all.

I would love to hear what Joss and SMG are saying about this. Hell, even Fox. These people are stealing someone else's creation right from under him. I know you don't agree King but that's the way I see it.

If they wanted to see another Buffy movie, they should have went to Joss first.

These Kuzuis folks are probably part of the reason we have yet to get a movie. Too damned many people to pay.

cheryl | May 26, 17:35 CET

KoC, ultimately: "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" is a Fox property that has sold HUGE numbers of DVDs across the world, they've licensed it heavily and it's basically a massive -- we're talking maybe into the billions of dollars here -- cash cow for Fox.

If there's ANY argument they can make about this, they should -- and I believe will -- find it. When something like that is at stake, they won't be sat around going 'Oh shucks! We can't do anything about this!'.

gossi | May 26, 17:36 CET

not-Bridget, I actually know that and in the heat of the moment erred- I own all the Laurie King books, and can't we all get along? :-)

Thoughts:
1. A Buffy film that fails to take the fandom into account is doomed to failure. Buffy may have a lot of cred, but it is the fandom that really made that happen, and I cannot see a groundswell of interest in a Buffy movie that does not in some way address the fandom. And it seems odd to me that you would develop a project knowing that you will liekly alienate just the very people you need in order to build interest and success. So at the get go, this sure seems ill advised.
2. A comparison to the Star Trek reboot is also ill advised. For one, the original show was on 40 years ago, but the universe was fractured by several shows after that- New Gen, Voyager, Enterprise, etc. That world was fractured. Buffy is consistent internally and has only been off air for 6 years, while having a huge amount of writng about it, so that many people are invested in that world,not some ersatz other world. And the Star Trek writers were very clever in ensuring that they allowed the original ST to stay as it was. I don't see how that would work here; it would alter the world that Joss has created, and I doubt it would stay canonically aligned even with that world, let alone the characters we know inhabit it.
3. Let's be careful out there and not take the Kazuis personally to task. I don't know them, cannot speak for what they are doing, but simply feel this is a bad idea. Fandom can sometimes get out of hand, so keep it real here. Fight the idea, not the person, if you will.

Dana5140 | May 26, 17:37 CET

"Buffy" is too good to remake. How I am feeling right now must be how those Karate Kid and Footloose fans must be feeling about those new remakes. I'm relatively young, so every time someone wants to remake something it's not a huge deal to me.

However, "Buffy" is at the top of my list of "Nearly Perfect Television Shows", and I can be a harsh critic. BtVS's cultural impact has had quite a bit of significance over the years.

I'm getting ahead of myself here, but: I really hope little kids don't start falling in love with the film and thinking it's a totally new concept, which could very well happen in this day and age. I mean, just look at all the hip-hop remixes to old songs that were perfectly fine. I'm usually good with remixing or re-doing something that could be updated and done well, but I doubt anyone could make "Buffy" better.

Either that will occur, or they will believe it's a rip-off of Twilight, and it will turn into something else altogether.

I had a feeling this would happen eventually, but I was hoping it wouldn't occur so soon.

[ edited by 13 on 2009-05-26 17:42 ]

13 | May 26, 17:40 CET

Nooooooooooo! If it ain't going to be involving Joss & the cast, no thanks!

Gota luv that Buffy | May 26, 17:40 CET

Okay I´ll be honest. I just went 90% WTF- hell no and 10 % Can I write it? Cause my little writer heart still would have loved to write for Buffy one day. Not that there would be a chance. *sighs*

Kessie | May 26, 17:43 CET

They aren't "stealing" anything, that's not my opinion or yours or anyone else's. That's pen-to-paper fact. It would be a broad leap, jump, crawl, and macarena to figure out a way to stop the Kuzuis from making a movie on the basis that they have no legal right to do so.

This is actually much more simple for Joss/20th than it's ever been -- want to make your own Buffy movie? Buy off the Kuzuis. 20th had an enforceable right with "Watchmen" and Warner paid them off and got it done. If 20th/Joss want to still hold the reigns to the Buffy franchise, pay the Kuzuis.

KingofCretins | May 26, 17:44 CET

I think JJ Abrams should do this.

*hahahahahaha*

didifallasleep | May 26, 17:45 CET

Tom Lenk weighs in on twitter about this lil' stinkin' turd of a attempt to milk a cash cow. (Hurrah for mixed metaphors...)

Ya know what? - I think the trial balloon went up, and has been shot down pretty damn thoroughly. Yeah.

The Unthinkable Buffy Two.

QuoterGal | May 26, 17:48 CET

A Buffy without Joss or any of the original cast? They want the movie to be a success, right? I can't imagine any of the hardcore fans wanting to see such a movie.

Well, the ORIGINAL cast would technically involve no Willow, Giles, or Xander. But just as fascinating of names. Like Pike.

didifallasleep | May 26, 17:49 CET

KoC, I just disagree with your opinion on the matter. There's no way Joss should be forced to buy out the Kuzuis over a bag of shit like this. In my mind here's what should happen:

1) Joss shouldn't post on this topic.
2) He should forward the Hollywood Reporter story to his attorney Sam Fischer.
3) Sam Fischer should take it up with 20th Century Fox.
4) 20th should contact Vertigo and Kuzui Enterprises on Joss and his attorney's behalf saying in no uncertain terms they are considering legal action available to themselves. They don't need to be specific.
5) Vertigo now know when they shop the property to a studio, they have to tell the studio they may well get sued by Fox.
6) Studio now knows taking the project on will be a big financial risk.
7) Sorted.

gossi | May 26, 17:51 CET

I mean, I think doing the movie without Joss is a poor idea, but I'm sure there are plot devices they can use to make it a Buffy movie and have it not be a reboot. For example:

Some unspecified time before Season 7, Buffy is fighting some demon and the demon is able to grab Buffy's soul and put it in a jar. There is no new slayer because Buffy is not dead. Flash forward 100 years and without a slayer a large part of the world is infested with demons/vampires. But some unsuspecting young girl accidentially knocks over that jar and becomes part Buffy/part herself and has to work to undo the curse and be sent back to her original timeline. It's Buffy meets dollhouse meets firefly! Terrible idea, but still.

The Operative | May 26, 17:52 CET

What irks me is Vamps a "in" now because of frelling Twilight????? All I could think when I read them {not because I enjoyed them but because I was so outraged and wanted to be informed before I attacked the shrine in the bookstore} all I could think was Bella was the anti-Buffy. She relinquishes every choice and responsibility in her life. Now Kazui want to cash in on "sparkley Vamp craze" and rush a horrible Buffy movie to screen like they rushed the first horrible Buffy movie to the screen cause "girl empowerment" was popular??? I am NOT a violent person but this makes me want to hit someone. Honestly, I'll kick in money to NOT see this movie made. Maybe whoever is thinking of funding this thing will get a clue if fans are willing to pay to NOT have it made!!!

Vinity | May 26, 17:55 CET

Felicia Day says 'What the?! ... Sad face' to the news. Buffy is a trending topic on twitter.

Leaf | May 26, 18:00 CET

Gossi, all your advice is good advice, were I going to speak as an attorney and not a fan. But from all that we know, extrinsically, about the IP issues here, the Kuzuis can make a deal to make a movie. Unless they sold the works to 20th after Joss sold the works to them, its 20th that makes money off Buffy by their permission, not the other way around.

The mere threat of legal action as a way to stifle an attempt to make a movie they are entitle to make would probably just lead to threatened suits in tort for interference in contract and/or abuse of process.

The way people are talking about this, they seem to think that the IP rights just flow with whoever does the most hands on work. That's not true.

KingofCretins | May 26, 18:03 CET

Um. No. The End.

BuffyGroupie | May 26, 18:03 CET

So the Kuzuis own a piece of Buffy and Angel. Is it known who else owns rights? How do we get these rights back exclusively in Joss' hands?

And it's never too early for a reboot in principle. Let us not forget that the TV series was essentially a re-imagining of the movie.

arahdial | May 26, 18:04 CET

Gossi, I think KoC has it right here. Where are you getting the sense that Fox would have any real legal right to stop this? I agree that tactically they may want to try to drum up such a right. And, perhaps the licensing deals are more complex and would allow it.

But, as I understand it, the Kuzuis own the rights to the BTVS movie. They allowed (licensed) Fox to use those rights to create the TV series (so Fox owns the rights to the original stuff in the TV series, but is only using the rights in the stuff from the movie by permission). That means that the Kuzuis can do what they want with the rights they own (they COULD even stand in the way of Fox creating a movie, depending on how the licensing was drafted). They can certainly make a movie based on them as long as they don't violate Fox's copyrights.

[ edited by Septimus on 2009-05-26 18:06 ]

Septimus | May 26, 18:05 CET

KoC, again, I disagree with the stance 20th couldn't do anything. We do not know -- at all -- the terms of the rights. We don't know who has what, either. I'm willing to bet 20th would need a long time to figure it out, which suggests to me it's an option they can (and should) explore.

gossi | May 26, 18:05 CET

Just posted a column on the matter.

The Watchmen callouts aren't a good comparison because even with Moore's disavowment of the movie, fans knew that the moviemakers went to extreme pains to make it as close to the original comic as possible, so they were still willing to give it a shot. We have no such assurance here.

C. A. Bridges | May 26, 18:07 CET

Gossi, the Kuzui's bought a spec script from Joss. That gave them the sole ownership of Buffy, and the right to make a sequel, remake, re boot and the rights to things like TV series. That's why they got credit on the TV show and had to be involved.
Unless you know that they actually sold the movie rights to Fox then they still own the movie rights. That's standard in every spec script contract.

Maybe this has been the hold up with a Buffy movie all the time? maybe Fox really want to let Joss do it but the Kuzui's want too much money? Or (shudder) creative control?

Maybe this is a way for the Kuzui's to put pressure on Fox, to remind Fox that Fox need the Kuzui's, but the Kuzui's don't need Fox?

Edit: As CAB mentioned in his article, the owners of Superman let The WB make a Superman TV show, but they still own the movie rights. If The Kuzui's own the rights then they just let Fox do a TV show, they'd still own the movie rights.

[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-26 18:15 ]

zz9 | May 26, 18:08 CET

No. Just... no!

Rikardo | May 26, 18:08 CET

Gossi, they can basically try to intimidate them with the threat of costly litigation, but probably not with the threat of *successful* litigation. Which would put 20th in a position of perhaps committing a tort themselves (some argument for any one of misrepresentation, interference with contract, or abuse of process, depending on what 20th might try to do). But on the points, from everything we know, Septimus is right. The Kuzuis don't lose their rights over what they bought from Joss just because 20th, their licensee, has done more with it.

KingofCretins | May 26, 18:08 CET

This is just appalling, and, as stated above, a total rush to cash in on the sparklyvampirecrazedotcom.

I'm in for $50. Who's with me? Any chance we can raise enough money for Joss to do a competing movie...?

knitgrrl | May 26, 18:10 CET

I just threw up a little in my mouth... Joss should definitely follow the course of action suggested by gossi. I think that I would stand outside of theaters and protest if this is released. Somebody please slay this movie!

[ edited by montresor on 2009-05-26 18:46 ]

montresor | May 26, 18:12 CET

Re: Kuzui pronunciation

KA-ZOOIE is actually pretty durn close. The first U is almost whispered, though, so it's kind of more like K'ZOOIE.

swanjun | May 26, 18:12 CET

This is just Wrong. It's one thing to adjust a TV show from a failed movie, but it's a totally different thing to change the cult favorite when it is still so new. Not like Star Trek which has been off the air in it's original form for over 2 decades. WTF!

WitchyGrrl | May 26, 18:12 CET

Blah. We don't know enough about the rights -- or, you know, anything -- to write off legal issues.

I do know when they made the TV show, they asked Joss as a passing thing if he was okay with the TV show being made. It was a legal requirement. They didn't expect him to say 'Yes, and I want to do it'. I know this because he said it right in front of my face once.

Rights issues are very complicated and nobody can say 'Well, they can't do anything' without knowing what rights people - you know - have.

gossi | May 26, 18:13 CET

Legally this could very well happen but in my mind it's not a legal question. The real question is should they remake Buffy now just to cash in on the "vampire craze" and without Joss (the reason that most of us love Buffy like we do).

I've been watching Buffy since I was ten and to have anyone mess with it seems wrong. Also if they want to cash in on the whole Twilight thing they should realize that Twilight is the opposite of Buffy - the majority of the Twilight fans wont be flocking to a Buffy movie. Like Vinity said Bella is the anti-Buffy and to me Edward is more of a Big Bad then a guy you want to date/be stuck with forever.

AliciaJo | May 26, 18:15 CET

A Buffy "reboot" and Prop. 8 is upheld.

What is it, bad news day?

CowboyCliche | May 26, 18:15 CET

By the way - to be explicitly clear on this one:

This is a horribly offensive and bad idea. It's offensive because Joss built both the character and the successful franchise up from the ground. It's his love inside that character making it tick, and if they end up making a terrible film, that's an appalling end to the legacy of the show.

It's a bad idea because the project has terrible buzz already and I can see it turning up all manner of issues along the development process.

This is -- seriously -- one of the strangest projects I've seen shopped around Hollywood. I know the Kuzui's have been quietly shopping around a Buffy reboot for a while -- there's the TV project I referred to upthread which they really did try -- and somebody could do with stamping it out.

gossi | May 26, 18:19 CET

Rights issues are very complicated and nobody can say 'Well, they can't do anything' without knowing what rights people - you know - have.

Very true. But it is absolutely standard that a producer who buys a spec script will own all the rights. Unless anyone knows ot has reason to suggest that they sold that right to Fox then the assumption is that the Kuzuis still own the rights.
If they did sell the movie rights then Fox can end this by the end of today by simply pointing out that clause in their contract and the Kuzui's are being incredibly stupid to even think of doing this and they are about to get a very angry phone call from their studio.

and somebody could do with stamping it out.

If they legally own that property then why should anyone be able to stop them?
They were the people who recognised the potential in the original script (which, okay, they screwed up) and if they hadn't bought it and made the movie Joss might still be an unknown writer and no one would have ever seen Buffy.

The fact that no one has stopped them just suggests that they do, in fact, own those rights and right or wrong it's their property to exploit as they wish.

[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-26 18:24 ]

zz9 | May 26, 18:20 CET

http://www.petitiononline.com/nbmwjw/petition.html

Guys, let's sign the petition!

Rikardo | May 26, 18:22 CET

Wow, there've been, like, 8 or so deleted posts now of folks who've failed to see this front page entry. Some amusing commentary from the mods, too. :)

swanjun | May 26, 18:22 CET

Actually zz9, my point with Superman is that you can still come up with new ways to do the same story and make it interesting. I didn't really touch on the rights at all - I think it's pretty obvious the Kuzuis have the rights to make the movie. What I was concerned with was, is it a good idea?

Best line I didn't use: after "Superman Returns" came out, Kevin Smith was asked what he thought about it. He said something like, "Frankly, I think it could have used a giant spider."

C. A. Bridges | May 26, 18:22 CET

CAB, point taken, I just mentioned the fact that you'd bought up that example.

And that clip of Kevin Smith is on Youtube and is well worth a watch for anyone who wants to know what writers have to put up with.

Edit cos I suck at HTML.

[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-26 18:26 ]

zz9 | May 26, 18:26 CET

If the Kuzuis, as they presumably do, have a legal right to make a movie, I would resent Joss and 20th for gratuitously and vindictively abusing the legal process to try to stop them. If this was Joss trying to use a residual right of some kind to make a movie and the Kuzuis were trying to stop him even against the weight of the actual law, people would be saying it's his right, it's the right of an IP property owner. Well, this would be the same thing.

The market will decide whether it was smart of them to exercise their rights instead of selling them. That's where fan response comes in.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2009-05-26 18:27 ]

KingofCretins | May 26, 18:26 CET

I signed the petition and I'm good for $50 to see this thing never happen.

cheryl | May 26, 18:27 CET

Just to be clear, I agree with KoC and zz9 on the legal question (based on what we know). But I also agree with gossi on the moral/aesthetic question: this does not seem like something that should happen without Joss's input.

(You know, it's still possible that this could lead to something positive like a renewed interest in making a Buffy reboot film as a joint production with Fox with Joss having some creative input, or even a cool, original horror-movie take on the original Buffy movie, ... or something.)

Septimus | May 26, 18:32 CET

If Buffy were something of the 20-40 year past I'd agree with you. As it is the actors and Joss are more than capable of making the Buffy movie, if we are ever lucky enough to get one.

Reboot implies that something is dead. Buffy is anything but dead.

cheryl | May 26, 18:36 CET

Septimus, that's the real upside -- the Kuzuis are people with demonstrable willingness to take money over creative control. This is the opportunity for Joss personally or for 20th to try to buy the Kuzuis' rights completely, or to make it a joint venture with them.

I won't say there's a "moral" argument in Joss' favor, though. He wrote a script, he wanted a movie made, he sold the script. He was compensated. The Kuzuis didn't lock him to a radiator and make him type pages. There's no "moral" argument in trying to say you still "really" own what you willingly sold. I know it's a tough economy, but I am willing to bet that if Joss had an actual plan for the Buffy franchise beyond what he's already doing under the license agreement by producing Season 8, he could borrow what he needed to buy those rights back from them. Or if not him, 20th could.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2009-05-26 18:38 ]

KingofCretins | May 26, 18:38 CET

I think Joss already has another few years worth of projects cooking away and probably doesn't want to make a Buffy movie right now. Plus, almost everybody else in the cast are tied up elsewhere.

gossi | May 26, 18:40 CET

Then he could buy it back and sit on the rights. Or 20th could buy them and sit on them.

KingofCretins | May 26, 18:43 CET

AliciaJo said: Twilight is the opposite of Buffy - the majority of the Twilight fans wont be flocking to a Buffy movie. Like Vinity said Bella is the anti-Buffy...

Precisely, which is why I own this shirt:

http://www.jinx.com/women/shirts/geek/buffy_staked_edward_womens.html?catid=1&cs=19&csd=buffy

(Which, if you don't feel like clicking through, says "And then Buffy staked Edward, the end.")

knitgrrl | May 26, 18:47 CET

So, yeah this seems aesthetically... dubious. But I'm not necessarily 100% against it. As long as it steers clear of the Whedonian territory and they set it up as something completely different, it could be fine.

The legal stuff is really complex since the Kuzuis own the rights to the original movie, which they licensed to Fox for the tv show, whose rights they do not own. So, if they want to make a movie in the Buffyverse, it has to be the Buffyverse as defined in the movie (with original or typical genre additions), not as defined in the show. That's why there can't be any TV characters but also, probably, none of the other unique TV Buffyverse elements (demons? Witchcraft? Who knows? Those might all be typical).
Septimus | May 26, 13:47 CET

This is how I view this as well.
The suggested antipathy between Joss and the Kuzuis may be the reason the latter are seeking to avoid all Fox-Whedon television creations in order to get their movie made.
I'm not opposed to some "alternate universe" Buffy.
However, like the majority here, and based on the Kuzuis last attempt, I do not expect it will come close to the quality of Joss' Buffverse.
And, I fear, another lousy Kuzui film will only put the nail in the coffin (so to speak) of a Joss-written or directed Buffy movie--if there was ever a chance for one.
I put more hope (and have greater desire) in seeing Serenity 2. >smile<

History | May 26, 18:48 CET

Whoops. Did not see this thread before posting my separate one. Apologies for the oversight.

Squishy | May 26, 18:48 CET

from imdb's news page (WENN):
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0799368

"Buffy The Vampire Slayer is heading back to the big screen with a new movie based on the hit franchise.

The character, most famously played by Sarah Michelle Gellar in the hit TV series, was originally introduced in the 1992 movie of the same name, starring Kristy Swanson.

The following TV show ran for six years before coming to an end in 2003.

And now the blood-sucking series could be heading back to the big screen with a brand new vampire slayer.

Director Fran Rubel Kuzui, who directed the original film and executive produced the TV programme, owns the rights to the Buffy brand and is planning to reboot the franchise for cinemas, replacing Gellar and the rest of the cast with new actors to fight demons in a different generation.

Kuzui tells the Hollywood Reporter, "Everything has its moment. Every movie takes on a life at some point, and this seems like the moment to do this."

WENN is a british news corp that's basically a step up from a tabloid. the news release is rife with factual inaccuracies (six seasons, etc), but it's making big press now.

now i'm really worried.

kefka | May 26, 18:48 CET

Gossi...Joss might have to do something to keep this from happening. Like pitch his own Buffy movie. He could have Tim help him write it. If Buffy really has made Fox Billions of dollars you would think that they would jump on the idea of more merchandise to sell.

If Joss simply can't do it right now but wants to down the line then I guess it's up to Fox to stop this.

As for everyone being tied up, I think making a big screen movie would be high on everyone list of things they'd like to do. Both Sarah and David both made movies during their Buffy/Angel days. It can be done. Biggest issue right now is SMG and her pregnancy. It would have to wait for the bundle of joy to arrive, imho.

I like King's idea of buying these people off. Then Joss could do his movie in his own time without all this pressure, if that's what he wants to do.

cheryl | May 26, 18:52 CET

Hey, maybe while they're at it they introduce another attempt at New Coke -- it can't fail!

Frankly, this has got to be one of the wrost ideas I have ever seen come from Hollywood; and this is coming from a guy who SAW "Scary Movie 3" (I'll never get those hours of my life back).

We DO NOT need a BTVS movie by these guys. Putting finance up and destroying parts of Whedon's original script is what they contributed to the Buffyverse; because they own the rights is the only reason their name was even in the TV series' end credits. These people are not only money grubbing SOB's, but they can't come up with their own original idea; instead they are milking Joss' cow. Those bovine tits belong to Whedon only.

Now, having said all that, I also don't want to see a remake/reboot/re-visioning from Joss either. WE had BTVS, that's it. Unless SMG decides her bludgeoning career in crappy horror films isn't what she thought it would be, we're not going to see another live BTVS film or follow up any time soon.

tharpdevenport | May 26, 18:53 CET

Whoops. Did not see this thread before posting my separate one. Apologies for the oversight.

That makes you number eleven :). Welcome to the party!

zeitgeist | May 26, 18:53 CET

This is probably insanely naive, given I have no idea of even the order of magnitude I'm talking about here, but would any kind of fan effort be able to at least help get Joss/Mutant Enemy the complete rights to the franchise?

ThorpeWithoutShrimp | May 26, 18:55 CET

I'm just enjoying reading the replies to the deleted posts. :)

swanjun | May 26, 18:55 CET

I signed and as I said I'll pay money, $50 seems to be the going rate {or more if needed} to not see this happen. I'm 122 to sign the petition.

Does anyone know if even IF they have the rights to remake the first "movie" does the fact that they are playing on the fans of the TV show NOT the movie have any standing in a legal battle? That just doesn't seem right. Surely there is legal recourse? Plus, don't the rights to a project/copyright expire?? I know on Dresdan Verse many of us are waiting for Sci fi's rights to expire so Jim Butcher can do something else with a movie project or something and there is a date on that. I know we don't have any idea what the real story is on who owns what and speculation isn't really helpful but I need to feel that there is justice of this sort in the world. Buffy did something inside me, made an impact on my world view. It hurts something deep to see this raped by some........ { I can't think of any way to refer to these people that is even slightly acceptable here} persons just in it for the $ and not the love of what this franchise is.

Buffy and Joss taught us something about fighting injustice, surely this was the wrong fandom to pick on??

Vinity | May 26, 18:55 CET

I had a kind of sickly humorous thought a few minutes ago. Wouldn't it be interesting if down the line we found out that the fellow who has come to the Kuzuis with this brilliant new take on the film had never seen the TV show and did not realize how many new takes on Buffy there had already been? It would be such a Hollywood story. Anyway, just a random thought that made me smile a cynical smile.

Oh, and to be fair to both the Kuzuis and Joss, in Joss's comments about the failure of the original film the bitterness usually was reserved for Mr. Sutherland. Although one could read frustration into his dealings with the differing vision he had with the director, he always admitted that it was the director's right to control the vision of the movie.

newcj | May 26, 18:56 CET

A reminder: Won't be seeing an original movie in the immediate future even were it possible, unless Buffy carries around a huge handbag in front of her at all times.

C. A. Bridges | May 26, 19:03 CET

I will not see a Joss-less Buffy movie. The Kazuis will not make a penny off of me. Ever.

Nebula1400 | May 26, 19:06 CET

Then he could buy it back and sit on the rights. Or 20th could buy them and sit on them.

KingofCretins | May 26, 18:43 CET

This sounds so simple, but if the Kusuis had had any intention of letting go of the rights, I would guess they would have done it a long time ago. And why should they want to? As long as Joss keeps things alive, they get money from it. On the other hand they are showing the willingness to kill it outright through incredibly bad judgment, so I guess anything is possible.

newcj | May 26, 19:10 CET

BtVS went off our TV sets less than 10 years ago... no way is that enough time for this to be made for a new generation. The new generation is still us, or the next one which is full of tweens and a darker Buffy would be way over their heads.

TiffintheOK | May 26, 19:11 CET

Vinity, usually when someone says "The rights have expired" it means a licence has expired and the rights then revert back to the original copyright holder. Which for at Buffy movie may well be the Kuzui's
It is certainly standard for anyone who buys a spec script to get all the rights. We don't know what they sold/licensed to Fox when the TV show was developed but the fact that they are talking about doing a movie and Fox have not slapped them suggests they own the movie rights.
Copyright lasts (I believe) fifty years after the death of the author. (Or "The age of Mickey Mouse + 1 year" since Disney manage to keep getting the law changed every time the MM copyright comes close to expiring.

Thorpe, unless you have a few hundred million dollars spare...
Copyrights to something like Buffy are worth a fortune. The Kuzui's clearly know this and would be mad to sell them for peanuts. Their grandchildren will still be earning money from Buffy in fifty years time.

zz9 | May 26, 19:11 CET

Haven't read through all the comments yet but while I don't really trust the Kuzui's to make a good movie (strictly based on their first attempt) and would much rather Joss be in charge...there are some short stories out there about other Slayer generations, like in the "Tales of the Slayer" series, that I wouldn't mind seeing fleshed out and brought to life. So, not ideal of course, but not the worst idea EVER.

DarkMorning | May 26, 19:12 CET

This is some sort of joke, right? Someone miss April Fool's Day?

Probably the worst idea I've ever heard! Don't believe a word of it!

Joss-less Buffy movie? Blasphemy! (or Jossphemy)

[ edited by Shep on 2009-05-26 19:16 ]

Shep | May 26, 19:13 CET

OK after actually tearing up a bit last night and this morning I'm starting to feel kind of hopeful. 2 kerfluffles in Jossverse in less that a week. We are mighty!!! We are relevant!!!

edited to say zz9 thanks for the info. I think.

[ edited by Vinity on 2009-05-26 19:29 ]

Vinity | May 26, 19:16 CET

You won't see a new (uhm, proper) Buffy movie any time soon 'cos SMG has a lot of prior comitments, including a movie she's got in development with Vertigo. And that pesky TV show. The cast (nor Joss) can't just 'stop' filming everything they're already comitted to.

By the way, this news is real. It's not a joke or a rumour. Vertigo are really pursuing this.

gossi | May 26, 19:17 CET

I never thought a day would come when I'd be wanting there not to be a Buffy movie. What in the world are these people thinking? The first movie was so great let's make another?!?!?!?

Is there an address we can write to demand that this movie not be made?

FaithFan | May 26, 19:17 CET

While I can think of some things worse than a Joss-less Buffy movie, if it ever does actually come to pass it will be a silly day indeed. Sheep might start wearing hats. You could maybe download rice.

redders | May 26, 19:18 CET

I just finished reading the various other linked articles. One of them made the influence of the TV show so obvious in terms of the Buffyverse without even realizing it. They talked about the movie not including anything from the TV show while being the further adventures on the hellmouth and in Sunnydale. All of that is from the TV show. All the movie had were the basics. If they are going to come up with a different slayer...is she by coincidence going to be named Buffy too...cause the name is the most valuable thing they own.

newcj | May 26, 19:20 CET

Might as well add my voice to the Greek chorus of disapproval.

I'd also like to voice that I think a Nikki film would be sweet. Though I think it might be somewhat unsatisfying if it were to end with her getting her neck snapped by Spike. Perhaps end the movie on a nice note for the uninformed: after defeating the movie's villain, she and Robin meet her Watcher at the Subway station. Her Watcher takes Robin for the night, while Nikki steps on the train to go patrol. And we just catch the tiniest glimpse of Spike in the train.

Anyway, that's irrelevant.

Knuckleball | May 26, 19:24 CET

They can make all the Buffy films they want, but if Joss is not at the helm (not just "involved", but "white-finger-knuckles-steering-the-movie-in-charge-the-boss") I'm not going to see it. Buffy was his vision, and I'm tired of Joss' vision being subverted by others. When others let him alone and let him do his thing, he makes gold. When they interfere, it turns to mush.

quantumac | May 26, 19:27 CET

I think it's funny how many people are suggesting "Stay away from Buffy per se, but this other aspect of the Buffyverse (Fray, Tales of the Slayers, etc.) would be good." All of those other aspects of the Buffyverse are precisely where the Kuzuis are NOT allowed to go with their movie, because those are all copyrighted (not by them).

They can build a story off of the Buffy movie, as long as it does not step on the toes of any of the other incarnations of the Buffyverse. Most of the Buffyverse is actually off-limits to them: obviously any of the TV-show only characters, any plot points that are too close to the TV show (Buffy can't get a group of friends named Maple, Topher, and Cornelia, can't kill her vampire lover to save the world, etc.), etc.. I haven't seen the movie in a long time, but I think it's set in L.A. (not Sunnydale) and there's no Angel character (right?). That's the stuff they can work with (or, you know, they could do a whole other slayer story set in some other time period or whatever, but so can just about anyone else; the concept of a vampire slayer is not copyrighted (see Blade, Van helsing, etc.)).

Septimus | May 26, 19:32 CET

So I just read about Roy Lee. He has made his name remaking Asian horror films for an American audience. So is this supposed to be a remake of an American horror film for and Asian audience?

To approach Buffy as a horror film is so...limiting. God this is depressing. I'm going to go wack some weeds now.

newcj | May 26, 19:37 CET

No, thank you, but no.

htom | May 26, 19:41 CET

You're right, Septimus, and when I mentioned those other options, that was in a very hypothetical kind of way, not saying that that's what the Kuzuis should do.

Here's my question, though: if all of that is true and they don't have the rights to any of those things, why on earth were their names on Angel's credits? Because Buffy herself was only in a very few episodes. I'm just a tad confused by that.

Lirazel | May 26, 19:41 CET

Vertigo are really pursuing this.

Which doesn't mean that it will get made, so we should all spare some outrage for later :).

zeitgeist | May 26, 19:42 CET

I hope fearless leader releases a statement soon. Fanboys/girls might start leaping from the buildings. The anger on every site i have been to has been more epic than i even expected.

pongluver | May 26, 19:43 CET

Bwaahhh?! And also: fwwurgh?!

I can kind of see the desire for rebooting, as the buffyverse is hell of complex anymore, but fnuh! Simplifying the whole story back to the basics could be fun, as long as the people who gave a damn about the story are given the reigns. Baffling.

smog | May 26, 19:44 CET

Y'know, I still feel this is the first salvo in a negotiation process designed to bring Joss back in with the original cast.

Yeah, right! It could happen!

Dana5140 | May 26, 19:45 CET

I don't know about why the Kuzuis are credited on Angel. Honestly, it may have just been easier and less expensive than going through a copyright dispute with them over it. (A lot of instances of copyright licensing turn out to be, when looked at strictly from a copyright point of view, unnecessary or really about trademarks like character names.) Does anyone know about the whole Kuzuis-on-Angel issue?

Septimus | May 26, 19:46 CET

I am really quite unhappy about this. Can the Lawyers be called now. Thank you.

bubblecat | May 26, 19:51 CET

I think someone should change the title of this post because many people don't see it and post it again. It's not a very direct title.

Rikardo | May 26, 19:52 CET

Does anyone know about the whole Kuzuis-on-Angel issue?

They could easily had a "plus credit on any future spin off show" clause.
At the time I doubt Fox were thinking a spin off would be very likely so it would have been an easy point to agree to.

zz9 | May 26, 19:52 CET

Rikardo - refresh if you think it's not a very direct title.

zeitgeist | May 26, 19:56 CET

Oh hell no.

cfeuille | May 26, 19:56 CET

Like no one ever saw this coming ... with all the vampire movies and shows out now. It was only a matter of time before this happened.

Well what they could do is create an older Buffy then borrow the idea of killing her off like they did in Season 1 of the show and bring her back to life. Then you could create the loop hole to bring in a new slayer, and have the older Buffy train her and assume her identity (kinda like the Dread Pirate Roberts).

Would it be good or bad, who knows, without the Joss dialouge it would not be the same but eventually all icons are reborn. Look at all the incarnations of Superman, Batman, among others.

Heck Paramount did not approach Gene Roddenberry about the original Trek movie at first either. Paramount came across the property because they were looking for a Star Wars type film to market. They lucked out Desilu owned the rights to Star Trek, and it was included in the deal when Paramount bought the studio property back in the 70's. It happens to a lot of creators, it sucks but they don't call it show business for nothing.

The first time I read this it ticked me off because it was Joss's creation, but now I can only hope if it happens, they don't screw it up to bad.

The people likely to see the movie will be those that hate the Whedonverse fans, for our overzealous nature at times. People will still go see it because it says Buffy.

RavenU | May 26, 19:56 CET

Here's my question, though: if all of that is true and they don't have the rights to any of those things, why on earth were their names on Angel's credits? Because Buffy herself was only in a very few episodes. I'm just a tad confused by that.

Never got that either. Anyone?

The whole thing is just examplary of the wrongness of the whole copyright system really. Biggest problem with the whole situation IMO is the fact that Joss apparently doesn't have a say in what happens with the Buffy name though he is the one that made the Buffy brand-name what it is after the Kuzui's tarnished it before. Really this seems to be exactly what copyright management should be meant to put to a hold.

Though this sounds somewhat hopefull:

Gossi: I do know when they made the TV show, they asked Joss as a passing thing if he was okay with the TV show being made. It was a legal requirement. They didn't expect him to say 'Yes, and I want to do it'. I know this because he said it right in front of my face once.

I remember something like that as well (though sadly Joss never was standing right in front of my face) Here's hoping Joss or Fox can just veto the whole damn thing. (Never imagined being on the side of Fox shut down team, propably means that for the first time they will not be able to seal the deal, botched system and all)

the Groosalugg | May 26, 20:02 CET

Is anyone else enjoying reading how the fandom is characterized in these and recent DH renewal articles? I wouldn't want to meet this crew in a dark alley...

haney-hop | May 26, 20:06 CET

I've got my mind seeeet ooooon you!

Just trying to get happy vibes back in here.

Mort | May 26, 20:09 CET

Sarah might have an enforceable right here, because the likeness right she has in the character almost certainly had to flow through the Kuzuis' license to 20th whenever she made the deal.. So, if they were to use the Buffy character, she may have some right of refusal on who they cast or, at least, how they plan to model the character on whoever they cast.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2009-05-26 20:11 ]

KingofCretins | May 26, 20:10 CET

I'm sincerely hoping that this is a publicity stunt to gauge interest in a new Buffy film. I can get with the idea of rebooting the franchise with a different slayer, but the idea that it won't be cannon and that Joss Whedon won't be involved? That is complete nonsense. How is it that Joss doesn't own the rights to the Buffyverse? We should pool our resources and buy it back for him. That would be the best any-holiday present for all of us.

BGo | May 26, 20:10 CET

The whole thing is just examplary of the wrongness of the whole copyright system really. Biggest problem with the whole situation IMO is the fact that Joss apparently doesn't have a say in what happens with the Buffy name though he is the one that made the Buffy brand-name what it is after the Kuzui's tarnished it before. Really this seems to be exactly what copyright management should be meant to put to a hold.

If you own the copyright then you own the copyright.

Just because Joss wrote much better stuff for the TV series doesn't mean that someone can take the copyright away from the Kuzui's.
If I wrote a Buffy script that was better than Joss's does that mean I can demand the copyright off him?

This is the reward the Kuzui's get for spotting the potential in Joss's script and raising the money and making the film.
Without that we may never have seen Buffy at all.

Even though they, and a certain actor, did bad stuff to the script it isn't right to be able to say "Well done for finding that script and taking a chance on that new writer, raising the money and making a movie, now we're going to take the copyright away from you because we think he can do it better."

Joss sold the script. He took the money.
If you sell your house you can't then tell the new owners you don't like the way they redecorate. It's not your house any more.
You want to keep it? Then don't sell it.

zz9 | May 26, 20:14 CET

No thank you

Kio Rustleweed | May 26, 20:15 CET

So much for my plans to launch a steroid-fueled V for Vendetta sequel: Buff V, the Empire Slayer!

peacemonger | May 26, 20:17 CET

If there was no copyright system, there would be far fewer creative works in general. The entire premise of the copyright system is that, if you protect for a time the right of expression (which is what copyright is, a right of expression), the right to benefit from the expression, you give incentive to people to bring their creativity to the market and try to profit from it. It's the same reason why there's a patent system (the right to exclude).

If there had been no Buffy movie (and no Kuzuis to make it) -- bastardized or not, campy or not -- there would have been no Buffy TV show.

KingofCretins | May 26, 20:18 CET

A day has passed and now I feel:

I could accept a Buffy film with a new actress playing Buffy, because as much as I love Sarah, I believe there must be another actress out there who would be as lovable and tough as her.

It would have to be written by Whedon's usual cadre of writers, because it is the witty dialogue and scenarios that make the show what it is -- not the vampires, the stakes, etc. It is the writing. So, people very familiar with Whedon-speak need to be writing the dialogue at the very least.

I could accept a cameo appearance by Anthony Stewart Head as Giles, much as Q often remains the same actor even when Bond becomes a new actor.

I could not accept anyone being recast other than Buffy. If they introduce heart-throbs to play Xander etc. I'd join the riots.

They'd need to set the film in Europe or something to account for why Buffy is on her lonesome.

Those are my terms. I don't think Vertigo Entertainment has ever produced a good movie though, so I doubt they could pull this together. Not a chance.

will.bueche | May 26, 20:20 CET

I'm the first person to say reboots can be very awesome (Star Trek, BSG, Transformers, TMNT, Pink Panther - yes I liked it).

But... this just seems doomed from the getgo. Especially with the people involved. Not saying that Joss HAS to be involved, but it does have to be someone I think can make a half-decent movie.

BrownCoat_Tabz | May 26, 20:26 CET

Vertigo produced "The Departed", 2007 Oscar winner for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Editing and Best Adapted Screenplay, as well as a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Mark Wahlberg.

I also notice that they seem to have produced at least three films with Sarah in them. They mostly seem to have horror movies under their belt, some of which are well-thought of, others of which are bad.

Look, if they come back and find a script that's written by a one-time team up of David Goyer and Diablo Cody and Christopher Nolan or Jason Reitman wants to direct it, I think it could be good (that's how I see a Buffy feature film -- "The Dark Knight" meets "Juno").

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2009-05-26 20:30 ]

KingofCretins | May 26, 20:29 CET

While I cannot claim factual status for this musing, it strikes me that, as Joss was emerging in the early 90's as a hot hot script doctor and screenwriter, already with experience on the writing staff of a hit t.v. show, just a few years from sharing an oscar nom for his work on Toy Story (and remind yourself how long the lead time was on those early pixar films -- the writing was likely largely done circa 92/93), something was dang near certainly gonna break for him by 92/93, whether or not the Kuzuis ever crept from the primordial ooze. And, as I do recall going "hee" at the concept of the original film back then, it is likely it was always gonna be that script that had the best odds of getting made by someone. All to say that, while it is historically true that the Kuzuis play an important role in the chain of events that led to the series, I, personally, do not believe by a long shot that the Kuzuis themselves were necessary for the series to happen or that, absent them, there would be no series. If anything, had Joss known just how fast his own star was rising in the Hollywood writing biz and held out for more interesting offers by more competant directors for his Buffy script, there may have been greater interest. (And, again, yes, I know this is speculation, but I believe, given subsequent accomplishments of the various parties involved, it is plausible.)

doubtful guest | May 26, 20:32 CET

Ugh, Prop 8 and then this? unreal!

fansofwhedon | May 26, 20:33 CET

I rarely post...but this is quite the punch to the gut. The only thing im looking forward to right now is Joss' thoughts.

..

...

....Soon?

SuperLaz | May 26, 20:33 CET

I don't know whether to be ashamed to say this or not, but I didn't hate the Buffy movie originally. Of course, I was 16 at the time. I liked the dialogue, the humor, the "idea" of it, not the cast or the cheesiness of it. I felt like as wrong as so much of it was, there was something so right about it. Does that make sense? lol

Anyway, it did still inspire me, years later, to check out the series the night it aired...it was the best decision I ever made regarding a tv show...I never knew it was possible to love a series so much. A while after that, when I realized my obsession with this show was much more than a passing phase, and I got internet access, I learned more and more about Joss, (and came to adore him...thanks, Whedonesque! ;)), which included the truth about what happened with the movie.

Suddenly, it all made sense to me...why I was drawn to it, why I liked, even loved it, when obviously I shouldn't have. I don't really believe in things like fate, but I believe I belong here. Which is nice, because I've never felt that before...ever.

That said...OMG, this is SO not going where I thought it would...I think I want to thank Fran Kuzui for her fabulous fuck-up of a movie. Thank you for "introducing" me to the Whedonverse, a world that means more to me than you could ever know.

Please don't crap on the Buffyverse again. Please don't insult Joss again, don't insult this fandom.

Thank you.

[ edited by josswhedonaddict on 2009-05-26 20:40 ]

josswhedonaddict | May 26, 20:37 CET

I hope this reboot never sees the light of day.

Nemesis85 | May 26, 20:41 CET

I'm actually kind of gratefull for the lacking of the Buffy movie. I'm not so sure we would have gotten the Buffy series we got if the film had been better. All worked out pretty excellent, I'd say.

KingofCretins I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be an copyright system, just that there should be one were the actual creative powers and strong brands are protected. This way consumers that expect proper Buffy will be duped, I can't come up with a better system (atleast, not now in a few seconds) I'm just pointing out I think this system isn´t perfect.

Let's just say it feels wrong to me that the Kuzui's can end up with the Buffy rights instead of Joss.

[ edited by the Groosalugg on 2009-05-26 20:44 ]

the Groosalugg | May 26, 20:42 CET

Vertigo should have gone straight to Joss on this one. Why didn't they? That would have been a far happier day!

bubblecat | May 26, 20:45 CET

Entirely possible we won't hear anything from Joss about this, until his lawyer figures things out.

C. A. Bridges | May 26, 20:49 CET

Strange that they can announce Buffy movie plans that have the fans... enraged?

smog | May 26, 20:50 CET

I can't believe that anyone but Joss has the rights, it's a tragedy and should be fixed for this very reason.

God think of the greater detriment this could do for the series in mainstream eyes. We might never recruit a new addict again - At this point, I still do weekly.

mariec | May 26, 20:51 CET

Let's just say it feels wrong to me that the Kuzui's can end up with the Buffy rights instead of Joss.

It happens, unless you take extreme measures to prevent it. William Goldman, fearing his most beloved creation would be ruined, bought back the rights to "The Princess Bride." At the time (and possibly even now) that was unthinkable, for a writer to do that. I'd love to see Joss make a bid for his creation.

C. A. Bridges | May 26, 20:51 CET

maybe the vampires will sparkle ... or whatever else twilight did with them.

And they'll be able to go out in the day time as well (without the flowery quilt and requisite smoke).

I'm not totally opposed to a "prequel" type of flick at some point, but why would anyone want to not involve Joss? That's just heresy. I'm sure he has plenty of slayer-ish stories to tell, ie, Fray.

sog14 | May 26, 20:51 CET

I still think a Nikki movie would be awesome.

The One True b!X | May 26, 20:53 CET

zeitgeist: Which doesn't mean that it will get made, so we should all spare some outrage for later :).

Eggs-zackly. Outrage is a precious, precious commodity, and if we're not careful, we might be out of it when we need it most - when Dollhouse comes back in the fall or when some counter-jumper varmint doesn't think Serenity is the Bestest Movie Ever Made.

'Cause - personally - I think this turkey's dead in the water and hoisted stewed in its own petard and will never see the light of day and is deader than... vaudeville, or Frank TV.

Oh, and I don't think Jossir would dignify this with a post unless he gets something concrete to say. Not one to sit around on his hands, our Joss.

(Let me know if there's anything further I can do to mangle the English language... because in addition to it being a day of mourning in my home state of California due to Prop 8, it's also National Mixed Metaphor and Craptastic Analogy Day.)

QuoterGal | May 26, 20:54 CET

The way people are talking about this, they seem to think that the IP rights just flow with whoever does the most hands on work. That's not true.

Not a legal right, no. But the fact is that the Kuzui's are hoping to profit off the buzz generated from the TV show that was successful and built this franchise, not the craptastic movie they created. The TV show that has their name attached but nothing else.

Then he could buy it back and sit on the rights. Or 20th could buy them and sit on them.

I hope they have that money lying around and do it then. I mean, they spent all that money on locking up B:tas scripts in a vault so who knows... *doubts it*

Which doesn't mean that it will get made, so we should all spare some outrage for later :).

zeitgeist | May 26, 19:42 CET

But there's outrage enough for everyone, surely.

Emmie | May 26, 21:06 CET

Wow, the Deleted Posts page is hilarious.

Succatash | May 26, 21:09 CET

A number of years ago I read Neil Simon's autobiography. He tells the story about how the agent he had back in the 1960s worked out a really good financial deal for him. What wasn't realized was that he inadvertantly sold the TV rights for his plays as part of the deal. So when The Odd Couple TV show was made, it was without his involvement, and without any additional financial compensation for him.

indiff | May 26, 21:09 CET

Buffy in Name Only. Do not want.

It seems like the Kuzuis see an opportunity to capitalize on the teen vampire craze, but are willing to forgo everything that made the tv show so special simply because they don't have the rights to those characters and storylines. They're satisfied with the basic concept and name recognition because they don't value what makes the rest of use love the Buffyverse: the snappy dialogue, compelling characters, complex storytelling, and on and on.

The fact that the Kuzuis' first act upon being approached wasn't to call Joss - regardless of the legal rights involved - tells us everything about their taste and everything about their lack of understanding of what makes Buffy the Vampire Slayer so beloved.

No thank you.

Prosperina | May 26, 21:10 CET

Haha the "deleted posts" page is hilarious. Poor moderators. Having to come up with new and creative ways to hand out FAIL.

Emmie | May 26, 21:13 CET

The only way this works out for anyone's benefit is if Fox decides that there's money left in the old girl, shells out to buy the rights back from the Kuzuis, and puts Joss in charge of a feature.

But I don't think it's gonna happen.

jsnell | May 26, 21:15 CET

THR's Risky Biz blog has posted about it as well now... even though it is on their very site where the news originated.

http://www.riskybusinessblog.com/2009/05/new-buffy-movie.html

J Linc | May 26, 21:16 CET

No. No. No.

(The deleted posts blog cheered me up a bit. But only a bit.)

pancakegirl | May 26, 21:24 CET

Nein, danke.

m'cookies actual | May 26, 21:25 CET

I love the Risky Business Blog used a fan manip...

BrownCoat_Tabz | May 26, 21:26 CET

With all we, the fans, have been credited with doing...Do they really think that they can take us on?

Silly Rabbit

wilder | May 26, 21:26 CET

Next we'll see they're recasting The Godfather with Zac Efron as Fredo.

It just shouldn't be allowed.

alexreager | May 26, 21:27 CET

Unless Joss or Drew Goddard or someone we the fans can trust is heading a relaunch like this, I'm not for it. It's got to have Joss' blessing too.

Astonishing_Chaos | May 26, 21:28 CET

:(

anjee | May 26, 21:29 CET

Whedonesque is now linked to a story about this on an NPR Blog.

Znachki | May 26, 21:32 CET

I can't figure out why this is getting reposted so much. I don't remember the Dollhouse announcement--something I would call even bigger than this--being reposted a bunch of times. I mean, we didn't have the deleted posts blog back then, I guess, but still...

Jobo | May 26, 21:34 CET

The Zac Efron snark sounds premature -- there is not a single name attached to this yet.

KingofCretins | May 26, 21:36 CET

I just want to add every synonym of "no" and "yuck" to the list.

CaptainB | May 26, 21:38 CET

Umm...no. That's all I have.

marvelknight616 | May 26, 21:40 CET

I'm typically a pollyanna about such matters, so take this with a grain of salt. But, I see this having positive effects. I mean, all of this publicity about what kind of buffy movie would be good/welcome/successful has to be a good thing. Right? (Though, given how the studios did not get the big payday that they expected from Serenity, I could see them discounting the fan/critical enthusiasm pretty significantly.)

On a more negative note, are we really sure that Joss would want to make a Buffy (reboot) movie? He's always fairly equivocal when asked about doing a Buffy movie, and he has a lot of stuff going on these days.

Septimus | May 26, 21:41 CET

I spend a day on the beach and come back to this?

A world of no.

Just.No.

The Do That Girl | May 26, 21:41 CET

DC Examiner said it best of all I think:
"Fran Rubel Kuzui and Vertigo Entertainment successfully troll 3/4 of the internet."

Also here's the NPR blog post.

Sunfire | May 26, 21:42 CET

Massive déjà vu upon reading this news. So I guess this means it happened in an alternate reality. Please don't let it happen in this one.

roomonfire_9 | May 26, 21:43 CET

Just a thing to keep in mind: while the some of the bile is humorous, there would likely have been no Buffy movie or TV without Kaz and Fran Kuzui. Don't get me wrong, I still say "pass" on the concept of a Mutant Enemy-less Buffy :).

zeitgeist | May 26, 21:44 CET

The catch... It'll be a reboot and there'll be no Sarah Michelle Gellar, Joss, Willow, Xander, Giles et al.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

*pant pant*

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

::faints::

Der JagerMeister | May 26, 21:45 CET

Umm.

Pass.

Really.

Just...pass.

Emma Frost | May 26, 21:54 CET

Well, Whedonites are nothing if dramatic, so now that I've got my goofiness out of the way, I can muse a little more thoughtfully.

Since I'm not a die-hard Buffy fan (I had fun watching it, but Firefly was the awesomesauce, IMHO), my thoughts are to be taken for whatever little it's worth with that admission.

Looking at Vertigo's track record, they are masters of releasing money-grubbing so-so horror flicks based on other people's work. So Kuzui is probably sitting on a bunch of properties and hoping to squeeze out some cash from fans not aware or exposed to Joss' work. You make a Buffy quote to a teenager these days, and they will look at you blankly. So Vertigo comes to Kuzui, says "Hey, can we borrow your idea for a sec?" They both know that Whedonites will ignore the flick and avoid the theaters if they leave the original characters alone, so they agree to collaborate. Knowing that unsuspecting teens will be once again parted from their hard-earned allowances with a crappy movie, and nobody but the Whedonites will be upset, they grin and fire up the word processors.

It's a pure and simple grab for money, in a post-Twilight world. It's a proven franchise if handled right, but Vertigo doesn't much care about handling anything right. As long as they can make it cheap and gory, kids will pay to see it. I mean, come on, The Ring 3, seriously? We needed a third one? That should say it all.

[ edited by Der JagerMeister on 2009-05-26 22:18 ]

Der JagerMeister | May 26, 22:05 CET

Hey alexreager, be nice to little Simon!

BrownCoat_Tabz | May 26, 22:09 CET

I hope you are talking about Zac Efron, Tabz, I'm just sayin'...

zeitgeist | May 26, 22:14 CET

hehe.. yes.. too many Simons!

BrownCoat_Tabz | May 26, 22:16 CET

This is a frakking travesty. I can't even believe that they would announce this without even having SPOKEN to Whedon. Seriously, what? I mean, honestly. If you want to incur the wrath and hatred of an entire franchise's huge, loyal fanbase, this is how you do it. UGH.

krice | May 26, 22:21 CET

Vertigo is capable of producing a solid (if not better) film -- so, that is not the problem here at all. For me, it lies all with the (ahem) other party involved and not even going to Miss Puppythighs first about it before announcing it to the masses.

J Linc | May 26, 22:27 CET

Polls can be fun. I wrote in Meryl Streep.

Eileen | May 26, 22:30 CET

I do have to thank this story for making the Deleted Posts page very funny reading. There's 14 stories there relating to the possible movie, and I think the moderators are starting to get a little peeved. In a funny way though, so keep them coming! ;)

Topdeck | May 26, 22:41 CET

EW.com has an article with Ausiello having Joss' reaction. I can't link from my iPhone, so if someone else could, please?

Illyria | May 26, 22:47 CET

Holy shit...I found the original movie entertaining, mind you I was about 5 or 6 when I watched it, and I practically grew up watching the show, this is hugely offensive.

I can see the watered down "Twilight" feel, and god awful tween cast. Starring Zac Efron, Vanessa Hudgens, Taylor Swift, Anna Lynn McCord, Random "Degrassi: The Next Generation" cast members, Robert Englund, Tony Todd, Ed Westwick, Daveigh Chase, Tori Spelling and Blake Lively as Buffy.

I can see this 'darker' tone being literal, as the cinematography will be very dark, but it will probably be a weak PG-13 film, dumped off in January(where movies go to die), with no critical reviews(because it will not be screened for critics) and they will probably keep the budget as low as possible so that any success is good success and will secure this awful new franchise into the typical trilogy format.

Honestly, since it is a reboot, and Buffy and parts of her mythology are the only ties it has to the series/original film, why not just change the main characters name, and tweak the mythology to ensure a new "demon hunter"(not vampire slayer)franchise that CAN survive on its own if it finds some sort of fanbase, instead of pissing off us rabid Whedon fans and people who at least knew of Buffy and will say "Wasn't that a show? How stupid".

No go, bastardize "Buffy" into your own new character...hell, call her Fluffy, and make that film. DO not touch Joss' baby.

Gio | May 26, 22:49 CET

I want a Buffy movie. Whenever there is a Buffy movie thread, I am always the first onboard. I've made no secret that I think the time is ripe for a movie. There is money to be made, it just needs to be grabbed.

I can't blame the Kuzuis for grabbing. Joss Whedon himself has said that he doesn't think a Buffy movie is feasible. But I, and a lot of other fans, disagree. We would see a Buffy movie. Just not done like this.

Basically, I want my Buffy movie. But this outcry makes it seem less likely. No studio wants to touch something surrounded by rabid dogs ready to bite.

I really, really want a Buffy movie. I want it to happen. Even in a reboot capacity (although letting go of the dream of the original cast would be bitter for me). But now for the first time I am feeling really doubtful that it will ever happen.

ailiel | May 26, 22:50 CET

Ausiello Link - although isn't Cabin wrapped?

zeitgeist | May 26, 22:51 CET

Heh. Great reaction.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2009-05-26 22:52 ]

KingofCretins | May 26, 22:51 CET

EW/Ausiello:

What do you think about this Buffy movie they're making without you?
JOSS WHEDON: I hope it's cool.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-05-26 22:52 ]

The One True b!X | May 26, 22:52 CET

And now it's on the Yahoo home page. Perhaps they're getting the buzz they want? (even if it does consist mostly of wailing and rending of garments)

library hooligan | May 26, 22:53 CET

No Joss, no Sarah, no thanks.

GhostsWatcher | May 26, 22:53 CET

Ausiello Link - although isn't Cabin wrapped?

Well, they had the wrap party. And all the avalable shooting dates had them ending on May 20 or 22. Ausiello's not always quite on the ball.

ETA that, admittedly, wrapping shooting doesn't mean they're done with the movie. Heh.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-05-26 22:55 ]

The One True b!X | May 26, 22:53 CET

Yeah, its just he specifically said "shooting" not post :).

zeitgeist | May 26, 22:59 CET

Hence my "not always on the ball".

The One True b!X | May 26, 22:59 CET

Hopefully Joss will have time later to log on be a bit more in-depthy.

J Linc | May 26, 22:59 CET

Hopefully Joss will have time later to log on be a bit more in-depthy.

I hope not. I think this one should just be left hanging in the air for everyone to chew on.

The One True b!X | May 26, 23:01 CET

I think by "cool" Joss means that he really hopes that Meryl Streep* is tapped to play the new Slayer of the Vampyres, and that there are lots of explosions and crypts blowing up and stuff.

*per Eileen's almost uncanny & psychic suggestion

ETF: Meryl Strep should not be confused with Meryl Streep, who is not at all the same actor.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2009-05-26 23:03 ]

QuoterGal | May 26, 23:01 CET

I adore Joss's reaction. It's so very...Joss-y. Joss-esque? Jossian?

Lirazel | May 26, 23:03 CET

I hope not. I think this one should just be left hanging in the air for everyone to chew on.

Because that makes it more amusing.

Emmie | May 26, 23:03 CET

In Hollywood the usual rule seems to be that if one movie is good, two is better, so I'm wondering when Fox will announce a project so we can have competing Buffies.

bigsofty | May 26, 23:12 CET

From Ausiello:

At the very least, his statement is open to all kinds of interpretation. Is he taking the high road? Is he genuinely hopeful it won't suck? Is "cool" secret code for something else -- like "colossal failure," perhaps?

I'm gonna go with option D - all of the above.

ladygrey | May 26, 23:14 CET

Joss' reaction is perfect: he doesn't own the rights and any other reaction would sound like sour grapes. I have to say that I think Fox will tie this up in court for decades before allowing anyone else to merchandise anything under the Buffy trademark. Fox has made a lot of money by selling marketing rights for games, toys, and t-shirts, and there is no way they would let anyone cut into that without a fight.

embers | May 26, 23:16 CET

Joss could have still managed to sound even vaguely, noticeably annoyed without compromising any sort of legal action. First impression is that he is simply just not as bent about this personally as others are on his behalf.

KingofCretins | May 26, 23:18 CET

In the great musical words of South Park:

Fran Kazui was called a director

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

She started ideas of a Buffy Remake

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

taliily | May 26, 23:20 CET

If you sell your house you can't then tell the new owners you don't like the way they redecorate.

And if you're an architect and you sell plans for a beautiful house and it is constructed in a crappy way and then the landowner sells the foundation to someone else and you built a brilliant house on top for him and then the owner of the foundation tries to make some bucks and decides to built another house on top of the one still standing there, not caring if the whole thing will just come tumbling down, then that whole situation just kinda sucks.

And in related sillyness: voted Joss in the Reporter poll, if they just get him to play Buffy, he'll still be involved in the film and everybody will be happy.

the Groosalugg | May 26, 23:26 CET

Could this be anymore transparent?!

Call it what ever you want, because I have seen Buffy. Whatever this thing becomes, it will not be Buffy the Vampire Slayer!

silent knight | May 26, 23:29 CET

http://www.petitiononline.com/nbmwjw/petition.html

A petition has already been started to stop the movie in its tracks, didnt sign do these actually work?

jighooligan101 | May 26, 23:30 CET

do these actually work?

If they did we'd have Firefly season 2, Angel season 6 and Serenity 2.

Simon | May 26, 23:32 CET

From Ausiello:

At the very least, his statement is open to all kinds of interpretation. Is he taking the high road? Is he genuinely hopeful it won't suck? Is "cool" secret code for something else -- like "colossal failure," perhaps?

From ladygrey:

I'm gonna go with option D - all of the above.

I'm gonna take it as Joss saying, "leave me alone! I'm making a movie!" ;)

BrownCoat_Tabz | May 26, 23:33 CET

This has badness written all over it.

Part of me would love Joss to say what [I believe] he must really be thinking about this, but ya gotta love his awesomely cool response.

tigerlily | May 26, 23:41 CET

I think you are onto something there, bigsofty. A competing project by 20th/Joss would kill any momentum Vertigo has.

I also would be fine with a 20th/ME remake without SMG. She isn't the end all and be all of Buffy for me. I think Joss could find an actor just as good if not better for the role.

The only time an online petition has ever worked was when one helped to get Wonderfalls released on DVD.

[ edited by TamaraC on 2009-05-26 23:44 ]

TamaraC | May 26, 23:42 CET

Nonononononooo :(! Also, no!

This is just awful news...

But how likely is this to really come true? I mean, they're in talks now, and are looking for writers, but there's still a chance it somehow won't be made, yes? *Holds on to glimmer of hope*

Xyron | May 26, 23:49 CET

I have to say that I think Fox will tie this up in court for decades before allowing anyone else to merchandise anything under the Buffy trademark. Fox has made a lot of money by selling marketing rights for games, toys, and t-shirts, and there is no way they would let anyone cut into that without a fight.

Unless we know if sole merchandising rights were sold by the Kuzui's then we don't know if they could sell stuff with pictures of their slayer on it. Fox can clearly stop anyone selling stuff with pictures of SMG as Buffy.

Groosalugg, as long as that architect got paid that is (legally) all that matters.
He has no say in what happens to that house. If I own it I can add an extension, paint it pink, knock it down, whatever. My house, my decision.

I think you are onto something there, bigsofty. A competing project by 20th/Joss would kill any momentum Vertigo has.

But if the Kuzui's own the movie rights they could not make a Buffy movie without the Kuzui's okay. Just as they could not make the TV series with the Kuzui's on board.
If Fox bought the rights to make a TV series only then that's all they'd have.

For all we know Fox may have been negotiating for months to make a Buffy movie, but the Kuzui's have been demanding too much money or creative control. This announcement may be their way of putting pressure on Fox, reminding them that they can make a Buffy movie without Fox, so Fox had better meet their demands.

zz9 | May 26, 23:59 CET

I wouldn't watch a Buffy movie with even Joss writing it without SMG as Buffy. It's too late to change horses now, for me anyway.

It would be like all those previous star trek movies with a new shiny unknown Kirk. I don't believe for a second that Fox would do a Buffy movie without both Joss and Sarah. That would make about as much sense as what we have been reading all day concerning the reboot. IMHO.

Or a big screen continuation of Sex and the City with all unknown characters or just Big being cast with a new actor.

Joss's reply is pretty Jossian. Always the gentleman. :)

cheryl | May 27, 00:04 CET

I think Joss could do a Buffyverse movie without SMG just fine. Buffy would have to be dead though. New slayer, new actor. Maybe a cameo by SMG in the beginning or as a flashback.

TamaraC | May 27, 00:08 CET

I'm offended at the thought of a Buffy movie without Joss being involved but I'm not gonna get all riled up about it because I have a personal mantra: if it doesn't come from the creator, it's not canon.

Frankly, I found this news more upsetting.

menomegirl | May 27, 00:38 CET

The mandatory Facebook boycott group.

MonkeyJoe | May 27, 00:41 CET

You know, If they could get Dolly parton to play and older, retired Buffy I'd netflix it just for them-er, um, her :)

Joss seems to be doing the smart thing here by not saying too much one way or the other. Anyway, Between the rights nightmare with the promotion and merchandising and their track-record with the first one, if this gets made at all it will probably end up being a straight-to-DVD footnote in Buffy lore, and not a real bastardization of the franchise (I hope I can say that...) like the upcoming GI Joe movie, for example.

crippledlion | May 27, 00:44 CET

Obviously a Whedon movie would be the best, but I'm not opposed to a reboot of The Vampire Slayer franchise. Just don't call it Buffy.

stuffy | May 27, 01:02 CET

I would think Joss needs to be on good terms with the Kuzuis because he does need them to be nice about the stuff he is doing like the comics and such. I guess they could block those?? Boy copyright issues suck.

Vinity | May 27, 01:19 CET

They could get Katie Holmes to play Buffy (since she was originally offered the role on the TV show, I believe) and Tom Cruise could play Angel.

mortimer | May 27, 01:33 CET

Hah! I've already written that pitch, stuffy - it's called Vampire Slayer 2012. ;-D

cabri | May 27, 01:34 CET

Bonkers.

Loopy.

Potty.

Bizarre.

But capable of getting publicity? Sadly, yes.

A daft idea brought to you by people who really don't mind bad publicity as long as it is publicity.

Gill | May 27, 01:42 CET

If 20th goes to court for no reason other than to "tie up" the movie when they have no legitimate grounds to stop the Kuzuis from making the movie, they would (deservingly) be getting sued for abuse of process, interference in contract, misrepresentation, etc. If they don't want the Kuzuis to make a movie they can pay for their rights to the property. That would be the, y'know, ethical way of dealing with the situation.

KingofCretins | May 27, 01:47 CET

Cheryl: "I wouldn't watch a Buffy movie with even Joss writing it without SMG as Buffy. It's too late to change horses now, for me anyway."

The thing is Cheryl, that attitude of not letting any other actress play Buffy but SMG is unfair to all the other talented ladies out there. I've fought with fellow Buffy fans over the years on this note and I still hold my ground. Saying only SMG can play Buffy is like saying only Sir Lawrence Olivier can play Hamlet. Only Richard Burton can play Petruchio. Only Elizabeth Taylor can play Kate. Yes all these performers were superb, but the shoes are always bigger than the feet of the people portraying them. Countless others have tried those roles before. They keep Shakespeare's stories alive, and that's more important than letting a character own a role years after s/he has grown tired of playing it.

Granted, for some there's no difference between acting and writing or being the guiding light of a production. For me that's where the line is drawn. I've been an actor in my life, and I've been a writer. Actors are interchangeable parts. They have to be. However, once a vision is in place for a production, you really shouldn't change that vision without changing the name.

When you change the acting roster, you can notate that in the opening credits. That happens ALL the time. On stage. In soap operas. There were two Darrens in the television series Bewitched a long time ago and hardly anyone noticed. However, if you remove the originator of a production from the production, you're doing a lot more than just changing the opening credits.

Rick Berman's Star Trek was not Gene Roddenberry's, and JJ Abrams' Star Trek is not Rick Berman's. Yet using the same name every time is unfair to the audience that expects X and keeps getting Y. What's more important to me is the storytelling. I don't care who plays the parts in a Buffy franchise, so long as they're telling Joss Whedon's stories. If a Buffy story doesn't at least have Joss's wink and nod? I'm not interested. I made that mistake when I accepted Rick Berman as Gene Roddenberry's successor. God what a mistake that turned out to be.

If I'm in the mood for nonWhedon Buffy stories, there's plenty of fanfic out there. I've written some myself. Whatever story this Kuzui Enterprises wants to tell? It won't be a Whedon story, so it won't be canon. It'd be like Orson Scott Card writing a Sherlock Holmes mystery. I'm sure he'd be great at it, or maybe he'd suck. The point is, he's not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, so it really doesn't matter.

I like hearing other talented people make covers of Beatles songs. That's loads of fun. They bring their own take to it. They try different instruments or time signatures or slow it down or speed it up. Maybe they try to stay as true as they can to the original but there's always something new brought to the table. A different talent breathing life into the same work is always exciting and thought provoking. If someone wrote a song and said, "this is a continuation of The Beatles' A Day In The Life." I'd think he was pretentious and ignorant and I'd change the station. Because he isn't, and it's not. I wouldn't listen. I'm sure others would. And for them? For their sake? I hope it's cool.

ZachsMind | May 27, 01:48 CET

They could get Katie Holmes to play Buffy (since she was originally offered the role on the TV show, I believe) and Tom Cruise could play Angel.

A world of no.

menomegirl | May 27, 01:50 CET

This whole thread is a world of no.

Emmie | May 27, 02:02 CET

All a non-Whedon Buffy movie would mean is that there are effectively two canons -- a situation that has worked fine for basically every major comic book franchise, sci-fi franchise, etc, ever. Even the very "Twilight" series that probably prompted this idea with the Kuzuis has two worlds now.

KingofCretins | May 27, 02:07 CET

I mean, let's face it, the Kuzui's made a bad movie with the original Buffy. However, they also apparently hold the rights to the franchise, so realistically, I can't see how anyone can stop them from making the movie. So the likely product, if it occurs as a reboot of Buffy is gonna be something like the Hitman movie...they try and fail. While I don't disagree with capitalizing on a good thing, I also don't think it should be worse than the source material. At the very least, Abrams' Star Trek movie established a separate continuity and was enjoyable to watch. It was (key word) an entertaining movie. If they can do something similar with Buffy, more power to them. If they can get Joss involved in a significant way so it ties into the current Buffy universe, the most power to them.

Basically, I don't agree with trying to make money on a reboot if the product is going to be worse than the original and the it has been proven that the people that are making it are not the best at what they do.

Rune | May 27, 02:27 CET

[ edited by Rune on 2009-05-27 02:28 ]

Rune | May 27, 02:27 CET

I hate reboots. Well, maybe except Reboot. But they shouldn't reboot Reboot.

redeem147 | May 27, 02:28 CET

Even the very "Twilight" series that probably prompted this idea with the Kuzuis has two worlds now.

Thing is, KoC, those two worlds are in different media. Plus: Buffy already effectively has this. The Buffy series is not a continuation of the Buffy movie, after all (it actively contradicts it in places).

So: making a movie of a well-loved book series makes sense. Remaking a story years after the original (like BSG or the recent Star Trek), or for a different language market makes sense. But the Buffy series is recent and still popular and there's no creative reason to think ressurecting it in a completely different way may be a good idea right now. Could it be a good movie if the Kazui's brought in first-rate talent, like you suggested above? Sure. Would it be anything I'm interested in, as a Buffy fan? No. Because it wouldn't add anything to Buffy or offer anything the overwhelmingly vast majority of its fans have any wish to see.

I do think that Kazui is probably in her legal right, as I understand these things (though as gossi notes, there's also a lot we don't know about the language on these particular rights). But I think "morally" it's wrong to exclude Joss (and I use quotes because morally is too strong a word for this). Apart from the legal arguments, Buffy is his. If there had just been the movie, I'd say: yes, he sold the rights and has to live with how it turned out. And he still does. But then he took over the creative process for the television show and made Buffy the icon it is today. Cashing in on his (and his fellow writers') years of hard, critically acclaimed, generally loved, work now because of a legal technicality seems completely wrong to me.

Having the right doesn't make it right, after all, and I for one won't pay even one penny to watch any movie of this sort and would actively campaign against other people spending any money on seeing it (if we could find a way of doing that without inadvertently advertising the movie).

GVH | May 27, 02:32 CET

This (rather strongly) reminds me of the Galactica rumor, from a few months back. Wasn't Universal developing a BSG movie that had nothing to do with the re-imagining, but was going to be a remake of the original? In fact, isn't this the exact same?

Feel free to shave my eyebrows, if someone has already brought this up.

Knuckleball | May 27, 02:41 CET

You say "apart from the legal arguments, Buffy is his". I have to ask -- is there no existential/moral/metaphysical/philosophical implication to his voluntarily sale of the legal right? Legality, after all, is what's enforceable -- the Kuzuis or Joss' ability to expect certain things in consideration of the exchange. But is that all a contract is? Does it have no moral content?

It's not a legal "technicality", it's a profound ethical principle that something given in fair exchange transfers fully to the recipient unless there is some agreed upon condition where it doesn't.

Joss has no moral right at all to block this movie, and I'm sure he knows that and wouldn't make an unethical attempt to do so. His moral right is to offer to purchase the rights back or to try to involve himself as part of the project.

KingofCretins | May 27, 02:44 CET

Even the very "Twilight" series that probably prompted this idea with the Kuzuis has two worlds now.

What, you mean Russet Noon? ;)

Lirazel | May 27, 02:47 CET

It must be a day for bad news... this story breaks on the same day that thieves burglarize me and steal ALL SEVEN SEASONS of my Buffy DVDs.

They skipped the "A"'s, so the Angel boxsets were safe...but all of the Babylon 5's disappeared, too.

Firefly didn't get stolen because I had it out on loan to a work friend.

I hate thieves. Where's a cute vengeance demon when I need one??

MikeTMC | May 27, 02:47 CET

Umm... you guys have been busy. 527 I'm impressed.

Wilhelm | May 27, 02:48 CET

You say "apart from the legal arguments, Buffy is his". I have to ask -- is there no existential/moral/metaphysical/philosophical implication to his voluntarily sale of the legal right?

KoC, technically you are right. Legally Kazui has every right to do this, and Joss has no right to stop it. Now let's note that these are two seperate things. If Joss was to misuse law and rights to stop this, that would be an abuse of power and a bad thing. If it turned out there's a legal way to stop it, I'd applaud that. But I'm not a legal expert. But my point wasn't about Joss stopping it, but about Kazui's decission to do this, which I feel is "morally" - if not legally - wrong.

You say: the sale is there, and as such it's morally binding. I say: real life is more complicated than that. In real life, Joss sold a script. He didn't get a very good deal, and he wasn't happy with the result. But he got what he signed on for. If nothing had happened afterwards and there'd been a sequel, or a reboot, or whatever, no one would have complained.

But now there's a television show. In which, yes, there's a character named Buffy and it's based on the movie for which he no longer owns the right. But he wants a chance to right what - in his eyes - was wrong and unworthy of his original vision. The resulting character and style of the show are so radically different, it's hard to even equate them as being the same thing to begin with. It's on this show that Joss - under Fox' supervision - toils for seven years (with the help of his ME writing stuff) and another five on a succesfull spin-off. It's this show and this work, and this different - more succesfull - vision, that markets the Buffy name and makes it an internationally succesfull brand. When we say Buffy, we don't think of the Kirsty Swanson version, but we think of SMG's work in seven seasons of Buffy. In many ways, this version of the character is as "new" as Willow, Xander, Giles, etcetera and it's this version people now equate with the name.

It's also this version and this body of work by Joss and his writing staff, that Kazui now seeks to profit from. If we understand things correctly, she doesn't intend to follow-up on the story, or any of these semi-nobel creative ideas. She owns the name Buffy, and wants to cash-in. There could easily be a new vampire slayer movie with not-Buffy in the lead, without any problems. But Kazui wants the name, since it might lead to more dollars, because of what Joss did with an almost-good-as-new version of the character featured in the movie made from the script he originally sold.

So sure, she may have the legal right to do this, but I say that we have to take the circumstances into account to judge it "morally". And when one does that, instinct tells us that it's "wrong" to reboot like this, taking advantage of someone else's work without even asking them. Because, really, that's just common decency, to at least talk to the man who has invested years of his life to - and obviously cares more about - this character, before doing something like this, even if one has the right to do so.

So I repeat: Kazui may have had the right, but that doesn't make all of this right.

GVH | May 27, 03:08 CET

Why are the Kuzuis The First Evil? From beneath us, they devour everything Buffy stand for. Weren't they happy ruining it once? They think a second time around will be better? Barf.

FiveBy5 | May 27, 03:19 CET

KVH- earlier today I taught a session to my scientific writing grad students on copyright law; I also teach bioethics. I am not sure you can support any part of what you say, on either legal or moral grounds- and I say this as a person who thinks the idea of what is happening here is wrong in so many ways I can barely count. Copyright is a commodity; it can be sold and once sold it no longer belongs to you, no matter what you did prior to selling it. Period. If the Kazuis own the rights to Buffy, they can do whatever they wish with it; they can try to make a new movie, or they can do nothing at all and prevent others from doing their own Buffy movie. It is highly likely that had Joss done the Wonder Woman movie, he would not own the rights to the script he wrote; that's just business in the writing world. It is a work for hire. You say Joss sold his script and did not get a good deal- but of course, Joss did not have to sell that script and if he did and accepted the money, he accepted all that went with doing so. Joss was not under any compunction to take the deal that was offered. He did, and he knew what it meant.

In the end, I think this is a lot of bluster about nothing. I cannot see this ever coming off. And I appreciate very much the post from the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-tc-ft-buffy-0526-0527may27,0,144907.story). It refers to this idea as the worst since the introduction of new Coke.

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2009-05-27 03:25 ]

Dana5140 | May 27, 03:25 CET

Fox or Joss needs to try to buy back the rights to Buffy. Just take these people out of the equasion. Then he can do a movie whenever he wants however he wants.

Obviously it's wrong on a moral issue, is that even in question? They are shitting on the guy that has made the Buffy cash cow even possible.

It's cool Zachsmind, we all have things we can and can not tolerate. For *me* I would have no interest in viewing Buffy on any screen if it wasn't Joss and/or the same actors playing the characters that *I* love. That's kinda why I put a "for me" in there. :) SMG is a huge part of that feeling for me. She is Buffy via Joss Whedons vision.

cheryl | May 27, 03:30 CET

I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Seriously!!! They cannot use the Star Trek excuse. Gene Rodenbery is dead!!! Joss Whedon is not dead nor is he going to be any time soon. I for one do not want to see a remake of Buffy....ever. It was a movie, it didn't work. It was an amazing, touching, terrific TV show that worked.

luv4whedon | May 27, 03:35 CET

SAVE US JOSS

mossoholic | May 27, 03:36 CET

I would be ok with a Slayer movie WITHOUT Buffy and the Scoobies. A new slayer with a new watcher (like Fray, loved that) would be okay. But, in the same breath, Fray was done by Joss. I just can't imagine BtVS without the Scoobies and the actors that played them. I'm sorry. I know that there are other fantastic actors out there but they set a mood. I mean, the comics are drawn in their likeness!!! They are BtVS.

luv4whedon | May 27, 03:43 CET

One day when the history of terrible ideas in cinema gets written, this will feature alongside "Citizen Kane 2: That's What She Sled" and the version of "Empire Strikes Back" where Jar Jar Binks replaces Chewie.

BananaSandwichMan | May 27, 03:46 CET

So do we have any idea what rights Joss/ME has regarding Buffy? Or are all the rights either owned by 20th or Kuzui depending on the right in question. If Dark Horse had wanted to do a Buffy comic that had the same characters as the show, could they have ignored Joss if they wanted to and just dealt solely with 20th?

batmarlowe | May 27, 04:13 CET

http://airlockalpha.com/news426367.html

This article supports my views. I don't agree with his views on the new Star Trek (and it's comparison to Shoemaker's Batmin); however, I think if we inserted a remake of Buffy the argument would work.

luv4whedon | May 27, 04:37 CET

This is the stupidest fucking idea ever. The Kuzuis may own the rights to Buffy, but we all know Buffy belongs to Joss. If this film is made without him, I refuse to go see it.

filmtx | May 27, 04:44 CET

This (rather strongly) reminds me of the Galactica rumor, from a few months back. Wasn't Universal developing a BSG movie that had nothing to do with the re-imagining, but was going to be a remake of the original? In fact, isn't this the exact same?

Feel free to shave my eyebrows, if someone has already brought this up.

Knuckleball | May 27, 02:41 CET

I've thought about it :D and I remember that kerfluffle. The problem is, there was a chance the reboot of BSG being good was high and at least for me, a million times better than the original. So in my mind I'd compare the original Buffy Movie to the original BSG and the Joss remake of Buffy to Moore's BSG.

Vinity | May 27, 04:54 CET

Is Ashton Kutcher here somewhere waiting to post a YOU GOT PUNKED?! This is the most vile, money grubbing, insulting news. I love and miss these characters so much, them to be cast aside for a little coin is just so... Yucky.
My only choice is to hope for the best, and maybe from all the fall out of crap ,some new canon Buffy will be written by the right people.
I liked the buffy movie, especially Paul Reuban, But the comparison is like a puddle, to a vast ocean of ideas and characters.
My vote is NO NO NO

silver81 | May 27, 07:30 CET

I take one day off from my computer and THIS is what happens?! Wow... Okay... I thought we already had April Fools? Bad idea... very bad.

Valerie | May 27, 11:19 CET

The thing is that we really don't need to give a shit about this happening. I'd put money on it never seeing the light of day but even if it somehow did get made then so what? It'll never really be seen as part of the true Buffyverse, regardless of whether they attempt to centre it on a new slayer so that it can be seen as part of the larger story. If this project goes ahead with no involvement from Joss then it's nothing we need to worry about either way. Let them make it. We don't need to accept it anymore than Doctor Who fans have to accept Dr Who and the Daleks.

Vinity, I think Knuckleball meant the rumour of yet another Galactica reboot, this time in movie form and not connected to the 2003 re-imagined series. Yep, reboots can happen less than a year after a show ends these days. Recycling is everything in the 21st century, y'know? ;)

Technopagan | May 27, 11:30 CET

Vinity, I was actually talking about a very recent development in the BSG franchise. Near the end of the RDM series, there was talk that Universal was developing a feature film with Glen Larson, focusing on the franchise as it was *before* Ron D. Moore took over. So all of the new/re-imagined characters would be gone and the Cylons would go back to being reptilians, etc.

Knuckleball | May 27, 11:33 CET

RockManic, high five for timing! ;P

Knuckleball | May 27, 11:35 CET

It's a gift! ;)

Technopagan | May 27, 11:37 CET

Ah, heck, you know, this is not a copyright issue, doh! It's a property rights issue, which differs. I forget this basic point- copyright only protects the fixed expression of an idea- stuff like scripts, etc. which are in fixed form. Buffy is a property, not owned by Joss. It does make you wonder how Joss got the rights to Buffy to do the comic book.

Okay, now I return you to your normal programming.

Dana5140 | May 27, 12:23 CET

"As a producer, I'm just trying to find a movie the studios want to make. It seems the core concept is the way to go." -- Roy Lee, Vertigo Entertainment

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004171.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

J Linc | May 27, 12:30 CET

I am not sure you can support any part of what you say, on either legal or moral grounds- and I say this as a person who thinks the idea of what is happening here is wrong in so many ways I can barely count.

Well, in all fairness Dana, I did use "morally" between quotes, because, like I stated above, I think it's too heavy handed a word to use. I state why I think what Kazui is doing is wrong, despite her having the legal right to do so. Now if we equate the law with morality, fine, I am not well-versed in that part of philosophy, etcetera.

But there's got to be some category - maybe basic human decency? - that covers why this would seem obviously wrong to me. If this is simply "right", morally, or from a sense of common decency, then I think my intuitive radar on these things must be severely damaged ;).

Again, cashing in on Joss' hard work (because he - and FOX, btw - made Buffy the brand it is today through their hard work on the show), without even asking him first is at the very least not very nice.

GVH | May 27, 14:21 CET

GVH, there are people who live near Wimbledon who make a lot of money each year renting out their houses during the tennis championships.
They are "cashing in" on the championships causing their houses to be very valuable for a couple of weeks each year. It's the Wimbledon Tournament who have done the hard work and created the demand, and these people are making a profit from it.
Is that not the same thing?
Are they "wrong"

If the Kuzui's got the rights by forging Joss's signature or getting him drunk and him losing Buffy in a game of poker then I'd say it would be wrong.
But the Kuzui's are the people who saw the potential in the original script, when maybe no one else did (Can't remember Joss saying there was a bidding war for it), they raised the money and got the film made. To 99% of screenwriters they would be the answer to their prayers!

To me it would be wrong to say "Thanks for spotting the script and raising all that money and making the film, but we like Joss so we're taking the rights away from you". That would be wrong.

zz9 | May 27, 14:31 CET

Is that not the same thing?
No it isn't. For one thing: this will damage the Buffy brand name, those people won't tarnish the reputation of Wimbledon: in my book the fact that they don't give a damn about tarnishing a (talented) mans live work for a few bucks just isn't the highest display of morallity. And they are also actually offering Wimbledon, the so called "Buffy movie" isn't actually offering Buffy (it will just dissapoint casual fans).

That would be wrong.
In your opinion maybe. IMO that would be totally right. When there are unexpected profits I'd at the very least be grateful to the man who brought them, instead of screwing him behind his back.

Anyway, completely agree with GVH. (And Gossi). This is plain wrong.

[ edited by the Groosalugg on 2009-05-27 15:28 ]

the Groosalugg | May 27, 15:20 CET

For one thing: this will damage the Buffy brand name

Since they, we assume, get royalties from all Buffy TV series and merchandise it is in their interest not to damage the brand. Of course what they consider right for the brand may well be different to what we would consider right.
But that's their right. If I owned a property I wouldn't let someone else tell me what I should or should not do with it.

When there are unexpected profits I'd at the very least be grateful to the man who brought them

They are not "Unexpected profits". Clearly they could not have predicted the success of Buffy but the very reason a producer owns all the sequel, spin off, remake etc rights is because they know that if the movie becomes a hit they will make profit down the line. Otherwise they would not have risked their money in the first place.
Most movies and TV shows fail.
Studios need to make vast profits on the few hits to pay for the losses of the failures.

Even with Buffy Fox sold every episode to the WB at a loss. Fox assumes they will make profit years down the line. It's not an "unexpected profit", it's what they are gambling on.

zz9 | May 27, 15:33 CET

But that's their right. If I owned a property I wouldn't let someone else tell me what I should or should not do with it.

Well, zz9, they don't own the entire property. They own a character and the rights to an original movie script. FOX owns the rights to the property which we all love, which is the television show and its spin-off, not the movie.

Their interests don't lie in what's best for the property we love, but their interests lie in what's the best way to quickly cash-in on the name still still own the rights to.

There was a way for them to do this with respect to the fans and Joss' hard work: go to him first and ask if he wanted to be onboard and possibly, offer him creative control. They didn't, they didn't even tell him. That's simply not a very decent thing to do.

GVH, there are people who live near Wimbledon who make a lot of money each year renting out their houses during the tennis championships.
They are "cashing in" on the championships causing their houses to be very valuable for a couple of weeks each year. It's the Wimbledon Tournament who have done the hard work and created the demand, and these people are making a profit from it.
Is that not the same thing?

No. This isn't a correct translation, because these people are not organising something different under the same name, don't own a part of Wimbledon - but not the part the fans love - etcetera. It simply does not work as an anology and doesn't represent the nuances in this particular case. In fact, I can't articulate an analogy that does work. It's a case unique to the entertainment industry and couldn't quite happen this way anywhere else.

GVH | May 27, 17:31 CET

GVH, my Wimbledon analogy was in response to your opinion that they were "cashing in on Fox's hard work" and in that respect the people living near the tournament are cashing in on someone else's work. They themselves didn't do anything to make their house valuable for those two weeks, they just happened to live close to some tennis matches.

There was a way for them to do this with respect to the fans and Joss' hard work: go to him first and ask if he wanted to be onboard and possibly, offer him creative control. They didn't, they didn't even tell him. That's simply not a very decent thing to do.

But what if they don't want to?
What if they have an idea for a Buffy story that they want to do? What if they genuinely believe that their vision was better than Joss's? Don't they have the right, if they own the movie rights, to do it their way?
Much as we believe that Joss is a great writer and he should be in charge we also have to accept that they may disagree, and we have no right, morally or legally, to impose our views on them.

The Buffy script didn't just land in their lap. They didn't steal it from Joss while he wasn't looking. They didn't pay with a bounced check. They read the script and saw the potential and raised to money to buy it and make the movie.
Joss grew up in the business and would have known full well what he was signing.

We do not have the right to simply demand that they hand their rights over to someone else, even if that someone else is the original writer.

zz9 | May 27, 17:48 CET

There really aren't any nuances here. The real issue, if we want to simply put it on the table, is that since Joss was the person who had the original vision, and who took the movie that was screwed up and made it into a successful TV program, we feel that decency would ask that Joss be the person involved in any new movie, even though he does not own the rights. In essence, we are saying the Kazuis are not respecting what Joss did; however, there is no legal reason they have to, since in fact they hold the rights. This is a simple business issue. And to that extent, I am not surprised to see Joss make no real comment; he knows all of this.

Writers don't own the scripts they write for TV programs; they are works for hire. They get paid to write, so they write. Joss had a vision, but he did not have the financing to bring his vision to the screen at the time the first movie was done; therefore, he had to arrnage the means to do that, and he did- he sold the rights in order to make the movie. This happens all the time in movie land. Same as it did for JK Rowling, for Steven King, for whomever. Once you sell the rights, you don't have any say, unless you negotiated that in your contract. It seems apparent that Joss did not so negotiate, so it is moot for him. He can but sit and watch. Sadly, to be sure.

Dana5140 | May 27, 17:53 CET

I agree almost entirely, Dana.

With the sidenote that when I talk about nuance in this case, I mean something along the lines of: "we feel that decency would ask that Joss be the person involved in any new movie, even though he does not own the rights. In essence, we are saying the Kazuis are not respecting what Joss did", just like you wrote. In fact, I'd even say that approaching him first would've been enough. If he then chose to pass on it, I wouldn't have any trouble with them doing this. It still wouldn't be a movie I'd be interested in, but I wouldn't feel it was a cheap trick and wrong.

This is really all I'm saying. I feel the way the Kuzui's are handling this is disrespectfull to Joss and to the fans who are a fan of the work Joss did and disrespectfull of the work owned by FOX (apart from the Buffy character). They could at the very least express some gratitude or show that they realise that Joss and his show are what made this property so valuable to begin with.

I also think the rights issue might not be as clear-cut as we're pretending here, although I lack relevant legal knowlegde and, more importantly, everyone lacks knowlegde of the exact language of the contracts signed, we're all just assuming a whole bunch of things.

We assume FOX owns everything apart from the name and the Buffy character associated with the show, we assume the Kuzui's have the first rights to Buffy and the name "Buffy the vampire slayer", etcetera. But fact is: we can't be sure.

Also, it's not like when J.K. Rowling sells the movie rights to her books. It's not that the Kuzui's own the movie rights to the television show or anything like that. They don't own the exclusive rights to Buffy the vampire slayer in that medium, they - as far as we're assuming - own the original rights to Buffy in any medium, but they don't own any of the rest of the current franchise which is loved by fans.

I imagine that if FOX wanted to make a continuation of the show in movie form, they probably could, as long as they payed the Kuzui's for using the Buffy character. But if the Kuzui's wanted to do the same, they probably couldn't. No, they just own the character and the title. Probably in any way, shape or form. But: we just don't know. We haven't seen the contracts and fact is we can only guess at how these rights are distributed exactly.

zz9, your comment on Wimbledon works for that part, and that part only. Because in this case these people would be profitting from someone else's work in a very different, uncomparable, way. In fact, in your example, these people would actually be supporting the main event. They're offering supplemental services for attending fans. It is, with all respect, in no way comparable to the issue at hand :).

Also, I would completely agree with you, zz9, if there had just been the movie. But the television show, owned by FOX, which made the brand name popular and which was Joss' baby, changes the landscape for me. Not in a legal sense, I was never saying that. And Joss wouldn't be in his rights or would be "morally" (again, I use this term very loosely) right to try to stop this. I, however, also think that the way the Kuzui's handled this wasn't very decent.

They are using the name which has come to refer to something very different from what they own, to market something yet again completely different and at the same time are disrespectfull to the person who made the brand valuable in the first place and the fans of the franchise bearing said name. It's legaly simple, but the basis on which I'm judging the Kuzui's actions as being wrong, is more complex. Can they do it? Yes. Are there laws which require people to be decent about things? No, thankfully not, we can't make anyone act decently, wether we'd want to or not, which is a good thing. But we can still look at something and go: "oh, this wasn't very decent or respectfull, I'm not supportive of the way this went down."

GVH | May 27, 18:54 CET

It is a tad different for authors like Rowling and King. In the book market you don't sell the property, just allow the publisher to use it for a few years, Rowling and King still own them and are free to make movie deals on their terms, and since their properties are valuable they have the power to get things like script approval, director approval etc.

And it's true that Joss has increased the value of the Buffy franchise over the last ten years. But then he has (we hope) been fairly paid for that work by Fox and he has also seen his personal reputation grow as much, maybe even more, that that of Buffy. So to imply that he's slaved away making Buffy valuable for no gain while the evil Kuzui's suddenly swoop in and take the rewards is unfair.

There is no one more outspoken about the way writers are treated in Hollywood than me. I'm a writer and I flew eight thousand miles to walk the picket line (on three days) during the strike.

But even I don't think a writer should be able to happily sell a property, cash the check, and then years later claim some "moral ownership" over that property or demand that I be consulted on a remake.

Edit: GVH, I take your points, and we are all just speculating.
But how do we know they haven't spoken to Joss or Fox?
I suspect that Fox may well want to make a Buffy movie but need the Kuzui's permission and they are demanding a lot of money. This announcement could be their way of reminding Fox that they hold the cards.

Maybe they have talked to Joss? Maybe he said "No thanks"? Maybe her told them to "Go #@$& themselves!"? maybe he asked for too much money? Maybe they feel he insulted them years ago? There's only a couple of people who know what's going on and they aren't talking.

[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-27 19:06 ]

zz9 | May 27, 18:57 CET

But even I don't think a writer should be able to happily sell a property, cash the check, and then years later claim some "moral ownership" over that property or demand that I be consulted on a remake.

Well, to be fair, I don't think that either :). All I'm saying is that it would've been the decent thing for the Kuzui's to offer it, wether they were obliged to or not.

But how do we know they haven't spoken to Joss or Fox?

Maybe they have spoken to Fox, but the article states that they have not spoken to Joss (although it's somehow not working for me to check that right now).

GVH | May 27, 19:12 CET

They may have lied. :)

If Joss said no then what could they say? "We spoke to Joss. He told us to go #*&£ ourselves"

We're not going to find out until someone blabs.

I take your point about doing the decent thing. But without knowing the relationship between them we won't know whether that would be reasonable.

zz9 | May 27, 19:52 CET

How could they do this to Joss???

It's blasphemy.

TawnyJayne | May 28, 01:45 CET

I think this wouldn't bother me as much if Joss had said emphatically that he would never do another Buffyverse project again (not including comics).

Then I could just ignore it like it doesn't exist... no harm, no foul.

It's just that I've been hoping beyond hope that he in fact would do a movie at some point. If this Buffy Kuzui film gets made, it seems to me that it would make it much less likely that we'd ever get a real one.

bionicvapourdude | May 28, 19:20 CET

On May 26 Ausiello quotes Joss' response to the idea of a BtVS movie without him as, "I hope it's cool."

Not a raging denouement.

So A) Joss may know all about it and be ready to shut it down; or B) Joss has NO dogs, not even a puppy in this fight legally so never mind; or C) Joss knows all about it and is just playing with us until he feels the time is right to reveal all; or D) Phlebotinum occurs.

I'd like to see Joss do the story of another slayer with a whole new backup band. While there are threads from the original TV series that could be knitted up, it's a wide-open future. New characters to love and hate, new situations, new, new, new!!!!!

ETA: As to the rights legalities, "decency" is not a quantifiable element included in most (if any) business transactions in the U.S., being trumped as it is by "profit".

[ edited by falina on 2009-05-29 00:58 ]

falina | May 28, 22:53 CET

I'm not gonna get into the whole legal issues discussion, because frankly, law makes me sleepy. But suffice it to say, my feelings about this whole Kuzui debacle can be summed up with these three words:

DO. NOT. WANT.

missfs | May 29, 11:34 CET

I'm uninterested. It acutally doesn't bother me: I managed to avoid the original Buffy-Movie, and I will have no trouble avoiding any possible future Buffy-movie if it looks like sh**. Nothing will make the seven seasons of Buffy and five seasons of Angel on my DVD shelf go away.
Well, that's not true. An EMP might delete their data, or they might burn in a fire in my flat. Or they might get scratched.
Damn, now I'm worried.

Jakob Schmidt | May 29, 12:26 CET

When I read Joss's comment, I laughed because it could mean so many things while sounding so innocuous. I also felt like this could be a reaction to something that Joss has always been aware could happen at any time the Kuzuis got it in their heads to try.

newcj | May 30, 21:37 CET

NOOOOOOOOOO.....blasphemy! To quote Giles, "the earth is doomed." Sigh.

buffyfanatic18 | May 30, 22:03 CET

Would anybody be against an Angel movie, without the Great? No offense Joss, all love!

dr kongker | June 01, 05:52 CET

dr kongker - good point. Who owns Angel rights?? Not the Buffy people, as I remember strict restrictions on crossovers, like almost none. This didn't hurt Angel, as he grew into his strengths. It's always seemed to me that the Angel buzz was overshadowed by the blonde, though.

Kuzuis own what - the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' name and concept??

Does 20th c own Sunnydale and the supporting characters?? I understand Joss owns nothing except Dr. Horrible.

falina | June 01, 19:31 CET

Oh please , Buffy has been on a need to reboot since season seven's "Potental." I'm really looking forward to this movie .

It's a great new world , and taking chances is what makes it big!

brunooracle | June 02, 00:27 CET

*Potential

brunooracle | June 02, 00:28 CET

It's a great new world , and taking chances is what makes it big!

Funny. So far, with the lone exception of the "Batman" franchise (haven't seen "Star Trek" yet, so I'll leave it out for now,) every chance that this great new world has taken in "rebooting" an existing franchise has just ended up making it crap, far as I can tell.

Rowan Hawthorn | June 02, 03:51 CET

Looks like Anthony Head aka the beloved Giles wouldn't even see the movie let alone make an appearance in a Kuzui made movie and/or a non-Joss Buffy movie. (Yes, an of course the not make an appearance is sort of an unstated fact, seeing as he didn't say as much, but if he's not seeing it, he undoubtedly will not want to be in it.)

Head Slams Buffy Movie

He says, “I wouldn’t want to see it, no. The Kuzuis didn’t do a great job on the movie the first time around. It was Joss’ script at the age of 19, but they changed a lot of it. They said, ‘Look, we know best and we know how to make this movie,’ and it became quite schlocky and high camp. It would be madness to do (the movie) without Whedon. It may be a bit like watching a car wreck.”

It's good to see that more people respect the work of Joss Whedon and see the untalented for who they really are (yes, Kuzuis I'm talking about you.)

activebrowncoat | June 02, 09:03 CET

This movie will defy physics by both sucking and blowing at the same time. Why don't they reboot Twilight? That's at least 6 months old, seems to have a fanbase, and desperately needs recasting...

nugent2112 | June 02, 15:41 CET

My guess is that they wanna do a movie and Joss hasn't expressed any interest in doing a movie, and they are doing this to kind of force him into writing it. Which I'd be totally down for, sorry Joss.

But if not, and they are truly rebooting the mythos, then, eff that.

MikeyB | June 02, 21:36 CET

Joss's latest comments on the matter puts the situation in a different light for me. Joss has pretty much had his say with the characters for several years and still does with the comic series. If Joss is open to someone else working with and reinventing the franchise then I'd feel pretty pompous thumbing my nose at it. The worst that could happen is that its a total stinker that nobody pays attention to and relegated to the 5$ DVD bins. The best that could happen is that its an awesome "reboot" and suddenly Joss gets his wish about Buffy being an iconic franchise character granted.

crippledlion | June 03, 01:31 CET

May 26 2009