May 27 2009
Variety has more on the Buffy reboot movie.
Vertigo principal Roy Lee says "Now seems like the right time, studios are looking for a franchise and vampires are relevant again" and "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".
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
gossi | May 27, 03:52 CET
Andy Dufresne | May 27, 03:53 CET
Caroline | May 27, 03:56 CET
gossi | May 27, 03:56 CET
Leaf | May 27, 04:00 CET
gossi | May 27, 04:02 CET
There you go. No need to read the article now.
williamthebloody1880 | May 27, 04:11 CET
Just seems to me like we've been under the impression that a Buffy movie happening at all is unlikely and now this story comes along and it's suddenly possible? Naturally the version we want involves Joss, Sarah and the rest all being willing to reprise their roles but if they were up for it then is now not the perfect opportunity for those talks to happen?
The Arcane | May 27, 04:15 CET
Also, assuming you've all read the same 'interview' link posted here that I did, Joss isn't bothered; so I don't think we should be, either.
captainforehead | May 27, 04:19 CET
captainforehead, this isn't execs at Fox trying to set up another Buffy movie. It's people who, frankly, are trying to profit on something who probably shouldn't be. This isn't about giving the Buffy fans what they want. It's about milking a commercial property. That's not a creative story I want to see.
[ edited by gossi on 2009-05-27 13:21 ]
gossi | May 27, 04:19 CET
Paint A Vulgar Picture keeps going through my head.
Simon | May 27, 04:21 CET
Excellent tags, Simon!
JotheCat | May 27, 04:25 CET
And once again I state that "milking a commercial product", as you put it, is the job of these people. We all have to make money somehow, and I think it's unfair to criticize these people for making the best of an opportunity to do their jobs. And to be blunt, the job of nearly everyone in gainful employment is to make money, not to cater to others regardless of profit. It's not nice, and it's not the way things should be, but that's how it is for everyone, I believe.
[ edited by captainforehead on 2009-05-27 13:33 ]
[ edited by captainforehead on 2009-05-27 13:33 ]
captainforehead | May 27, 04:29 CET
The patent office would be the wrong place to look. Protections occur as copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret; it seems the likeliest protection here would be as a trademark (like Disney with Mickey Mouse). Copyright is for fixed expression, such as scripts, etc. Patents are for inventions that are novel and new, etc.
As I read the Variety article, it seems that the people doing this are not even really interested in the movie as a movie, just as another commodity. This'll never happen.
[ edited by Dana5140 on 2009-05-27 15:44 ]
Dana5140 | May 27, 04:34 CET
Because it stinks of a a cheap shoddy cash-in and a cynical effort to make money off Joss, Mutant Enemy, the cast and 20th Century Fox's backs. There's no love for the character or the franchise here.
Simon | May 27, 04:36 CET
They may not have come by the rights in an underhanded manner, but I'm tired of living in the decade of the remake/reimagining. I care more about Buffy than I do Friday the 13th or Texas Chainsaw Massacre or 90210, but on a whole it really grates my cheese the way people in the entertainment industry continue to cash in on properties that aren't even cold yet.
CrazyKidBen | May 27, 04:37 CET
Dana, the production company (Vertigo) is a movie production company. They've hooked up with Kuzui Enterprises, who (say) they own the BUFFY rights. Vertigo have also hooked up recently with 20th Century Fox. And SMG. For seperate projects, but still, my alarm bells are going off all over the map with this one. 20th wouldn't be stupid enough. Surely.
gossi | May 27, 04:41 CET
If you don't like the idea, don't support it, but there's no reason for anyone to attack a project like this or the people behind it.
captainforehead | May 27, 04:41 CET
A few years later, yarn stores everywhere have dusty piles of cheap scarf yarn taking up space on their sale tables, and the publishers aren't quite as crazy for knitting books anymore.
So. For "cheap scarf yarn," insert "crappy movie reboot real knitters...ummm, Buffy fans...don't care about" and for "publishers" insert "production companies intent on cashing in on this vampire thing" and you've got pretty much the same situation. It sucked in my day job and it's gonna suck here.
[ edited by knitgrrl on 2009-05-27 13:50 ]
knitgrrl | May 27, 04:44 CET
JK Rowling owns the rights to Harry Potter. But she sold the movie rights to a studio. Once she did that she no longer had the right to make a HP movie. The studio did.
Without knowing who owns what and who has sold/assigned/licensed what to who we are just speculating.
But it's clear that the Kuzui's did own the movie rights (They made the first movie) and it's clear that they, and Vertigo, believe they won the rights today. Add the fact that Fox have not publicly slapped them down or threatened legal action and it looks more and more like the Kuzui's really do own the movie rights.
If so then Fox may be unable to make a movie without the Kuzui's. Maybe the Kuzui's want lots of money from Fox to let them make a Buffy movie and this is their way of putting pressure on Fox?
zz9 | May 27, 04:44 CET
Oh, I'm not saying that they necessarily do, gossi. My question is based on the assumption that they would be though.
It just seems to me that if it was my work that someone was planning on rebooting without my help or consent (regardless of there being no legal requirement side of the issue) I'd kinda want to see what I could do about getting in there first, y'know? If there was suddenly a chance that a Buffy movie could realistically happen then I'd want to be the one writing it and getting the rewards and credit that I deserved.
I said in the first thread that as fans I don't really think this movie being made should bother us all that much. We simply don't watch it if we don't want to. If I was Joss however, I'd have an entirely different viewpoint right now and it wouldn't be quite so rational.
The Arcane | May 27, 04:45 CET
Please let them talk to writers from the series, that's our only hope at this point. Jane Espenson is not really available I guess, but Drew Goddard or Marti Noxon would be as awesome. I think fan action should try to go this way.
Léo | May 27, 04:47 CET
The thought has crossed my mind. 20th Century Fox do make a fair bit from the franchise and I would doubt they would want anything to devalue it. I was also wondering if the vehement fan (and media) backlash has had an impact.
Simon | May 27, 04:47 CET
Rowan Hawthorn | May 27, 04:50 CET
zeitgeist | May 27, 04:51 CET
twinkle | May 27, 04:55 CET
By keeping the Kuzui's on board - which they have - they can stick in the trailers "From the producers of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER". Factually true, for both the movie and the TV show.
gossi | May 27, 04:56 CET
zeitgeist | May 27, 05:03 CET
By keeping the Kuzui's on board - which they have - they can stick in the trailers "From the producers of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER". Factually true, for both the movie and the TV show.
Please gossi, stop fueling these people ;)
But seriously, damn that's a grim prospect.
the Groosalugg | May 27, 05:05 CET
[ edited by alien lanes on 2009-05-27 14:16 ]
alien lanes | May 27, 05:10 CET
Without them the movie would very likely never have been made.
So they are also responsible for Joss being able to do the Buffy TV series, Angel, the Comics etc. Without the movie I doubt Fox would have let him do the show.
zz9 | May 27, 05:12 CET
To misquote the end of Becoming Part Two: Ohh, Si needs a hug.
Craig Oxbrow | May 27, 05:22 CET
I agree the Kuzui's deserve some credit for their work in making Buffy happen, but the shamelessness and the total lack of gratetude or care for the man that made the name Buffy (which is all that they're going to use) what it is, by people who have already gotten paid so much for doing relatively little is still upsetting. I'm actually quite upset by the mere realisation that the copyrights management system is so botched that someone as talented as Joss has to sign away all this rights to get a movie made. The fact that something as damaging as this can get made and stuff like Once more with feeling screenings gets torpedoed is kinda depressing.
This is done so obviously without any care for the artistic qualities of the product, it's just a quick way to score some bucks on the supposed vampire hype, there's no care whatsoever for the way it can damage the Buffy brand name.
And then there also is the fact that this not a Buffy movie in any way: it's like selling apple-pie without the apple and the pie. I imagine a lot of Buffy fans will go and see it and will be dissapointed: in my book it's basically just a fraud.
the Groosalugg | May 27, 05:46 CET
twinkle | May 27, 05:52 CET
Dana, you said this in another thread, too. But I think you're wrong about it. The central IP concern here is most likely copyright. Copyright DOES cover fixed expressions (the work ahs to be embodied in a fixed expression like a script or painting or whatever, not an unfixed one like an unrecorded performance), but once the work is fixed a lot of 'intangible' stuff like character, plot, etc. gets protected by it. It's copyright infringement to make a movie with the Buffy character in it, even if your movie doesn't copy any part of the fixed expressions (movie, TV shows, comics) where Buffy has appeared before. So, the rights we are talking about here are almost definitely copyrights. In particular, they are the movie rights (which is to say, the right to make a movie based on a particular copyrighted work - where "based on," again, need not mean copying exactly from its previous fixed incarnation).
There are also probably Trademark issues (the logo and stuff), but those are almsot definitely secondary.
Patents, as you rightly point out, have nothing to do with this.
Septimus | May 27, 05:57 CET
jiggyfly | May 27, 06:03 CET
zeitgeist | May 27, 06:06 CET
What would you suggest?
Movies and TV series cost tens of millions of dollars to make. Would anyone invest that kind of money, risking it all with a very big chance of losing it, into a project if they didn't own the property?
If you rented a house and it needed $10k spending on it to repair the roof would you pay? When the landlord could kick you out a month later? If you own the house you'll pay, knowing you will get the benefit from it.
Writers don't have to sell their script. They can make the movie themselves, like Kevin Smith and Mel Gibson have done. (And with the internet and high quality digital camcorders that is getting easier and easier) You take the risk and you get the reward.
If you're saying that the studios should risk their money but the writer keeps the rights then it's the writer benefiting from the studio's efforts. The studio would be taking the risk and the writer getting all the benefit from sequels, remakes, etc.
Most movie fail. Most TV shows fail. Studios and investors have to be able to make huge profits on the hits to pay for the losses on the many failures. To do that they have to own the rights.
Even with this "unfair" ownership and being able to make profits for years down the line quite a few studios have gone bankrupt.
Without owning the rights all the studios would have gone bust years ago.
zz9 | May 27, 06:06 CET
But the owner of the copyright may not own the movie rights.
JK Rowling owns Harry Potter, but she sold the movie rights to a studio. If she then announced that she was going to make her own harry Potter movie that studio could sue her. They own the movie rights, not her.
The Kuzui's could easily have sold the copyright to Fox but said "We want to keep the movie rights". At the time, a failed movie and a show that maybe last a year or so on a tiny network, Fox could have said "Yeah, sure. Whatever" rolling their eyes at the thought that anyone would ever want to make another Buffy movie.
zz9 | May 27, 06:13 CET
Joss may not have wanted to do a Buffy movie now but it seems as if he might not have a choice, if he wants to preserve Buffy's good name. Same with Fox, are they really going to let these people rob them like this.
I can't believe they are trying to freaking reboot Buffy. It boggles the mind and makes my skin crawl.
cheryl | May 27, 06:25 CET
Indeed, I wonder if the Kuzuis are in fact the legal creators of Firefly, Serenity, Sugarshock,Dollhouse or Dr Horrible? After all, these were all sold on the basis that Joss Whedon was the "creator" of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is at least in part false. (We don't say that Dan O'Bannon or Robert Shusset "created" Alien, or that Drew Goddard "created" Cloverfield, now do we?) I'm not a lawyer, so I might be very wrong on the law, but methinks that Joss Whedon may not even be entitled to be regarded as the "creator" of anything at all, even Dr Horrible or Sugarshock.
Would the Kuzuis even regard ownership and retrospective creatorship of, and back royalties for, these things as adequate compensation for the deception they've been subjected to for the past 17 years? I don't know. But it seems like they deserve some recompense for the way their role regarding Buffy has been played down. Maybe they wouldn't accept anything less than life imprisonment. Or maybe they could be bought off with as little as, say, ten billion dollars. Who knows?
serose | May 27, 06:31 CET
IMMORTAL | May 27, 06:34 CET
The Kazuis have their name in everything. I don't think they need to steal someone else's project to make money. And yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Kazuis didn't help create Buffy, helped ruin it and now will steal what Joss has done that eventually made it great.
NuVanessa | May 27, 06:43 CET
We aren't talking about a $60M franchise movie here with serious potential at the box office. We are talking about something cheap, dirty, filmed in Turkey in three weeks and thrown into the international cinema and going straight to DVD in the US.
Just a quick buck and a total devaluing of the franchise. Makes perfect business sense and also makes me sick.
IrrationaliTV | May 27, 06:43 CET
Joss may not have wanted to do a Buffy movie now but it seems as if he might not have a choice, if he wants to preserve Buffy's good name. Same with Fox, are they really going to let these people rob them like this.
Sorry, but the Kuzui's bought Buffy from Joss. He took the money, like every writer who ever sells a spec script.
As much as we hate the idea of this movie it does like the Kuzui's own it. Why should they have to "come up with another vampire idea"?
And they are not "Robbing" Fox. If Fox did not buy the movie rights then Fox do not own the movie rights. If Fox made a Buffy move without the Kuzui's they would be robbing them, just as they needed the Kuzui's permission to make the TV series.
Serose, I've never gone with the "Auteur" theory, at least when it comes to a spec script. With a spec it is the writer who originated the movie. It's the writer who created the story, plot, characters, dialogue and the director and actors are following their blueprints.
So I have no doubt Joss "Created" Buffy.
zz9 | May 27, 06:44 CET
narky | May 27, 06:46 CET
The Kazuis have their name in everything. I don't think they need to steal someone else's project to make money. And yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Kazuis didn't help create Buffy, helped ruin it and now will steal what Joss has done that eventually made it great.
The Kuzui's bought Buffy from Joss. He sold them his spec script and with it all the rights. He took the money and cashed the check.
You can't steal something if you already own it.
And the fact that we have not heard anyone at Fox slapping them down just proves they do own the movie rights.
Much as I suspect this movie would (if it ever gets made) suck big time I know that if I was in their position I would not let anyone else tell me what I should do with my property.
zz9 | May 27, 06:49 CET
But the owner of the copyright may not own the movie rights.
Yeah, that's what I was saying, zz9.
It seems clear, from what we know, that the Kuzuis own (at least) the movie rights. (They may also own the TV rights, for all we know, having just licensed them to FOX rather than sold them.)
[ edited by Septimus on 2009-05-27 15:51 ]
Septimus | May 27, 06:51 CET
They might genuinely believe, to this day, they they were right and Joss's script was bad and that they made it better.
If they get royalties from the TV series and all the merchandising then it's in their interest to not damage the brand. It's a question of what they think is good and what is good.
zz9 | May 27, 06:54 CET
Missed your point. My bad.
zz9 | May 27, 06:57 CET
I have rarely ever seen a fan outcry to match this one in the 2 days since this announcement went public. I do not recall anywhere near this kind of concern with the Star Trek reboot, which had the cultural cache of JJ Abrams attached. Buffy without Joss is nowhere near as safe. I do not believe this will ever come off, since the initial reaction to the float was so highly negative. Only having Joss involved would rectify the situation. I still wonder if that is the real goal.
[ edited by Dana5140 on 2009-05-27 16:01 ]
Dana5140 | May 27, 07:00 CET
Well, what they thought was good flopped. I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or worse.
[ edited by nyrk on 2009-05-27 16:03 ]
nyrk | May 27, 07:02 CET
Plus, knitgrrl, they both involve pointy sticks.
barboo | May 27, 07:07 CET
I don't know these people, the Kazuis, except for one film, back in the 80s, which in my mind was only mildly amusing and not terribly noteworthy. Whether they own the rights to make another film is pretty irrelevant to me when I know if they do, it will ride on the cachet of all the hard work of Joss Whedon and his hard-working actors, writers, show runners, artists, and crews over the years, because by association, it is Joss' work that would catapult anything bearing the Buffy moniker (or even just alluding to Buffy tangentially) into a film production of interest. That's what raises my hackles into pointy points. That old Buffy movie is like a cheap corndog at a backwoods country fair, while the series and now Season 8, was/are fine filet mignon. I don't think other people ought to profit off of that.
[ edited by Tonya J on 2009-05-27 17:25 ]
Tonya J | May 27, 07:27 CET
[play the ball not the man] -Simon
[ edited by Simon on 2009-05-27 16:57 ]
Egghead | May 27, 07:30 CET
[ edited by dorkenheimer on 2009-05-27 17:11 ]
dorkenheimer | May 27, 08:03 CET
Shapenew | May 27, 08:21 CET
@theonetruebix | May 27, 08:25 CET
So what the hell is left? A girl fights vampires and a British guy watches
Let Down | May 27, 08:28 CET
Told from the actual POV of the British guy, who isn't a Watcher, but a Stalker!
@theonetruebix | May 27, 08:32 CET
[ edited by gossi on 2009-05-27 17:36 ]
gossi | May 27, 08:36 CET
If they own the movie they should own the right to remake it (and a remake can change so much that it really is a new movie. Think Thunderball and Never Say Never) and use the characters from the original.
But because Willow, Xander, Gles et al were created for Fox they can not use those.
zz9 | May 27, 08:36 CET
The most likely explanation is that Variety messed that sentence up.
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-05-27 17:44 ]
@theonetruebix | May 27, 08:43 CET
It is certainly hard to see how they can make a movie that trades on the Buffy name, without a character named "Buffy" in it. Will it be "Buffy, the Next Generation", or what?
[ edited by toast on 2009-05-27 17:45 ]
toast | May 27, 08:43 CET
And I only mentioned it because I hope he doesn't get barraged with questions about it.
@theonetruebix | May 27, 08:49 CET
toast | May 27, 08:53 CET
gossi | May 27, 09:00 CET
Seems unlikely. Sounds like the whole idea is to do this on the cheap, hence no Joss, no Fox, no actors.
Stuff like this is why Felicia was really smart to keep the rights to The Guild.
hacksaway | May 27, 09:03 CET
I would love a Fray movie.
Brasilian Chaos Man | May 27, 09:03 CET
A) This is being done by people who have only the most tenuous of connections with the BtVS property, and is being done without any regard to the property's already existing franchise entities
B) If the Kuzuis' attempt fails, it could irrevocably damage the existing franchise, which will be forced to try and protect itself from the stigma of being associated with a crappy movie which shares its title and basic concepts
DigificWriter | May 27, 09:07 CET
And why Joss is so eager to work outside the studio system, I'd guess.
the Groosalugg | May 27, 09:09 CET
Having finally seen Goldfinger I now know the difference.
Anyoen curious, the Kuzuis were responsible for Rugrats I think.
Hmm, none of the characters? Not Pike, who still has fans? No MErrick? Not even the "turtle" character herself?
[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2009-05-27 18:37 ]
DaddyCatALSO | May 27, 09:09 CET
It's like a VD heard my pain at no movie and smiled wickedly as it whispered "Done". Gives a whole new meaning to the saying "careful what you wish for" and the concept of actually getting it, but turns out that IT morphs into the worse thing imaginable.
cheryl | May 27, 09:14 CET
Vinity | May 27, 09:15 CET
Yes according to the legal blurb in the trade paperback.
Simon | May 27, 09:17 CET
Ads in the HR? Another billboard campaign? Postcard letters to Fox? Messages seem to be mixed here on the best way to react. Or not react at all, which it seems a little too late for anyway.
cheryl | May 27, 09:36 CET
gossi | May 27, 09:40 CET
katetwo | May 27, 09:51 CET
Caroline | May 27, 10:01 CET
serose | May 27, 10:14 CET
killinj | May 27, 10:16 CET
Simon | May 27, 10:19 CET
@theonetruebix | May 27, 10:19 CET
Giles'chainsawchick | May 27, 10:21 CET
gossi | May 27, 10:22 CET
ichmaelyttt | May 27, 10:24 CET
I posted a while ago about writers keeping some separated rights on properties they sell it's part of the WGA standard contract. Joss may well be free to write a Fray comic but not be able to make a Fray movie without the Kuzui's and/or Fox.
zz9 | May 27, 10:28 CET
The LOTR movies are copyrighted by New Line Cinemas (or whoever made them). But, they are ALSO covered by the original Tolkien copyright. I can't make a comic book based on the movies with jsut the permission of New Line Cinemas; I also need the permission of the Tolkien estate. (That permission may or may not have been granted to New Line along with the movie adaptation rights.)
So, similarly, Fray is copyrighted by Joss. But it can ALSO be covered by the Kuzuis original copyright. No-one (including Joss) could make Fray movie without getting the rights from both Joss and the Kuzuis. (Again, that permission may or may not have been granted to Joss when he made the comic book.)
It can be evne more complicated than that, with different types of rights (adaptation rights, movie rights, etc. etc.) and different owners (at least joss, the Kuzuis, FOX, and Dark Horse), but the fundamental principle is the same. One work can be covered by mroe than one copyright and adapting it requires the permission of ALL the copyright holders.
Septimus | May 27, 10:39 CET
I just keep thinking surely anyone in talks to put money up for this movie would look, not just at the extreme fan response which really is a very limited number of the Buffy fans as a whole and could be discounted, but at the fact not one single Internet reporter that I have seen has suggested it was a good idea without Joss.
Edited to say thanks to Gossi for putting up a website. Good to see you are still willing to put that much time and energy into this fandom.
[ edited by Vinity on 2009-05-27 19:42 ]
Edited again after reading Septimous {prolly spelled that wrong, sorry} post about copyright. Good lord! How does anything ever get done? I guess by passing money around :(
[ edited by Vinity on 2009-05-27 19:45 ]
Vinity | May 27, 10:41 CET
zz9 | May 27, 10:43 CET
However, the fact that the Kuzuis' are on Angel's credits, that seems to suggest that they have some sort of right thereafter to the "verse" as it were.
However, the comments on within these articles indicates that the characters Joss created for the TV show may not be allowed to be used, which would suggest that he has control over how these are used.
It's all a bit convoluted.
So, we could have a film about Buffy - but would they be allowed to mention anything about what she'd been through in the TV Show? Probably. But it wouldn't make sense as presumably she wouldn't be able to reference anyone by name?
This is all apart from the fact that what we(or I should say I) want to see is a continuation of the relationships set up in the TV show.
They could make up a new slayer, who happens to also be called Buffy, so they could still cash in on the name. I seems a bit ludicrous to actually reboot the character of Buffy Summers herself hoping Buffy fans will watch that.
And then I still come back for the reason behind this at all. To make money from the fact that what's really popular is the one thing they can't give me.
As Anya said "and I really don't want to take a tour of pretty things that I can't have".
Now - if they were to go back to Joss and go down the Tales of Slayer root, with his input, I would go see it. However, I just can't see him working with them again and quite frankly I would not blame him.
bubblecat | May 27, 10:47 CET
It's very likely that the Kuzui's did a deal with Fox for "A TV show based on Buffy and any derivative works"
Edit: Bubblecat, Buffy didn't have a surname in the movie. "Summers" was written for the TV show, so (we assume) the Kuzui's couldn't call her Summers.
[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-27 19:50 ]
zz9 | May 27, 10:48 CET
It's that pesky "and any derivative works" line then that f**ked it all up. Darn.
Well, speaking from my own view-point, I'm not really interested in the "concept" of Buffy. They have no writer on this yet, do they? No script. And Fox have still to have their say I would have thought, presumably they have some rights in this area?
bubblecat | May 27, 10:58 CET
In other words, "Let's alienate the core of people who would actually make a movie like this a success".
I'm just reeling from this and can't put into words how bad this move would be. Stick a fork in the Kuzuis, they're done.
Whistler | May 27, 11:01 CET
Dana5140 | May 27, 11:04 CET
An analogy that came to me is Snow White. The fairy tale is public domain, anyone can write a story about Snow White and the seven dwarfs. But you'll have to think up new names. Sleepy, Grumpy Dozy etc were created by Disney and are their property.
[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-27 20:05 ]
zz9 | May 27, 11:04 CET
Jaymii | May 27, 11:08 CET
Vinity | May 27, 11:09 CET
I don't see how they think this could work anyway: the primary audience for any Buffy movie would be the existing Buffy fans, and we're not too chuffed atm. I don't know if it would even attract new teenage audiences - they're all gaga over Twilight right now. I try and talk to people about Buffy/Joss: very few are fans, quite a few have heard of it but couldn't give a toss, and a large proportion worship Edward Cullen!
[ edited by Shep on 2009-05-27 20:14 ]
Shep | May 27, 11:13 CET
Not even in the script?
sumogrip | May 27, 11:16 CET
Jobo, nope. No mention of Summers at all. Or Joyce. She's "Buffy's Mom"
[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-27 20:19 ]
zz9 | May 27, 11:16 CET
So far they can have Buffy "made up surname" and the council and a lot of "hardcore" fans not going to see it. Darn it, they'll make money but what they'll do is not make as much as if this had been done in the right way.
bubblecat | May 27, 11:18 CET
So, the new movie is going to be "Buffy Winters, Undead Exterminator"?
JMaloney | May 27, 11:25 CET
I have no problem with the Buffy franchise being resurrected for money. That is precisely the incentive that would be needed. Buffy has ALWAYS been about making money, primarily. As I've said many a time, the money is there for the plucking right now.
Just do it right. Nothing is set in stone at this moment. Find the money from the studios. I say approach Joss Whedon and get him working on a script, or ask his recommendations for people who could work on it. Forget those comics, and maybe much of the TV show. The movie should bring the feeling back to the feel of seasons 1, 2, and 3 to really grab the additional audience that they want to make this film successful beyond the fans. And get that cast. There's still time! By the time the money and the script is secured, SMG JR. should be already here.
If none of this happens, I will be disappointed. But not devastated. As always, nothing can deter my hope for a Buffy movie done well. The question is, will pandering to hardcore fans (Based on the comics!? Fray movie, anyone? Eeesh.) make more money or less?
ailiel | May 27, 11:54 CET
katetwo
Thanks, everytime I try translat my thoughts I end without a thought.
How can Alan Moore works be used in movies without his conset?
(at least apparently, since he denies all adapptations)
Brasilian Chaos Man | May 27, 11:58 CET
UnpluggedCrazy | May 27, 11:59 CET
CaptainB | May 27, 12:15 CET
For those who were wondering about Roy Lee's sensibilities, this slightly dated New Yorker article offers some insight. Lee doesn't exactly seem to have much interest in story, characters or subtext -- all the things that make Whedon's work exceptional. See this quote:
I kinda wonder if he's even seen Buffy, either in movie or television form.
Whedonage | May 27, 12:27 CET
(at least apparently, since he denies all adapptations)
His works that have been turned into movies are owned by DC/Time Warner, so it's not up to him.
zeitgeist | May 27, 13:41 CET
the Groosalugg | May 27, 14:33 CET
redeem147 | May 27, 17:59 CET