This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"You people are so petty... and tiny."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 21 October 2020


November 22 2010

LA Times talks to the writer of the Whedon-free Buffy movie. Meet screenwriter Whit Anderson. "There is an active fan base eagerly awaiting this character's return," says Charles Roven, one of the producers of Batman Begins. More info on the Warner Bros reboot can be found in the official press release.

There is an active fan base eagerly awaiting this character's return

Indeed. Just not your version. Which I think is safe to say is one of the most mocked and derided reboots in recent years.
Yeah, no. Not this version.

*exercises skeptical eye (the left one) and sharpens stakes*
Funny that 20th doesn't seem to want anything to do with this. Guess they still want to be on speaking terms with Joss. :)
I can't imagine this.
Some of the dialogue (and the computers!) might not be "of the moment" but there is nothing old about the story or the character.
:-). 'Bout says it Simon.

(also, what's with the oversized head-shot of the writer ? I mean, y'know, pretty woman and all that but it's not a very writery photo to me. Where's her fancy scarf for instance ?)

ETA: Ah, Big G tells me that she's also worked as an actress so they've probably just used a promo shot from her other job. Those lazy rascals.

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-22 20:32 ]
Damn, is this thing still happening? :(
I don't trust it. It's going to be a detrimental failure.
No no no no no no!
I find myself torn on this. One part of me is utterly appalled that this movie is going forward without Joss Whedon. And another part of me, the part that's been so disappointed with season 8, wonders how well another writer would do with the character.
Saje! You are right! No scarf! I don't believe she is a writer.
among the many things than incenses me about this, there's the "it needs to be relevant to today" bit. How is BtVS not relevant? For one thing, we're drowning in vampires on both the big and small screen. Unfortunately. I hate Hollywood.
I was trying to find out what she had written before (as she might be a really good writer) but no joy. Unless she submitted a first-time spec script which fitted in nicely for someone's plans for a reboot?
What Simon said... a Joss-free Buffy reboot is too horrible to imagine.
UH OH!!! This maybe a watchable movie. The writer is someone who grew up watching Buffy, did I read that right? Seems to me like this is a chic who has gone WAY past the FanFic stage, who was one of us. (haven't read/wrote 1 of them fanfics myself) Someone who has waited for the original cast and crew to get in a room and once again make Buffy The Vampire Slayer live; but has decided to try her hand at it herself. With her own ideas, that she prob started having when the show ended, like what 7 years ago.
"There is an active fan base eagerly awaiting this character's return"

Huh? No Whedon, no Buffy. How misguided can they be?
Well, I just ate so I can't read the article but I thought they weren't going to use original characters but invent their own? Or was that just wishful thinking on my part?

This freak is just as delusional as Fran Kuzui. :/
What fan base are they alluding to? This is bad in so many ways that I can't even begin to list them all, but my greatest fear is that with the disappointment (to me, anyway) of S8 coupled with this and it spells the death knell of the 'verse as we know it. A new reboot will kill, if done poorly, will kill interest in the original.
I just think they shouldn't call it Buffy, for it won't be Buffy. It'll be some other girl who kills vampires.

I'm gonna watch it with an open mind and I don't know if I'll hate it or like it. But I sincerely hope I do hate it.
While the fandom at large seems ready to sharpie an evil moustache on her lip and to throw some horns on top of her head, she... sort of just seems like a passionate fan. What up and coming screenwriter wouldn't take the job? There might be some unsavory politics behind it, but we don't know that. She seems like a perfectly nice lady and, from what she said, it seems she has a decent grasp on who the character is and what her story means to so many people. I love Joss, and his work has touched me more than any other writer's stuff... but I'm not ready to condemn this project and this lady without knowing more or having seen the film.
As much as I hate the idea of Buffy without Joss, this article does give me pause. Done well, reboots CAN be good. A fresh perspective on some of the framework, without the ties to specific canon and history. I loved the recent Star Trek/Batman films. To the non-comicbook public, Buffy has been silent for 7 years, which is far better than, say, the next Superman and Spiderman films being reboots (in general, I'm sorta tired with origin stories anyway). While good reboots are certainly in the minority, they *do* exist, and given how trendy vampire stories have been lately, it does make sense to do it.

So take the basic Buffyverse framework. Call the character something else (we'll say Sue, for an example). Sue the vampire slayer takes a 90-120 minute journey filled with action, humor, vampires and personal growth. Someone takes some of the original ideas, and puts a new (possibly) interesting spin on it. Could be worth watching, and certainly wouldn't ruin my Buffy dvds. They're right there. On the shelf.

I realize I'm grasping at straws, being horrified that this project hasn't died yet, but the line "not your high school Buffy", I'm hoping means "not Buffy (or Sue) back in high school...allowing the concept to progress rather than retreading old ground" instead of "not the Buffy I watched in high school...but the character is still there, 'cause that's what it's about, right?" One of those two options I could be convinced to watch. Still would rather have Joss involved.

So long as, say, Uwe Boll doesn't get the rights to Firefly...
Saje! You are right! No scarf! I don't believe she is a writer.

Well, the photo's of her non-writing head at least Lioness (see my edit above). She should get writer-head photos stat, they usually come with a fancy scarf.

Must admit, I feel a bit sorry for people like e.g. the writer in these situations. She sounds like she genuinely loves the show and wants to do it justice and either the producers will entirely mess it up or we won't go to see it (or it'll die on its arse before that point).

Course, now that i've said that it'll probably be roaring success and become the definitive version of Buffy in the public consciousness, leaving just we grizzled, embittered few grumbling about the overshadowing of the One True Version, from the olden days (not the really olden days, more the middle olden).
Gods, NOT this again... I cannot imagine the horror...And the worst part is that this might kill any possibility of Joss ever writing another Buffy-verse screenplay...
I don't know one person who is 'eagerly awaiting' any Whedon-free version... I think they're really deluded.

If this does go through, I hope the test audiences hate it and the sales are worse than the original film.
Uh, yeah. And by that I mean nope. There is no Buffy without Joss. This is gonna be a worse disaster than that awful Dark Shadows reboot some years ago.

No Joss, no Buffy.
Since when does this even HAVE a writer?

I thought a film has to be officially announced in order to have a writer? And I thought this was just a rumor, not an official thing?


I clearly don't know anything about the film industry. Anyway, this isn't gonna happen. People are going to lobby and stuff.
wait, this is still happening? I thought this got scrapped ages ago. This is...disappointing.
This sounds like a terrible, terrible idea. Why is this even allowed to happen?
I understand that the Kuzuis know they got a hot property in their hand. But misuse it like that, already knowing major part of the fandom already despise the meddling they dig on original movie, makes the existence of thia project seem simply.

As a justification for the assessment they'll probably go the Star Trek route by saying that a lot of the spin-offs that followed had no involvement from Rondeberry (spelling?).
For those of us that watched the 1st original Buffy, can you seperate it from the Buffy series? Buffy the vampire slayer was, is and will always be 7 seasons. The comic books, though I've read a few, still not apart of the 7 seasons, and Joss said that anything writen in the comics wouldn't matter to him if he wrote a movie, or that he felt he could put the comics aside when making the movie, or something. My point being that the 7 seasons are BUFFY. A new movie that Joss writes can be apart of the 7 seasons, but anything that goes too far away from the medium tv/film like the comics, or another person taking a crack at an older Buffy, is not part of the 7 seasons. Maybe this is a chance to get the new kids away from Twilight and onto Buffy. They watch the movie, they like the flava, they digg up the true BUFFY (7 seasons) and then Buffy stakes Edward. THE END
I thought they weren't going to use original characters but invent their own?

They can't use TV characters, who are owned by 20th Century FOX. But they (partly?) own the original movie, so anything in there is fair game.
"They can't use TV characters, who are owned by 20th Century FOX. But they (partly?) own the original movie, so anything in there is fair game."
That means will be even further away from the one true Buffy. Dudes it will all be okay!
I was hoping this project died.I'm like dorotea in that even though it was always unlikly at this point,and the comics have filled that void to a degree,but this reboot kills any hope of a future Buffyverse project onscreen with Joss and the cast.
For me, it all comes down to Joss -- if he loudly, excessively and proudly hails this new Buffy project as the love child he never had time to make -- fine, I'll give it a chance, as he clearly would like me to. If he doesn't -- I'll just see this Buffy reboot as yet an attempt at cashing in on Joss without actually having to deal with his pesky self. I mean -- unless he's onboard, it just seems like stealing to me. (I know -- contracts and rights and so forth, but it still feels -- wrong.)
Edit: Vinity -- I'm liking the shirt idea! :)

[ edited by Carnelionne on 2010-11-22 21:15 ]
I vote we make T shirts. NO JOSS! NO BUFFY!

As others have said. How is this even still in the works? I thought it had died.
Urge to kill rising.
It's quietly been ticking away in the background. And by ticking away, I mean they've managed to shop it to Warner Bros.
FWIW, I've dubbed this Nuffy, for not-Buffy.
And when it fails horribly, it'll be chalked up as another tick in the audiences-don't-want-to-watch-strong-complex-female-leads column. Instead of what it really is, which is a bad idea.

But isn't Buffy herself against the rules??
Honestly, I guess I'm in the vast minority here (within the Whedon community anyway). I'm not pro-Buffy without Joss, but I don't think think I'm going to come up with the same level of animus everyone has. I love art, and I love movies so I'll probably go see this when it comes out to see what someone else did. I loved Burton's Batman, but I went to Schumacher's films (ouch) and Nolan's films (yey). I'll probably do the same with Raimi's Spider-man series as well.

I understand why the actors, fans, and even Joss himself might have major problems with this. I'm sure they still want to see a Joss version of the movie. After all, Joss (when it realtes to Buffy) has already been kicked around a few times so it's not like he deserves it. But since no fans of Joss, nor Joss himself will consider this canon and honestly unless BtVS the movie from Joss is either partially recast or set ten years after Season 7/8, it's not like we're going to see what we wanted in the first place. Therefore I can't really get behind the "kill the Kazui's" bandwagon. The Buffy of Joss, to me is a serial novel. The one we would see, might be serial films but it won't be as epic.

If Ms. Anderson tells a good story (and if she's allowed to like Joss wasn't) and I can enjoy Buffy a different way, I've got to say I won't mind. Even if I'm the only one in the theater.

BTW, regarding the pic... since she was an actress that's probably why the "sex appeal." Besides the scarf, she also needs to adopt the "I didn't know you were about to take my picture" look.
Why don't they just remake the original film, but done right this time? Given that's clearly all the material they're allowed to adapt... tweak it just enough that it fits the TV continuity seamlessly (as I believe the original screenplay already does)...
But isn't Buffy herself against the rules??

No, because Buffy was in the original film, which is what they own. Buffy had to be licensed from the original license holders in order to become a TV show. But anything created for the TV show isn't owned by the original license holders. So, Buffy is a go, anything else is not.
I still hate the idea of Buffy without Joss, but as a couple people have pointed out, the writer herself seems all right - impossible to tell how good she is, or whether the finished product would in any way resemble her intentions, but as a starting point it can't hurt to have a fan of the show working on it.
This article has me somewhat interested in this thing for the first time, though the "of the moment" stuff does give me pause. As much as I'd like to see a big-screen Buffy movie made by Joss, at some point - if Buffy remains a cultural phenomenon - there will be other takes on the story. As long as they are done with respect and don't preclude an eventual movie made by Joss, I don't really think there is a problem with that.
That said, and in realtion to it being shopped at WB, as a studio I wouldn't touch it. I don't see the topside with most of the core fanbase turned off. And it's still going to have the problem of a lead charecter named Buffy.

On top of that, as a studio you risk alienating Whedon whom you may want to work with if the Avengers does really well. Studios are about making the most money, not seeing what creatives they can tick off (although the first part sometimes conflicts with the second). I'd find the risk of making this virges on unacceptable by all but the smallest firms who are hungry enough to take the gamble.
If Ms. Anderson tells a good story (and if she's allowed to like Joss wasn't) and I can enjoy Buffy a different way, I've got to say I won't mind

Aside from Joss not being involved, I think the main reason is why I don't like the idea is because it's too soon. It hasn't even been a decade since the show finished. 15-20 years down the line I would say fair enough but this just screams cynical money exercise to cash in on a (now fading) vampire craze.
aftertherockets: Do you really think that modern audiences have a don't-want-to-watch-strong-complex-female-leads complex?
FWIW, I've dubbed this Nuffy, for not-Buffy.
I like it, B!X! Alternately "Un-Buffy" if in need of a Dead Like Me reference!
What??? I thought that was finished! This is not the way I wanted Buffy to be revived to the screen!
who knows, maybe after the Avengers goes the way we all hope, they just might wise up and try to involve Joss. Assuming he'd want to go back to Buffy once more.
patxshand: No, I don't think so at all! It just seems to be a prevailing attitude in the entertainment industry. See most recently: the shift of focus from Rapunzel to the boy thief in the newest Disney princess movie.

I just worry that if a movie like this got made and didn't attract the crowds they're hoping will flock to anything with "vampire" in the title, the thought wouldn't be that it was a bad movie and WOULD be that, well, clearly audiences didn't show up because it was about girls. If that makes any sense at all.
I've said it once, I'll say it again: anyone else who wants to reinvent the Slayer should not call her Buffy. Try Anne, Sarah, Victoria, Lucy Hanover VII, anything like that, but not Buffy. Then, the real Buffy can see if this Slayer is a worthy successor. It's almost as bad as making Tarzan knockoffs in the 50's and 60's.
aftertherockets: I don't really think that was Disney's intention. It's easy to project those kinds of things onto the industry or audiences, but realistically, Disney likely just thought they had a good story with the boy thief thing. Not sure it goes much farther than that.
Well as far as official announcements go: Here is it.
From the Orato site, July 20, 2009:

Former BtVS cast regular, Anthony Stewart Head, has spoken against the new film, stating that it would be a mistake to bring Buffy back without Whedon, the original writer of the TV show and 1993 film.

"The bottom line is if a movie was ever to be made, it should be made with Joss Whedon, whether it's a retrospective or not," said Head. "It was Joss's 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."

Whedon, the original writer of the film and show, has made little comment about the upcoming project except to say that he will not be involved.

"I hope it's cool [but] I think it's something better left untouched by me."

Well, whatever happens, Joss' Buffy, the series we know and love is like the highest-grade steel alloy. Nothing can ever dent, scrape or bruise it. Not even a film that is a yet-unknown, as far as quality goes. Still rankles though. It does.
I know I'm going to be crucified for this, but like another poster said, it really can't hurt to have a fan of the show penning the reboot. And the fact that the Kuzuis licenced this film to the WB and Vertigo means they're not going to muck it up themselves like they did in 1992.

I'm actually a bit excited for this. And before you guys tear into me, realize that Sony is rebooting their beloved Spider-man franchise in a shorter period of time than "Buffy" is.
Shall we flay you first or nip straight to the main event ? ;)

Well as far as official announcements go: Here is it.

Hah, Whit Anderson changed sex in the space of about an hour and a half. Good work internet.
aftertherockets, I actually just read an article about this, and it doesn't have to do with strong females; rather, it's the fact that the Rapunzel/Tangled original core audience was little girls, and nowadays, most little girls prefer to watch teen divas and celebrities instead of princesses. That's why they changed the title to Tangled and shifted focus to the male character, in an attempt to expand the audience.
This stinks, but the guy has a point. I teach 14-16 year olds who have grown up watching repeats of Buffy. They have no particular loyalty to Whedon- just the characters. They'd lap up a reboot.
Hell, if they want fan to write Buffy, get Jet Wolf.
This is depressing. I'm really glad she's a fan of Buffy and all, and I would certainly rather have someone who knew about the series writing the reboot. However, Joss' writing is what made the show (at least for me, and I'm sure for most of you) my favorite show ever. I feel like if the writer doesn't attempt to imitate Joss' writing, then the characters will not be the characters that I love, or if she does imitate his writing style it will just seem like a cashing in on the style of a fantastic writer.

That said, I'll see it and hope for the best. But my expectations are below zero.
A reboot of "Star Trek" made sense. Gene Roddenberry willingly passed the torch on to others, with his family monitoring to outcome. Now Gene and Majel are dead, but "Star Trek" lives on and has a lot of life left in it.

A "Buffy" reboot without Joss's passing the torch, when Joss is in the prime of his life and still a creative dynamo is criminal. Does Joss have a big target on his back saying "Fuck Me?" I have a few choice words for the Kazuis, the cleanest of which would be insulting to whores.

I will NOT see a Buffy movie that isn't made by Joss.
I actually like the idea of a reboot of the original movie, though what Ms. Anderson is quoted as saying suggests that Buffy will be older? (I'm not sure how to read, "This is not your high school Buffy.") However, the fact that such a beloved character is being written by somebody with ZERO movie/TV writing experience (at least if her IMDB page is accurate) concerns me. Yes, some of the reboots of recent years have been excellent, but those weren't written or directed by unknowns.

I frankly don't think this movie will do very well, or would even if Joss were attached to it. The TV Buffy, while having a very devoted following, didn't have a very *HUGE* following - I'd guess the number of Firefly/Serenity fans outweighs the number of Buffy fans (I've known a lot of F/S fans who couldn't stand Buffy, but never known any Buffy fans who didn't like F/S), and even Serenity didn't do well in the theaters.
A.V. Club:
As Roven puts it, “There is an active fan base eagerly awaiting this character's return to the big screen,” incisively recognizing that said "active fan base" would like to see this character return to the big screen in pretty much any form at all—so long as she’s still witty and sexy—and would definitely not disavow any new Whedon-less iteration. Because it’s not like Joss Whedon’s fan base is particularly loyal, sarcasm sarcasm.

The more I think about this, the more angry I get. If this gets further off the ground I may have to go into hibernation.
Bloody hell, no! I thought this idea had died a while ago.

[ edited by Shep on 2010-11-22 22:04 ]
Saje: I mean, y'know, pretty woman and all that but it's not a very writery photo to me. Where's her fancy scarf for instance ?

And her Big GlassesTM? I'm positive that Hollywood writers - at least WGA ones - hafta have Big GlassesTM.

FWIW, I don't have any particular animus against the writer - how could I? I know nothing about her and there's very little info running about yet... She could be perfectly nice and in fact a good writer, and this project would still fill me with a kindof repulsed ennui, or is it more of a bored repulsion?

As Willowy said, "NO JOSS, NO BUFFY."

Or as b!X said, "Nuffy".

Now this may make me sound like Kool-Aid KidTM, but if it ultimately gets Joss' imprimatur, then maybe I'll have a little looksee.

'Til then, notsomuch. 'Cause so far the Kuzuis haven't particularly inspired me with confidence...

Edited: because I realized that the Kuzuis ain't involved no' mo'. That's a plus, in my book, but not enough to mean very much....

And also to add: I'm one of the people this doesn't really piss off very much because... well, sans Joss it's just not particularly relevant. I'm pretty cynical about the whole *yawn* vampirity of it all, but... I just don't think a re-boot of what is essentially a movie I didn't like very much has much to say to me...

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-22 23:01 ]
Yeah, I mean. I've read a lot of different articles about the change in focus for Tangled, and part of it definitely had to do with Princess and the Frog not doing well and execs fearing they scared off boys by putting "princess" in the title, so they wanted to try and appeal to a wider audience (which I have a whole other, inappropriate-for-this-forum, rant about, and is beside the point). I'm sure there were lots of reasons for doing it, and that was just one quick example I used that may not have been the best. All I was really trying to say is that I hope when/if this movie fails, which it would seem likely to do since most of the core audience of Buffy fans they're hoping to appeal to probably won't show up, everyone involved is very clear on the real reason behind the failure.

Mostly, I don't want more excuses to go years between kickass female character on my television and movie screens!
One thing I just don't understand is... sure, the writer is a buffy fan. However, the Buffy universe is FULL of other slayers, some who might have the potential to be just as interesting and amazing as Buffy herself. I'd be totally open to someone writing on the lore of the slayers, just not on Buffy. I just...ugh, my heart hurts.
There probably are millions of people who liked Buffy but don't know much about Joss, don't participate in online fan forums or attend cons, but who will be excited to see this when they hear about it. Just because we don't consider them to be true fans doesn't mean they don't consider themselves fans...and yes, they will be eager to see this reboot.

I've got a problem with a "reboot" of something that is still actively going. I'm not a huge comics fan, but BTVS is still going, just not on screen, so I'm with the "it's too early" camp.

OTOH, if the writer was, say, someone we knew from this forum, we'd all be actively campaigning for her success. She sounds like a genuine fan of the original series. It spoke to her in the same way it speaks to us. So lets give her the benefit of the doubt and not pass judgement until we see what comes of it. Sure, it won't be the SAME, but that doesn't mean it can't also be good. I have enjoyed nearly every version of Robin Hood ever made...because they all start with a great set of characters and a great premise. Different Buffy might still be good, enjoyable Buffy. Yes, I would much prefer more of Joss's Buffy, but that doesn't mean I won't like other tellings.

And before y'all jump on me, I will also freely admit that I would be highly unlikely to be this open-minded about a non-Joss Firefly reboot, so I do understand the sentiment, and that I'm a hypocrite :D
I've got no problem with reboots, but when you take one of the most critically acclaimed series for writing from an Oscar nominee screen writer and reboot it with a Buffy fan writing who has no prior writing experience and say you want it in theatres in 2011 (that's less than 11 months away) (at the maxium)....

Come on. Just be up front about it and punch fans and steal their wallets.

[ edited by gossi on 2010-11-22 22:13 ]
"One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords."
Come on. Just be up front about it and punch fans and steal their wallets.

Now come on, gossi, Sarrava has a point there. Joss-less Buffy doesn't mean it can't be good Buffy nonetheless.
Looks like someone just let Nikki Finke know that Whit has girl parts. I just want to thank Warner Brothers and the Kuzuis for making me forget my early morning Comic Con rage.
Come on. Just be up front about it and punch fans and steal their wallets.

Exactly *clings tightly to my purse* They're not getting any money from me.
I added the Deadline info to the entry.
Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but taking a quick look at the two production companies attached to this movie, Vertigo Entertainment has mostly produced horror flicks (The Grudge, The Strangers, The Eye) and The Departed (wtf?), while Atlas Entertainment has produced mostly meh movies (Scooby-Doo, City of Angels, Fallen). However, Atlas also produced Twelve Monkeys, The Bank Job, and Get Smart.

While I don't know enough about movie-making to fully understand what kind of input production companies have in movie creation, the horror side of Vertigo plus some decent films from Atlas may suggest all hope is not lost.

(Also, both production companies produced movies featuring SMG!)
Come on. Just be up front about it and punch fans and steal their wallets.

Gotta agree with that.

Also, in light of the disclosure about Warner Brothers being involved, I have to recant my earlier statement.

Hell would freeze over before I pay money to watch anything "Buffy" from the WB.

[ edited by menomegirl on 2010-11-22 22:21 ]
Well, Anderson seems ... okay. Lik she's actually trying to get the show, maybe even does.

I hate being omne of those people that hate a movie before I even see it, so I will force myself to have a more open mind about this. I mean, I like fanfiction, maybe I'll like this?
/Film's article on this says the following:

Note that this is a different reboot project than the one Fran Rubel Kuzui was developing in 2009. Warner Bros and Atlas picked up the rights from Vertigo Entertainment, the company that was pushing forward with a new film at that time.

So we were right that the old reboot was dead, this is a new attempt. I can't raise any enthusiasm for it either. Obviously Buffy without Joss is a huge problem, but so is Buffy without SMG and without all the characters from the TV show. If a reboot has to be done, then I'd prefer daylight's suggestion - just remake the original film. A better version of the origin story would actually be okay.

That gives a legitimate reason to recast Buffy, as a 14/15 year old, and to miss out Willow, Xander, Giles, etc. And it would probably appeal more to the target audience that they're going after (which is not us, whatever they say).

[ edited by NotaViking on 2010-11-22 22:30 ]
Actually io9 has the press release in full so I changed the link to that.
So 1st WB drops Joss script for Wonder Woman, and now they opt to produce Nuffy.
Call that desperation.
Not exactly excited about the idea, but it doesn't really anger me either. I will be sad though, if the movie is very hollow girl power as it has strong potential to be. All signs suggest they're just making it to cash in on the current vampire craze. My wallet is very secure against that.
Oh btw since Joss isn't involved, there probably won't be much coverage of this it at Whedonesque. It'll be treated like the Season 8 motion comics (i.e. it'll get mentioned every so often).
I'm directing this. I have no prior directing experience, but I heard it's cool, and you fans are crying out for me to direct something. Aren't you? Yeah, you. The one who can't post to confirm.

[ edited by gossi on 2010-11-22 22:36 ]
For me, 'Buffy' is Joss. (and Ben is Glory)
He's where the creative genius of 'Buffy' comes from. There is just no way I can accept the introduction of 'Buffy' to a new audience without the input of the involvement of the brains behind it.

[ edited by Shep on 2010-11-22 22:38 ]
I'm directing this.

That's almost as scary as a fan writing it. No offence.
With very few exceptions, the movie industry is bereft of new ideas. This news makes me sad as a Whedon fan, but truly depressed as someone who loves movies. I used to fear the death of the industry. Now I hope someone will put it out of its misery.
Know Joss, Know Buffy.

Like she really needs to be raised from the dead a third time.
So... casting ideas? I'm going with Miley Cyrus as Buffy. She's edgy.
Buffy without Joss and the extended family Joss created, like Willow, Tara, Xander, Dawn, and Giles, just isn't Buffy. Even if the actors changed, if Joss isn't in the mix, I can't see how it could really be Buffy.

It's amazing how clueless some marketing and business people can be.
To be fair, Sean Coffee, the movie industry has been "bereft of new ideas" for pretty much its entire life. Many now-classic films are based on books or plays (Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, pretty much anything Hitchcock made), or are even remakes themselves. It's depressing that Nuffy is being made, and I have the lowest of low hopes, but I don't think it's fair to point at an adaptation/remake as proof of the film industry's creative collapse.
You just know they'll rope SOME Whedon alum into this in order to FORCE Whedonesque to cover it extensively :-)
among the many things than incenses me about this, there's the "it needs to be relevant to today" bit. How is BtVS not relevant?

There was no text messaging waaay back then. How can you expect todays teen to relate? ;-)
Breaking News:

This just in: Joss Whedon had a puppy. He gave it a name, taught it to fetch, play dead. With a lot of love and patience, it grew up to be a damn great dog. Reports are circulating in now that Warner Bros. have declared that the dog is theirs, and are now actively trying to force it to become a puppy again.
There was no text messaging waaay back then. How can you expect todays teen to relate? ;-)

Indeed. Did Buffy tweet? No. And the show suffered as a result.
And that "active fan base" they speak of... what are the odds they're talking about the Twilight fans? They need to sell them something once they've filmed every frame of Meyer's stuff...
Just staked a vampire. #lulz
I'll watch it. There, I've said it.

I'm not saying it's going to amazing, not saying it's going to be atrocious - it's far too early to know any of this, and we won't even have an idea until we witness the first teaser trailer.

But yeah, as it stands, at this very moment, I'll watch it.

If there's one thing I've learned from the past 16 years I've spent on the internet it's that people overact far too much over the littlest bit of information.

We know nothing about this version.

Tim Burton's Batman wasn't like that comics. It was his version. And I liked it. And I also liked Batman Begins. In a different way. Neither were made by the original creator. Hell, I even liked the Batman series from the 60s.

My point is, there's really no point in any freak out of discussions over this.

Will a new Buffy really effect your love of the original? Do you even like the original movie that gave way to the series? Do you even read the comics that continue it? How does this new proposed film take away from what we already have?

As someone who just watched The Stars Wars Holiday Special for the first time, realizing that it was made after only Star Wars was released and no future films, I have to say, it doesn't tarnish the original. In fact, given the right drugs, it's actually enjoyable in its own way. And I suspect this will be too.

Remakes, reboots, re-imaginings are here to stay. Just like the overacting to little things in life such as a Joss Whedon-less Buffy.
re one bellow....never mind it is gone

[ edited by ZeeBuffyBot on 2010-11-22 23:08 ]

[ edited by ZeeBuffyBot on 2010-11-22 23:08 ]
I am relatively certain that she is the Whitney Anderson who co-wrote and stars in this short from last year, playing the sister who shows up a little way in. Am I wrong in thinking that actress looks like the photo in the linked LA Times piece?
Would people still like the idea if it was a complete reboot with Joss Whedon helming the project but having nothing to do with the actors from the movie or the television show? A brand new Buffy made by Joss? I'm actually kinda curious.
Uhm, here's two bits of information didifallasleep - the writer hasn't written anything before, and they want to get this in cinemas next year. Yeah. This has hot mess all over it. Personally, I have no issues with reboots. I loved the latest Star Trek reboot - it's right up there with Serenity for me. But come on - if they're going to reboot Buffy, they should spend years doing it, get a crack team of brilliant writers and a great director, and really make it freakin' kick ass. This all stinks to me of the studio not realising what-in-the-hell they're doing.
(Mainly, I can't tell for sure, because IMDb has two Whitney Andersons, one listed as being in a Saw movie, and one who was in Zombie Strippers and a lot of TV shows. It's the former listed as being "Whit", but the latter who wrote that short film.)

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2010-11-22 23:10 ]
Can we maybe move this thread more in a "not the writer's fault" kind of direction ? I get folk being angry (even if i'm not particularly myself) but the personal edge to some of the comments isn't really us is it ? Or not the us I have in my head anyway. Maybe my head's kidding itself, wouldn't be the first time.

And it goes without saying that we're all free to see it or not see it, no-one can force us to part with any cash if we don't want to.
Simon: Indeed. Did Buffy tweet? No. And the show suffered as a result.

Right?!! - I mean: she had to get beeped when there was an apocalypse.

*So* last Tuesday Monday Sunday of her.

Just like I can't relate to anything that doesn't have the tech I grew up with in it - like TVs!

That's why I can't watch anything set earlier than 1955. I miss a lot of Jane Austen and Dickens and old-fashioned stuff like that, but that's a small price to pay for staying relevant and up-to-date and modern like the kids these days.
Actually, I think there's an IMDb error. I think she's the non-TV Whitney Anderson but also the writer of that short, but they misplaced the short on the wrong Whitney Anderson. Or, I'm high and the one in the short isn't her.
This is wrong!
I don't get all the comparisons to Batman, Spiderman and Superman reboots. Those are movies based on comics. Those stories have been rebooted as shows, animated shows, movies and different comics. They will always have reboots.
The Buffy reboot is like the reboots to Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek. The major difference is that those were made 25 and 40 years after the originals.

I won't watch this movie if it gets done. Maybe only when it's shown on television.
For lesser known people, IMDb is pretty crappy at keeping track of similarly-named folk. Given how low-profile this lady is, I'd be surprised if that's not what's happening here.
a) This idea is a steaming pile.

b) "Joss" is trending on twitter.
Another positive spin on it...this may be the first step to Buffy taking her rightful place as a character for the ages. We still love Arthurian/Merlin stories, Robin Hood stories (personal fondness,) Greek God myths and legends, and yes, even Batman stories even though the modern tellings are not written by the original creators. Perhaps this is the first sign that Buffy is becoming one of those timeless, legendary characters.
yeah, I'm against this... as people have said (hilariously by gossi) this is just trying to cash in on the vampire craze.
Charles Roven was actually involved with the project when it was announced with the Kazuis, so this may be kinda/sorta the same production.

Bringing a novice writer on at this stage doesn't mean much - bringing on multiple writers for different drafts is (unfortunately) common practice. So somebody else may come in and take another pass at the script, for better or worse.

My guess is that, if this does actually get made, it will wind up being like the remake of "The A-Team" - nobody died from it, but people will still think of George Peppard as Hannibal and have to wrack their brains hard to remember this as part of Liam Neeson's resume.

I've seen "Tangled," and Rapunzel is as effectively action-ish as the male lead (he tries a few more actions, but also fails at them, whereas she is usually effective). She's very good at knocking people out with the frying pan you see in the ads. I think they changed the title (but apparently only in the U.S.; elsewhere, it is called "Rapunzel") and featured the male lead in the ads to appeal to little boys, but Rapunzel is still the focal point of the story, albeit a lot more active than the heroine of the originaly hairy fairytale.
Or not the us I have in my head anyway.

Nor mine.
Good luck to them with the "reboot". If it is bad, it is just a movie and we had one before. If it is somewhat good, it will bring more attention to the real Buffy - serialised storytelling at its best. Not even with Joss at helm, IMHO, a Buffy movie would be even close to the series. As Serenity for me was nowhere close to Firefly.
This sounds like the premise to the sequel to The Producers. Reboot a beloved franchise, but first take away everything beloved about it (except the name, which even the network wouldn't use in marketing). "You'll lose a million, Max! It couldn't possibly go right!" It's springtime for Buffy and Sunnydale, winter for Whedon and fans.
No Joss, no freakin' way.
Yeah, but Gossi - Scream was written in three days. And that was an amazing film. And it was completely original. With mythos already established, and they could easily write their own version, which kinda makes it partially original (at least with creative freedom). It doesn't need years of planning or filming to be worthwhile.

Again, I think people are getting worked up over nothing.

Which is literally what we know about this project, other than, yeah, Joss Whedon's not involved.

I'm not saying it's going to be good or bad until I see some type of footage to base my opinions on.
Let's see, No Joss attached in any way, which means none of the original cast or crew would dare sign on, which means no way in hell am I going to give them my money for this. I'll wait till I have a free blockbuster rental to see this because unless Joss is attached and it stars the TV cast we know and love then it is not now, nor will it ever be, Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Or, I'm high and the one in the short isn't her.

It looks enough like her that it'd be a pretty huge coincidence (what are the chances there're two female Whitney Anderson's - who look kind of similar - both working as actress/writers ? Not high would be my guess - either B!x or the chances. Ba dum).
Couldn't they just adapt Hex or Demons for the big screen? It'd be so much simpler.
Whitney Anderson is a former actress going by Whit Anderson for this project. Firing off statements like "never written anything before" isn't particularly fair nor necessarily correct, because she may have written plays, short stories, or even TV spec scripts. We don't know because they've never been produced. She may, in fact, be quite prolific. She just has not sold a property yet (correction: she may have sold a property that simply hasn't been produced). I'm reminded of Felicia Day talking about being seen as a pretty female actress and trying to break in as a writer. At least according to Ms. Day, they're not taken incredibly seriously. Hence the Guild was written and produced BY HER until Microsoft took it seriously.

But half the life of being a writer is breaking in. I'm not saying her script is great, good, or even passable. I don't know. But I'd stick to things we actually do know which is very little.

Couldn't they just adapt Hex or Demons for the big screen? It'd be so much simpler.

I could live with something like that, less melodrama.

[ edited by azzers on 2010-11-22 23:44 ]
I'm open with the concept of a reboot... in another 15 years or so. The show has only been off-air for 7 years! I mean, really. The thing that irks me more than anything else is that they won't give Whedon the go-ahead for a Buffy movie of his own. The fact that this writer apparently has next to no writing experience is not encouraging in the slightest.

I'm not going lie, if this movie releases I'm going to be more than curious about it and may even see it. With that said, I'm also equally concerned that the movie will be so bad, it will scare away new fans ever harder than the name already does.

I am definetely in the small, almost non-existent minority here when I say that I screamed at the top of my lungs with joy when I found out that this movie is going to be made.

I should explain myself.

First off, I agree wholeheartedly that Buffy is Joss and Joss is Buffy. That Buffy=SMG, Willow=AH and Xander=NB. And I was on the majority boat last year when the rumour sprang up about there being a buffy movie in the works because that rumour was an obvious ploy to make money off of the whole Stephanie Meyer twilight crap that was huge at the time. But now Twilight is fading into the background and when I read this articleabout the Buffy remake/reboot there was a really, really important thing that made me tear up a little.

It actually felt sincere.

Buffy was never about vampires, it was about being strong, brave loyal and true. And I actually believe that Whit isn't going to royally screw this up. Maybe it's me being naive, but I really have alot of hope for this. Again, I agree with everyone on the fact that this reboot/remake will never be what we want because Joss and the cast aren't involved, but it will still be amazing to see Buffy through someone elses interpretation on the big screen. Buffy will always,always,always,always be Joss' baby. No one can take that away from him. Whether or not the movie is a fail or a pass, The 7 seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer will forever remain something that can not be touched.

My looking forward to this may make some people think I'm not a true fan of Joss Whedon, but trust me, that's not the case. From Buffy to Angel, Firefly to Dollhous I've been there. The reboot/remake is going to be extremely bittersweet because I know the true creator won't be apart of it, but I really can't help but be excited for this.
How is it possible WB are making a Buffy movie which the fans don't want, and refuse to make a Veronica Mars movie which the fans do want?
Brand recognition.
Because Buffy's an international brand with a billion+ in home video revenue and vampires in it, and Veronica Mars... isn't?
Brand recognition.

'Veronica Mars'. Recognise.

(job done, now when's it out ? A December release is good for me)

The fact that this writer apparently has next to no writing experience is not encouraging in the slightest.

Dit-dit-dit dit dit-dit... (it's a teletyper noise, work with me here ;), this just in: every successful screenwriter in Hollywood had a first produced script at some time (it's usually the one before their second produced script). It being the first time we've heard of her doesn't mean she can't write. And anyway, as Shapenew says, the first writer on a project is often not the last and not even always the one credited.

Couldn't they just adapt Hex or Demons for the big screen? It'd be so much simpler.

As soon as there's a craze for terrible American accents i'm sure they'll be right on it. Strike while the iron's hot.
134 comments BTW. We're hilarious.
I thoroughly agree with Slayin Days. I'm a huge fan of BtVS and all of Whedon's work, and of course any reboot will not be the same without him - but that's the point of a reboot. I love this site and this community, but I think that viciously maligning this film from the get-go for no other reason than that Joss isn't making it is narrow-minded and, honestly, foolish.

It might be great, it might be mediocre, it might be truly awful. But the people making it have no less right to be doing it than Joss would, and frankly the incessant complaining and headhunting around this project is beginning to make me a little ashamed to consider myself a part of this fan community.

Just give it a go guys, okay? Keep an open mind. Without that, no-one would have enjoyed Joss' Buffy in the first place.
I don't know where to begin with this. You could argue the fan base is just as much Whedon's as it is for the Buffy mythology. A Buffy mythology that oh by the way found it's fans from the TV version not the film version. Joss isn't going to endorse it. The stars from the TV show won't endorse it. There is no active fan base for the original film. What are they drinking over there?

So if you don't even know who your audience is, how are you going to know what they want? What really burned me was the comment about tone. I appreciate that they recognize that it's important but it's something that Joss was so masterful with when it came to Buffy. Like I'm going to believe some guy who I never heard of when he says the story has the right tone.

We should have gone on Kickstarter and secured the rights ourselves.

[ edited by IMMORTAL on 2010-11-22 23:52 ]
Reboots/remakes never have mattered with time lapsed in between. After all Open Your Eyes came out in 1997 and in 2001 we were treated with Vanilla Sky.

Shit, sometimes remakes become more famous than the original - just look at 1939's The Wizard of Oz. And that wasn't even faithful to the original story, yet everyone seems to love that. In fact, everyone seems to think of ruby slippers when they think of Dorothy and "there's no place like home" which is just utter bullshit.
Slayin Days, you hit the nail on the head there. That's what excites me, the writer does get the character and hopefully the producers are on the same page with her.

Couldn't the fandom be more open to this?
Saje: Dit-dit-dit dit dit-dit... (it's a teletyper noise, work with me here ;)

Dude. Your tech is so old-fashioned.
Some of you may already have done so, but members might want to go post an informed comment on the L.A. Times's Hero Complex page (also linked above). In light of the size and passion of the fan reaction, LAT and HC's Geoff Boucher is planning to do a follow-up piece featuring the best comments.
Dude. Your tech is so old-fashioned.

It's coming back, i'm tellin' ya !

(dits are the new tweets. Truth)

Reboots/remakes never have mattered with time lapsed in between. After all Open Your Eyes came out in 1997 and in 2001 we were treated with Vanilla Sky.

Shit, sometimes remakes become more famous than the original - just look at 1939's The Wizard of Oz.

Remaking across markets cares less about time, remaking within the same market has, until recently, usually waited for at least 10-15 years whereas nowadays the damn snake apparently can't wait to get its tail in its mouth. And 'The Wizard of Oz' was neither a remake nor reboot so I don't really see why it's relevant ?

(it's just an adaptation right ? Similar but different)

Like I'm going to believe some guy who I never heard of when he says the story has the right tone.

It's the Charles Roven, if that's any help.
::shakes head in utter disbelief::

This is truly one of the more insane and stupid maneuvers the WB could have made.

I never want to wish a lack of success on anyone - but I'd really like this movie to flop. It's an insult more than anything else...and there is not a lot of good than can come of this. I mean - the original Buffy have us ANGEL (which is my favorite of the two shows). To remake this tarnishes Joss, and this work.

Quite insulting WB - bad show.
Couldn't the fandom be more open to this?

It's not just the fandom who aren't open to this, it seems to be every entertainment site/journalist/blogger reporting this news. The idea is either pretty much universally loathed or it just seems utterly pointless. Good luck to Warners Bros to turning those attitudes around. Cause they're losing the PR battle in a bad way so far.
That's the thing. There's no reason why they should care about us particularly, they don't need us to make it a success (whatever we might like to tell ourselves). But a lot of entertainment journalists (as fans themselves) being against the idea makes it a pretty tough row to hoe.
Posted a comment at the Hero Complex page:

Reboots work when a) even the property's biggest fans admit that it's become old, tired or outdated, and b) it's been long enough that involvement of the original creators/cast is impractical or impossible.

Neither applies here. And the existing fan base is notorious for being fiercely loyal to the man behind the story, so any attempt to use the characters and plots and story arcs he created and guided past the first, unfortunate movie to the cult favorite TV show looks less like a tribute or reinvention and more like a opportunistic attempt to cash in on the "tweens love vampire movies" craze. At best, the Whedon fan base will be disinterested, and a little sad. At worst, they'll torpedo the new movie.

The only chance of success this movie will have is if it openly woos the fanbase and somehow assures them that this will be a Buffy even Joss would enjoy (and good luck with that), and/or manages to attract enough moviegoers who are not already Buffy fans but who would show up out of name-recognition and good marketing.
Even the Star Trek reboot, which I hated, had the original characters in it, though younger. How can you have a Buffy reboot that has none of the characters that are in the original save for Buffy herself? How the hell does that work? What are they rebooting? It will be entirely a different thing here, not Buffy in any way except by name. What a disaster, which has the potential to hurt the original in all sorts of ways.
This is not me bashing the writer but I don't see how what she said showed any particular insight. Balancing the struggle between serving the greater good with personal happiness is something every superhero deals with!

From wiki: Whedon explained that "They said, 'Do you want to do a show?' And I thought, 'High school as a horror movie'. And so the metaphor became the central concept behind Buffy, and that's how I sold it." The supernatural elements in the series stood as metaphors for personal anxieties associated with adolescence and young adulthood.

This is the core concept. If you are going to take it out you need to replace it with something that serves the same purpose.

I love fooball. My fantasy team is in first place. I don't think the NFL is going to call me to coach anytime soon.
I have trouble taking this seriously. Warners Bros announced this, will have the writer churn out a bunch of scripts which they will reject, and no film will ever be made. I'll believe I'm wrong if and when sets are being built and they have a cast and a director ready to go to work (and even then I would suspect it would end up being a made for TV low budget nothing).
So does this mean that it's actually green lit?

Or is it just entering development hell? Because we know that many projects never get off the ground: too many fingers, opinions, creative directors, and what have you. Chances are, if it even gets made it will go straight to video and no one will ever see it--except maybe us, watching from underneath an open work crocheted blanket with our fingers half in our ears. (It's going to take a mighty big blanket. Someone might want to get busy on that.)

I wonder if those attempting to cash in on the "vampire craze" know that in a Buffyverse (with very few exceptions) vampires are the (unattractive) BAD guys... I hope so, but it's Hollywood. I know the writer knows that, but the money people...they worry me.

And I'm kinda feeling sorry for the writer even though she's the one that said, "yes." Geez, having to follow Joss and reboot a beloved icon that has even spawned academic conferences? As a fan, I don't think I'd want to mess in Joss's sand box. Of course, she's probably only the first in line of many writers for this project...
I can imagine 20th Century Fox getting involved in this and looking at legal action against Warner Bros too (which they did successfully with Warner Bros over Watchmen).

Ultimately, this is just one clunking mess of a project snowballing off a cliff if you ask me. From a PR point of view, Warner Bros might as well be weeing in their own faces right now. Trending on Twitter: Joss Whedon. Not trending: Buffy. What does pretty much every article say? 'Oh dear lord'. Paraphrased.
Coming off a dismal political season, I'm trying not to be angry all the time. So, a few constructive comments:

1), slow the project down. Way down.

2), consider how things work in the first episode of Season III -- or imagine the blank space between the original Buffy burning down the gym and "our" Buffy arriving in Sunnydale.

3), re-read all the "Tales of the Slayers" paperbacks and think "slayer," not "Buffy."

4), hire a really good comic/action actress. Probably not Ellen Page.

5), get a script through the suits, then ask for a meeting with Joss.
Um. Yeah. My big concern about this is honestly whether or not it will change the public consciousness about BtVS. If it actually goes to theatres, I don't want it to dominate what people think of the franchise. But that's very much my id talking. We'll see, I guess.

[ edited by WilliamTheB on 2010-11-23 00:34 ]
Thanks, Sodding Nancy (as always).
This is the longest thread I've seen without Joss actually posting in it... which seems oddly appropriate if we're talking about a Buffy movie without Joss having a hand in making it.
Great HE comic from the last time this hit.

Personally I'm eagerly looking forward to the continued high quality output from Hollywood in the coming years.

2014: Firefly reboot by McG.

2018: Harry Potter reboot. This time with no Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore or Hogwarts.

2020: Star Trek. Kirk. No Spock. No crew. Just Kirk.
Um, Saje - 1939's Wizard of Oz wasn't the first Wizard of Oz movie. So if it wasn't a remake but just another adaptation as you put it...well, isn't that the same as this Buffy movie? What's the difference between an adaptation versus a remake anyway? I was always under the understanding that they were the same thing in the movie world...maybe I'm wrong though. Oh semantics.
Except for 12 Monkeys, the Charles Roven is distinguished for his string of really crappy reboots, so I kind of think this movie is pretty much going straight to VHS.
These people lose the internet.
There was supposed to have been a second Buffy movie helmed by Joss back in '98.

The news made Variety.

I'm guessing the movie would have been set between seasons 3 and 4.
These people lose the internet.

Well yeah, I already won it in the Walking Dead thread (OK, me and a few others). It's not like there's more than one you know.

What's the difference between an adaptation versus a remake anyway? I was always under the understanding that they were the same thing in the movie world...maybe I'm wrong though.

The medium I suppose ? You adapt from one medium to another, you remake within the same one.

Didn't know that about 'The Wizard of Oz' (1939) though, ta for the info. And yep, that'd make it a remake rather than an adaptation of the book.

ETA: Or would it ? Hmm, remaking an adaptation is maybe greyer.

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-23 00:41 ]
Like virtually everyone else here, I'm really sad that Whedon isn't involved in this. Having said that, if someone put a gun to my head and told me to pitch a reboot, I would go for the hard-R horror. It's about the only territory we haven't seen covered in the Buffyverse. And I'm sure it's not what Warner Bros have in mind.

An alternate history Buffy in Cleveland might be interesting. Scarred, no friends, no family, and tough-as-nails. She would be tormented by memories of the normal life she once knew, and driven for revenge against the vampires who took it from her.
Having said that, if someone put a gun to my head and told me to pitch a reboot, I would go for the hard-R horror. It's about the only territory we haven't seen covered in the Buffyverse. And I'm sure it's not what Warner Bros have in mind.

Man, you work pretty well under pressure.
With regards to the thing that reboots allow characters (or shows) to live on; I'm actually on board with that. I agree with it. However, reboots can also kill a franchise in the audience's minds if they go wrong; see also, the ironically named Alien Resurrection.

I just hope a piece of shit movie doesn't get rushed out the door to profit please fans.
I'm going to properly read thread this thread tomorrow so I'm only quickly just gonna put my two cents in: I would absolutely be open to other people using Joss' universe, his style and mythology - its all brilliant. It's how Trek built upon itself and became larger than one person. Kinda. Hmm. But simply using the name "Buffy" ignites rage all over me. Buffy's story is done (in live-action, at least). Fray is far in the future. The past is pretty wide open, do that - or something. Just. Not. Buffy Summers.

Or, yeah, re-imagine and stuff. Turn Buffy into Brad.
When I first read that this 'project' will be made relevant to today the first thought that sprung in my mind was terrorism.

What else could she mean? Everyone has a cell phone? Social networking?

The world has only gone through one big change in the years since Buffy ended. Buffy and the gang facing the horrors of TSA agents and their aggressive pat downs does not a story make.
I hadn't heard anything about this for awhile so I had thought maybe it went away. I find I'm torn. The Batman reboots have been amazing, and not all fandoms have to stay with the creator to remain amazing; but I just finished rewatching the entirety of Buffy and's freaking amazing. I'm sure I'll see this movie, and I know I'll be going in with one hell of a skeptical eye, but Buffy the show will always have the largest place in my heart. This movie, good or bad, can't touch the show.

My biggest complaint with anything like this, as an aspiring writer myself is, why does the director own the characters for the movie? They are Joss's characters, he is the creator, but he has no say? Rediculous.
Recession Buffy: now shops at movie sponsor Wal-Mart.
I'd wear a NO JOSS! NO BUFFY! t-shirt. I'd wear it EVERY DAY. Someone get on that, please!
Please take note:

Joss and Whedon are presently top 10 trending on Twitter, in the United States, in the United Kingdom and Worldwide.

Buffy is not trending anywhere.
The thing that bothers me is the apparent disrespect. Maybe there isn't any; maybe everyone involved talked to Joss Whedon & he said "Hey, superbusy here, yeah, go ahead, you've got my blessing"; but it sure doesn't feel like it, yknow? And disrespect to people who basically made Buffy the recognizable brand that would bring any money at all to a 'reboot' seems a bit distasteful, potential quality of the project aside.
Man, you work pretty well under pressure.

Nothing like having a gun pointed at your head to overcome self-doubt and writer's block! What comes out might not be good, but it'll be something.

It's about the only justification I can see for a Buffy fan pitching a Whedonless reboot.
I don't know, knitgrrl, if I weren't on Whedonesque and saw someone wearing that t-shirt, I'd think they hated Joss and Buffy. Maybe 'No Joss? NO BUFFY!'?

I think these people are just taking advantage of the fact that everyone has heard of Buffy, even if they never had the faintest desire to watch it before. As Simon so succinctly said, Brand recognition. If it actually makes it into production, I'll wait for the reviews before I decide whether to watch it. If it's really really bad ... well, drinking games have been made out of better movies. ;)
Whitney Anderson is a former actress going by Whit Anderson for this project. Firing off statements like "never written anything before" isn't particularly fair nor necessarily correct, because she may have written plays, short stories, or even TV spec scripts. We don't know because they've never been produced. She may, in fact, be quite prolific. She just has not sold a property yet (correction: she may have sold a property that simply hasn't been produced). I'm reminded of Felicia Day talking about being seen as a pretty female actress and trying to break in as a writer. At least according to Ms. Day, they're not taken incredibly seriously. Hence the Guild was written and produced BY HER until Microsoft took it seriously.

THANK YOU. I personally hope the script is good. I think bringing new perspective to the Buffyverse has incredible potential.

I suspect Whitney goes by Whit when writing in a similar vein to the Bronte sisters publishing under male pseudonyms. And damn if that isn't sad that 150 years later and women are still being kept out of the writing biz. Whitney Anderson not having a popular project is not a sign of her lack of talent just as it wasn't the case with Felicia Day. She could be brilliant. We simply don't know yet.

I understand loyalty to Joss--do I ever--but I think a Buffy movie with the original cast isn't in the cards anymore. By the time Joss has the time to even consider writing a script, it'll be a decade gone since the show ended. Marsters can't be in it because of age and arguably neither can Boreanaz because even though he looks extremely fit, the years show. So if anyone wants a Buffy movie, it'll have to be with a new cast. Which is incredibly hard to accept for me because I'm a huge SMG fan.

I wish Joss were involved in a Buffy movie project. Instead, he went for the Season 8 comics and a part of me worries he did so because he gave up on there ever being a Buffy movie. We've been waiting with bated breath for what feels like forever now. Season 8 for four years, Season 9 for another two. I'd like to think Joss would revisit this idea after Avengers is done but I feel like it's not gonna happen.

I want a Buffy movie. I believe her character transcends actress and writer. Joss wrote her to become an icon and she is one. I want her on the big screen in live action.

Maybe this movie will bomb. Or maybe this writer's first script will be awesome, but the director(s) will mess it up (hey, that situation sounds familiar). Maybe it'll be a great new vision where writer and director come together to create an amazing story. Notice how there's a whole lot of maybes there? Well, I don't think it's too much to ask that people wait to call the game before they've even announced who's directing the movie.

Can I just say how in love I am with the idea that a woman who grew up watching Buffy is writing for Buffy. That is the empowerment Buffy symbolizes. That's the message of "Chosen". Not simply that there can be only one (Joss), but that the power is in all of us.

I think there's brilliant women writers who never get a chance and I'm rooting for Whit Anderson. I hope she kicks ass. I hope Buffy kicks ass.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-23 01:17 ]
Simon, I think you missed the point of my post. Loyalty to Joss can only extend so far -- and how most of the fans have conveniently ignored how Hollywood likes shortening the time between refreshing or 'rebooting' franchises.

Someone pointed out "Los Ojos" and "Vanilla Sky" came out four years between each other. There's other examples: "Hulk" and "Incredible Hulk" came out five years between other, with another Hulk playing in Joss' "The Avengers." Not to mention that when the Marc Webb-directed Spiderman reboot with Andrew Garfield comes out July 3, 2012 -- it'll be five years between that and the Sam Raimi-directed trilogy.

I can understand the ferocity and loyalty us fans have to Joss -- but come on, a Buffy reboot/movie without him was inevitable with the vamprie craze in full swing.
re: BreathesStory - according to the front page of , the movie is green lit. However, the short article that follows (with tons of comments very similar to this thread) does not specifically mention a green light.

[ edited by BethS on 2010-11-23 01:18 ]
It's not green lit for production; I know they don't have a script yet.
My comment posted to the LA Times piece:
I don't have any *inherent* opposition to reboots/remakes. I thoroughly enjoyed SHERLOCK, for example. But it should be noted that Arthur Conan Doyle had long since left behind any interest in the character, and countless actors have played the role.

I think, one day, a revisit, by someone other than Joss, to the Buffy concept and character could be very exciting. But it should be out of a sense of vision and passion, if we want it to be any good, and not merely out of a sense of needing to cash in on the latest, and dying, Twilight-fueled vampire frenzy.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a TV series ended only seven years ago, and its creator continues working with the character in comic book form. There's simply no creative need, right now, for a reboot or remake.

My counter-proposal to Nuffy: Hire Joss to oversee a "different creators' spin on Buffy" anthology TV series mini-series for cable. Each episode is a different writer's take on the idea, as close to or as far from the original as they wish. None of it "canon", but a way to let creative people riff on the idea.
I like what @televisionary tweeted: #buffywithoutjossisnotbuffy

In non-twitterspeak, that could look like:


Emmie, I agree with you, in one sense: I hope Whit's script kicks ass, and good for her. After a certain point in time, I never thought there would be a for-real, Joss+ Our Beloved Cast film, so it doesn't mess up anything for me in that respect.

It just won't be Buffy, to me. Can't of necessity be Buffy without Joss. For me.

It may be something else of merit, we'll hafta see. I'm not a fan-fiction person at all, so I can't relate from that perspective... those aren't Buffy to me, either. And I have nothing bad to say about the comics, but they aren't Buffy to me, either.

And apropos of the article's:

"Anderson knows that without Whedon (who is gearing up to direct 'The Avengers' for Marvel Studios)" etc., etc.

... there's just the mildest insinuation in that wording that it's possible that Joss may have been asked if he'd like to be involved, but that he was just too darn fling-flanging busy with Avengers... which I'm pretty sure is not how that all went down.

ETA: b!X, your counter-proposal kicks some serious Buffy-booty.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-23 01:37 ]
So, the question remains: What classes of actors are they going to sucker in to fill out their cast? 'cuz I think you'd be able to tell a lot about the direction of this project from that alone.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-23 01:36 ]
I really have no interest in watching a Buffy movie without Joss or the tv cast.
Ooh b!x! Me likey. :-) I'd watch that. It could be like the "Animatrix" but called... "Buffyversed"... or hopefully something much better. (Bufferdom?)
But it should be noted that Arthur Conan Doyle had long since left behind any interest in the character

Who's to say what interests Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the great beyond?

But it should be out of a sense of vision and passion, if we want it to be any good, and not merely out of a sense of needing to cash in on the latest, and dying, Twilight-fueled vampire frenzy.

To me, it sounds like the writer does have a sense of vision and passion. She's the one who approached the studio with her own idea. The fact that a studio wants to cash in (shocking, I know!) doesn't preclude a genuine sense of vision and passion.

Sadly, a writer's vision and passion don't guarantee much. Anderson could be a great new talent who immediate gets this 'verse (a la Goddard) and the movie could still bomb because of whoever is picked as director. Joss Whedon himself couldn't keep his first movie from being mangled by the directors.

In my dream world, Joss Whedon would be writing and directing a Buffy movie, collaborating with Drew Goddard and Jane Espenson especially, and all the actors from the series would be cast with magical anti-age SFX. If wishes were horses...

There's already so many impossible hurdles for this movie to jump for it to be good. I can't summon up the schadenfraude to hope that it sucks. Rather, I hope this writer does her best to present a script that's true to Buffy and I hope that they get a director who respects the series, admires Whedon's work, and tries to do the story and the 'verse justice on the big screen for the first time.

Like Whedon once said, "I hope it's cool." Buffy deserves to have a cool movie.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-23 01:47 ]
This is just wrong in so many ways. *sigh*
David Boreanaz does a rather cute sadface at this news: pic link

[ edited by Leaf on 2010-11-23 01:58 ]
I see a lot of people saying "it will never be Buffy to me" and it reminds me of how people say the same thing about Season 8 which is Whedon's project.

I have to wonder if we've reached a point where it doesn't matter if Whedon's involved or not because what is truly Buffy to us is encased in amber.

What if Whedon did a Buffy movie with SMG and all the cast but it was slightly different from the show? Because he's changed as a writer. He's gotten much darker in the way he writes. Dollhouse and even Dr. Horrible show this. I have to wonder if a Buffy movie by Whedon would still "never be Buffy" to some fans because of the way Whedon and the actors have changed over time.

And if what is truly "Buffy" is the seven seasons of the series and only those seven seasons, then it doesn't matter what anyone does with the franchise. If there's no grand plan, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. A new vision of Buffy might be the only way to have a Buffy that's alive and new, not captured in our memory.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-23 02:00 ]
So, the question remains: What classes of actors are they going to sucker in to fill out their cast? 'cuz I think you'd be able to tell a lot about the direction of this project from that alone.

Buffy= Paris Hilton
Willow stand-in= Lindsey Lohan
Xander stand-in= Rob Schneider
Giles stand-in= Steven Seagal
Angel stand-in= Justin Bieber
Spike stand-in= Vanilla Ice

But the real question is will it be canon?
I haven't posted here in a LONG time, but MY GOD. I don't even - - why doesn't the writer do what the creators of Batman et al did? When Batman first came out, he was an homage to older characters. Why not do the same thing? That way, instead of stepping on the toes of fans and earning their ire, you could win them over? And still tell a good story.
Joss reacts: Link

"I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, AFTER. I don't love the idea of my creation in other hands, but I'm also well aware that many more hands than mine went into making that show what it was. And there is no legal grounds for doing anything other than sighing audibly."
Can't believe it. I hope tomorrow it'll be just a bad dream...
Does everyone understand that this movie can not (legally) include any of the characters from the TV show? No Giles. No Willow. No Xander. No Angel. None of them. Only Buffy and whoever else was in the Kristy Swanson movie (I only saw it once and didn't much care for it since I despise Sutherland so much). And of course new characters can be created, but 20th's legal department should be at the ready if any of them are too similar to characters from the TV show.
"But the real question is will it be canon?"


So, not green lit yet. Which is good. Right? In our eyes anyways.

I was just wondering, how many projects in Hollywood get "announced" and then come to naught? I mean, percentage wise. It seems like that might be pertinent here. That way I can calibrate my Upset-O-MeterTM correctly.
Oh man Joss' response is golden.
Was just about to post that too, Leaf. I'm sure there's some genuine frustration in there, but he manages to be as witty and charming as always.
I saw Joss' response, too. Joss has a great response to this. He knows what Warner Brothers wants to do is perfectly legal. The only thing is whether its' profitable. It won't be.
Joss's response is, indeed, quite amusing. "Whit Stillman AND Wes Anderson? This is gonna be the most sardonically adorable movie EVER." :-).

I'm somewhere in the middle about the whole shebang. I don't do fanfic, but I don't object to remakes (c.f. cover versions of beloved songs) per se. It's the timing and the style of this proposal that many are responding negatively to, it seems to me.
I don't understand about the copyright business.

Does it mean that from now on there will be two different timelines? One written by Joss (in comics) and one written by Anderson (on screen)?
In some ways Joss' responce makes me feel 'well, if Joss can be ok about it maybe I should let go of my anger...'

But... They. Made. Joss. Sigh. *rages* (Kidding. Kinda.)
That's not a real letter. It can't be. It's too bitchy, and this line makes it all seem like a joke:

This is a sad, sad reflection on our times, when people must feed off the carcasses of beloved stories from their youths—just because they can't think of an original idea of their own, like I did with my Avengers idea that I made up myself."
Skytteflickan88, it's a real letter. It sounds just like Joss. Not "too bitchy" at all. What you quoted was sarcasm. Yes, he is making light of the situation and himself. Sounds like Joss.

[ edited by TamaraC on 2010-11-23 02:18 ]
I guess it breaks down like this.

:Buffy reboot film with a new actress as Buffy and totally new characters and unrelated to the show controlled by Warner Bros..

:Joss's Buffy continuing via the season 8 and upcoming season 9 comics controlled by Fox.

Is this situation a little like the Bond thing?Where two rival Bond films were made?Never Say Never Again(a remake of Thunderball) with Connery and using Blowfeld and SPECTRE while EON continued with the offical Bond series (Octopussy with Roger Moore came out that same year as Never Say Never Again) but no longer could use SPECTRE or Blowfeld.

Warner Bros. can only use Buffy and maybe characters from the original 92 film in this reboot film while FOX can continue the offical Joss controlled Buffy with all the T.V. characters via the comics?

[ edited by Buffyfantic on 2010-11-23 02:24 ]
Not buying it. Could be because I didn't see him react this badly to the motion comic or the other reboot. Was he just as undiplomatic then? I didn't read all the article at the time, I got bored.
Buffyfanatic is right. I also compared it to movie studios making Tarzan movies without Johnny Weissmuller while he was on the job and afterwards
Let's see what the actors from the show say... according to Twitter

Emma caulfield: Buffy reboot? ahahahhaha..

David Boreanaz

Just keep watching, more will surface
No-one else in the world writes like that (I mean that as a compliment, of course).

Anyway, why are people still using that same old picture of Joss? And am I crazy or does that not look like SMG in the main photo?
Since all of the TV series creations are out of bounds (characters, and presumably locations too), does this mean that Luke Perry may reprise his role as Pike? And that the vampires will fly again (or were they just levitating)? I wonder if they'll sparkle?


I read under the Joss-letter post that it's a double.
I'm not going to worry yet. There's many a slip twikst screen and script.
Wow, late to the game on this one. I won't totally rule this out until I see it. I actually hoped that this would happen someday, it just seems to soon. But in today's Hollywood climate, I am not surprised. While I will always hold the TV series closest to my heart, I do want to see Buffy live on as an icon. I hope it is good. I'd rather someone do right by Buffy then make a piece of crap. I certainly don't wish that they will make a bad film.
Will. not. watch.

Buffy without Joss =/= Buffy.
No Buffy without Joss.
The problem is Buffy that i love is not just "Buffy". I mean there's many characters there that without them Buffy just not the same. Even if Joss remake it without the characters from the series, i doubt i'm gonna see it. Wait, i think i still gonna watch just because it's Joss ;)

and i don't have skeptical eye or stake
*go to my secret room look skeptical and sharpens stake*
UGH. No Buffy without Joss. And throwing around the name of Batman reboot does not ameliorate the fact that this effort looks a cheap grab for fannish dollars. The writer's a fan (great) but unknown and untested (not great), there's no director (and in movies, the director is the authorial figure) and they want to have the movie out by 2011?!? What a complete rush job! If the studio took Buffy seriously: hired a writer with a proven track record, was courting a name director and was planning to take their time to make the movie, I admit that I might be interested. But this whole endeavor, if it even gets off the ground and into theaters (or, God forbid, direct to DVD) looks shoddy. And deeply disrespectful of the existing fandom.
"Nuffy" doesn't fully capture my feelings about this project. I shall call it "Barfy."
More Cast Members Tweeting

Julie Benz: never have truer words been tweeted!!!! RT @jennyandteets I will only say this once. Without Joss, there is no Buffy!
Since SMG is the face of Buffy and Joss is the brain of Buffy, no SMG or Joss = no Buffy. We should be hitting these people with an endless stream of NO WAY emails and letters. Maybe even an Ad that drives around their building night and day, this time with some news coverage. Let the whole world know what "Buffy" fans think of this "development". I bet the actors might even help out with this one, getting it in the media.
What the active fan base wants is something that, absent access to The Guardian of Forever, the studio can't give them.
I don't know what you want as a fan but what I would want is a Buffy movie featuring SMG, NB, AH and ASH...written by Joss Whedon.
Amber Benson: Apparently, they're rebooting 'Buffy' w/out Joss Whedon: I told him that asking to play the title role would frighten the Studio Execs.
Buffy meets Twilight. I can already see the cringe inducing trailer in my head. Make it stop!

This film is going to be so mock worthy.
I want to go and start making picket signs. Seriously - RAGE!!!!
Oh... crap. I thought this died away. If they are still set to do it then just change the name. They are going to make changes anyway. There is no "active fan base eagerly awaiting" for this movie. Make a different character and create a new fan base - if you can.
Just staked a vampire. #lulz

I laughed out loud at that. And darn it, I'm always late to the party. I, too, thought that this was all talk. I'm a bit conflicted by this, though I seem to be inclined towards the "Reboot = terrible idea" bandwagon. It's been said many times over, particularly in this thread, but a Buffy reboot without Joss is pretty much pointless. I feel strangely like Buffy in 'Forever' at the moment: I'd love more than anything for the return of something/one I love on the one hand, but on the other hand, I know it'd be distorted from the original version. Only, in this case, I don't know whether that will be a good or bad thing. As others have said, I think I would be sufficiently okay with this if it diverged entirely from the Buffyverse. No original characters, but hey, the framework would maybe work. But then again, it's still quite early for a reboot...

I don't know, is my conclusion. Although I do find the idea of a Buffy reboot sans the purple man somewhat disconcerting.
Studio Morons:

Whadda we want?
When da we wannem?
You never know it might be good. Maybe It really will be a fresh take on the core idea.

I mean Christ imo they'd have to go a looong way to beat the bloody awfulness that was season 8, but I'm sure this lot will rise to the challenge somehow.

"I don't know what you want as a fan but what I would want is a Buffy movie featuring SMG, NB, AH and ASH...written by Joss Whedon."

No Spike then? *g*

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2010-11-23 10:27 ]
If you have a Buffy with different (hippy) parents, different friends, who never went to Sunnydale or met Angel or Spike - is she still Buffy? What makes Buffy, Buffy. A stake? A cheerleading outfit?
Sue...sure, Spike could be in there, his presence just isn't a MUST HAVE for me like the others that I mentioned.

Just thinking about this again this morning has me all kinds of agitated once again.

Word to Valerie in the point that there is no active fan base awaiting THIS movie. We were hoping for a movie but not this one. Not this way. *sighs*
We still love Arthurian/Merlin stories, Robin Hood stories (personal fondness,) Greek God myths and legends, and yes, even Batman stories even though the modern tellings are not written by the original creators.

The difference being that the original creators of those stories are long since dead and gone and not currently still writing stories about their creation.
Eliza Dushku: Joss made the "Buffster" & w/out him... I just don't trust the girl. Or the world.

This is a beyond terrible idea.
So ... if this fan wank version of a film gets off the ground, we're all just gonna boycot it? A few of us will just pirate it and watch it just to hate on it, right?
I'm committed to seeing it. Whether I pay for it or obtain it through other means is a question yet to be answered.
Obviously a terrible idea.
And the press release calls Fran and Kaz Kuzui the creators ? WTF ?
@ cheryl
That was what I meant. Yes, we wanted a movie but not this one. There is an active fan base for Buffy but not for THIS particular movie. We need more than just the name Buffy and it seems they don't get it.

[ edited by Valerie on 2010-11-23 18:27 ]
The reason Buffy worked is like a simple math problem...Great writer + great premise + great cast = great show. Any of those parts missing and it doesn't add up. It sounds like she is running with only the 'great premise' part and expecting to come up with something...she doesn't get the whole equation.
I've been on a slow burn (of anger) about this all day. A little while ago, the slow burn turned to high anger. Nay, flaming-hot, art-related rage. For all the well-espoused reasons that others before me have posted, this strikes me as a very, very bad idea. A real kick in the head to Joss. To paraphrase Giles, "I do hate [it]...quite a lot."

[ edited by phlebotinin on 2010-11-23 20:23 ]
Cease and Desist Faux Buffy!
The reason Buffy worked is like a simple math problem...Great writer + great premise + great cast = great show. Any of those parts missing and it doesn't add up. It sounds like she is running with only the 'great premise' part and expecting to come up with something...she doesn't get the whole equation.

It seems premature to argue that it's missing any part of that equation seeing as we've no way of judging the quality of the writer in this case and there's no cast yet.
Ah but you're forgetting the other pertinent equation:

incomplete information + news we don't like + largely baseless speculation - (a sense of perspective)^2 = fan response

Other than that I think we've dealt with it pretty well ;).
Saje, I think you forgot to multiply by Joss-love.
Yeah, it probably is premature, but if Joss or SMG (or my favorite)JM or any of the other cast members aren't involved... well, the only solution that comes to my mind is failure.
Saje, I think you forgot to multiply by Joss-love.

Joss-love can't be a term because it's the underpinnings, like logic itself - without it there can be no equations at all because balance would be impossible ;).
What makes Buffy, Buffy.

I thought The Wish pretty much answered the question: Buffy's friends and Sunnydale. As opposed to not having friends and living in Cleveland.

People have been comparing this reboot to Batman, or Star Trek; but a closer comparison would be if someone had a copyright to the Harry Potter character and decided to reboot Harry Potter without Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Hagrid, Sirius -- or Hogwarts, for that matter.

And for those who think that this Buffy movie is a smart career move for an emerging writer - allow me to respectfully disagree. I don't think coming into the business through angering one of the most passionate fan communities before you have earned a single fan of your own is good for anyone's career.

Whadda we want?
When da we wannem?

I guess after the whopping $17M that Let Me In earned worldwide passing on an opportunity to make another vampire movie resented by the fans of the original would be just plain stupid.

[ edited by Effulgent on 2010-11-23 22:57 ]
Ohhh... I see... I see the light! Thank you, Sensei. (My math skills are of the sucky variety.) Joss-love is the reason for existence, it holds up the world. Or at least the black. ;) Who needs elephants?
Who needs elephants?

Certainly not the turtles, talk about a load of their back !

And if i'm a sensei how come my fence still needs painting ? I don't think i'm doing this right ;).
I had the chance of 'tweeting' back and forth with the lady of the hour, Whit Anderson. I had been on a weepy, "say it ain't so" rant when I shot a message her way. This is what she had to say and it underscores my qualm in a nutshell.

Me: @XXXXXXX don't get me wrong, I wanna be big about it..really, but this is watching-a-schoolbus-explode-before-your-eyes sad.

WA: Whoa. That's really sad. The saddest, actually. Think of the children!!! (I promise not to blow up a bus. Flat tire, maybe.)

Me: but you have to be willing to blow up the bus, that's just it! *joss-sized sigh*. Just remember: She saved the world...a lot!

(That last bit was said in a tone of heart-breaking, reluctance in my head as I finally realized that this is really going to happen seeing I'm talking to the writer of this abomination...but I digress)

WA: I think this Speed metaphor is confusing me... Are you really Keanu Reeves?

Me: (not swayed by her attempt to buy me off by comparing me to the handsome movie star--which I'm most definitely not--I answered her) Sad Keanu, maybe (referencing the web meme).


So, my thoughts: Assuming she was honest and not being 100% tongue-in-cheek, my comment to her encapsulates my conflict of her at the reins of a jossless Buffy. She assures me (and through me, the rest of fandom, if you will) that she will NOT 'blow up the bus' (i.e. the legacy/franchise) but might not be able to avoid a flat-tire (perhaps remarking on her inexperience, etc.) For the record, I was not invoking "Speed" with this imagery (although, ironically, Joss did have a hand in writing that script...which I'm not sure she knew) simply the saddest thing I could think of at the time to express my pain. My point was this: the genius of Joss was bringing super high-stakes drama while exploring intimate and sensitive relationships that made us very invested in their outcomes; his penchant for placing television characters in never-before-seen (mark my words) places of emotional turmoil and peril mixed with his talent for narrative, dialogue, and creative plotting have shaped a generation of viewers and writers. He did this because he was willing to 'blow up the bus' when no one else would and he made us believe he might really do it each time. It was sheer genius.

Meanwhile, Ms. Anderson is trying to tell me that she will drive with as much care as possible, give or take a flat tire. If that is any indication of her vision for one of the most original, unpredictable, and loved heroines of our time then God help the Buffster. Like I said to her, I wish her success. Really. But I just hope she realizes who's Scythe she's trying to wield.
To be honest that just sounds to me like a metaphor being applied to two different things. She sees the bus as the film itself i.e. she's going to try not to ruin it through her actions (which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of your initial comment about "watching-a-schoolbus-explode-before-your-eyes sad") and you Jonnathan (by the end at least) seem to see the bus as the story i.e. for it to be true to BtVS it has to be willing to do anything to serve the story (rather than e.g. a "franchise"), the writer has to be willing to drive the story-bus off a cliff.

Just two different buses is all.
I think that Josh Weldon and Whitney Anderson are one and the same.

I think Josh is going through one of those crises that afflict all geniuses from time to time, and is secretly writing the script, but under a sudo suede pesud different name, to see if his success is due to his talent or to the blind adoration of his fanbase.

That's what I think.

You'll all feel silly when I'm right.

Roll on the Buffy movie, that's what I say.

[EDIT] Possibly (s)he's having one of those Larry Wachowski type crises as well.

[FURTHER EDIT] Sorry, should have said "Buffy film". This is not America. Not where I'm sitting anyway.
[ edited by ZodKneelsFirst on 2010-11-25 09:19 ]

[ edited by ZodKneelsFirst on 2010-11-25 09:26 ]
Yeah but we can use their words and feel more glamorous. Similarly, they're allowed to use irony (though only if they know what it actually means). Special relationship and all that.
I guess so.

As long as they can use ours and feel more sophisticated.

e.g. Bollocks.
As Noel Coward used to say.
He stuck his little finger out as he said it though. You can't teach that sort of class.

(or "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. You twat" as Oscar Wilde said. But while wearing a cravat. Posh see)
It's that Brit sophistication we can't get enough of.

It plays silly buggers with our impressionable backwoods hickitude - though we could use it it too if we would just be arsed enough to learn. Usually we're too bladdered to be arsed. Or we're rat-arsed or having a slash. Or we're pissing about.

See - so elegant. I felt like I was immediately transported to a 1930's drawing room in Mayfair. With the Countess and the Duke and the Earl and stuff.

; >
Aaaargh, they've learned how to take the piss, wur doomed, dooomed I tell ye ! Bleedin' septics ;).

(highly amusing and nigh perfect but unfortunately you've betrayed your American roots there QG. Too bladdered ? That only computes on your side of the pond ;)
Cooar Blooimey Meeary Pappens.
You's a rooit owl charmer n now mistike.
Ah, so you are English. Why don't you always post in your native accent ?
; >

Ah, I did wonder. There's always that risk of veering a bit off and hitting a wrong note. (Like "having a hump" instead of "have got the hump". ; >)

Can I say I'm naffing off now? - 'cos I am.
Not really.

I'm gonna naff off would be OK.

But we understand.

You're doing really well.
Good point, well made - the cousins still have quite a way to go when it comes to condescension. It's a gift and a curse (but only for other people so on balance, gift ! ;).

There's always that risk of veering a bit off and hitting a wrong note. (Like "having a hump" instead of "have got the hump". ; >)

(for when you get back ;)

You don't hear "too bladdered" much (or I don't) but it's more or less OK grammatically QG, I was engaging in hijinks by implying that we're fond of a drink over here (moreso than seems to be broadly accepted in the US) so that "too drunk" is something of an oxymoron.

BTW, you can say "I'm naffing off" (though, yep, "I'm gonna naff off" is more usual) but it's probably more often directed at others - e.g. "Oh, naff off!" - as a milder, euphemistic invitation to, err, procreate elsewhere (sort of like "Get out of my face" ?). "Naff" is originally from Polari BTW, mid 20th century slang used mainly by British gay and theatre people - there being a fair overlap between groups, certainly in the past - as a sort of code and originally meant "Not Available for Fucking". A few words from it have made their way into general slang (e.g. 'khazi', 'scarper', 'cottaging' etc.).

So there you go. Here endeth #5640 in the ongoing series "Slang with Saje: Speaking Informal British English Gooder!" ;).
I guess after the whopping $17M that Let Me In earned worldwide passing on an opportunity to make another vampire movie resented by the fans of the original would be just plain stupid.

That might be one of the better situations to compare the present one to (though not perfect, by far). Both the fans and the director of the original movie didn't want to see it remade and the film flopped. Anyone know how the author of the book felt about the two films?
These are John Lindqvist's thoughts before it was released:

The Northlander: And I’ve also got to ask you, Matt Reeves is shooting the American version of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. How do you feel about that, or Hollywood remakes in general? Especially since this is such a personal story.

JAL: Yeah well, it’s hard for me to... Tomas’ film is the definitive film, it is, I can’t imagine how anything would be better. BUT, that said, I was very happy when I heard it would be Matt Reeves when I knew there would be a Hollywood production, I thought it was cool that it was him. It had nothing to do with this, but I watched Cloverfield a year ago and thought it was really good. Or, I thought it was a worn out theme that was done in a completely new way, a cool way. So I liked it. And he’s also emailed me and expressed how much he likes the actual story and could identify with it and that he really would treat it with respect and he looks forward to doing this, it’s not something they’ve just tossed at him. ’You’re gonna make this movie, Matt! Chop-chop!’. He really wants to make this film. I think that’s a really cool place to start.

And after:
"I might just be the luckiest writer alive. To have not only one, but two excellent versions of my debut novel done for the screen feels unreal," Lindqvist writes. "'Let the Right One In' is a great Swedish movie. 'Let Me In' is a great American movie."

Different beast though IMO, for him the story was told, the option sold. And I think crossing media makes a difference too (book to screen).
That's good that he was happy with how it all worked out. Guess the comparison, for the moment, is just with the director and fans. It is very hard to find a similar situation.

I need to rewatch Let the Right One In - such a great film.
Really is. I've had the book on my TBR pile for ages after a mate said it's even better than the film, hopefully i'll get to it one of these days.

(normally I much prefer to read the book first and if I don't get the chance I won't often go back to it after seeing the film - too much "pollution" of the characters in my mind's eye)
I'm not sure Let Me In was a remake.

As I understand it the director of the american version had the script befor the swedish version was done.

And I absolutely understand that could well be studio spin, but for some reason I'm inclined to believe him.

(The Book is ALWAYS better than the film, which is why you should either never read the book first, or never see the film).
See, for me it's always better if I read it first but if I read it afterwards I often prefer the film (whichever I experience first usually makes the biggest impression), provided they're at least within spitting distance of each other quality wise.

In the first link above Lindqvist describes it as a "re-adaptation" because Reeves apparently made a(nother) film of the book rather than remaking the Swedish film which a) I quite like and b) sort of answers something I was pondering about 'The Wizard of Oz' which someone mentioned in one of these threads (in the context of remakes/reboots).
I haven't seen Let Me In, so I'm just going from the reviews I've heard and read, but they "borrowed" quite a few shots directly from the first film, so the line between re-adaptation and remake is pretty blurred in this case.
Was it not a case that both films shot certain scenes exactly the way they were described in the book?
I mean shots as in the framing of the shot. You could see from the trailer that they used the same camera position for the scene when a character falls from a building. (Just avoiding a spoiler there.)
Yeah, parts of the pool scene look shot for shot too thinking about it which calls the "re-adaptation" idea into question (said when I first saw the 'Let Me In' trailer that I was glad i'd already seen 'Let the Right One In' because man, that's a spoiler packed trailer).

Wasn't sure if it was worth watching anyway but if it's a near scene-for-scene remake I won't bother, those're the ones I have least time for.
I remember the reviews and articles I've read on this always treated the movie as a pure remake, mentioning the director was a fan of the original movie and the book and saying he used the book to figure out a remake that had some merit on its own. But then again, my memory might be failing me.

I'm hesistant to watch the remake, because 'Let the Right One In' was a magic movie experience and is a modern classic. Still: I am curious what they did with it and the reviews do seem to agree that while it's lesser than the original, the remake does do a good job of preserving the integrity of the property and even adds a good scene or two, well worth seeing.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home