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
"Ha ha HA! Mine is an evil laugh...now die!"
11944 members | you are not logged in | 18 September 2014




Tweet







November 23 2010

The Joss-man sighs audibly at news of Buffy The Vampire Slayer movie reboot. His email exchange with Kristin Dos Santos is filled with class and a note of bitterness. We sigh along.

Dude, this isn't real. Clearly a fake letter, made to make fun.

"
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."

Lol.
Not fake. Classic Joss.
Um, "fake"? The prose rings of Joss. Smacks of Joss, even. And he is making fun, but of both the reboot proposal and, to some extent, himself. (See "Avengers"/"Batman" quips.)

Unless your comment is wacky double-irony, Skytte . . .
If that isn't Joss then they should hire whoever wrote it to write the screenplay.
Nope, I'm just not buying that response. Still believe the article writer is making fun off us.
@Skytteflickan88: Joss has a long-standing relationship with Kristin. I doubt she would abuse it by posting a fake email exchange in such a high-traffic entertainment blog as E-online.
There's no way that's not Joss. It's exactly how he writes... nobody could do that good a job of impersonating him.
I think you guys want Joss to go to this site to confirm the e-mail is his. Good idea.
You know, no disrespect to Whit Anderson, I don't know anything about her, but... imo, if you are really a big Buffy fan, if you grew up with it and absolutely love it, you don't take a job like that when it involves not consulting Joss. I know, it's a job, money, but... no, you consult Joss.
It's Joss, I'd bet some serious cashola on it. He and Kristin have a good professional relationship, and he's broken stories with her before.

So many likely Jossian inflections, and he's making fun of everything. This sealed the deal:

"So look for The Dark Knight Rises Way Earlier Than That Other One And Also More Cheaply And In Toronto..."

Plus: "Leave me to my pain!"

I'd laugh, but I'm also groaning with the ow.

ETA: And whyiwatch is there before me. ; >

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-23 02:35 ]
From what i can gather this sorta sounds like Joss but he sounds too bitter which isn't really a Joss thing and when t the Buffy reboot was announced after he had been approached to help out with the reboot he said and i quote “I think that’s something better left untouched by me. So, I wish them luck.”
Hee! Anybody else notice that the pic they're using is actually of DB kissing one of Sarah's doubles? Kinda appropriate given what the article is about.

Joss' letter was fantastic but it still hasn't quite hit me yet that this is actually happening.
That Joss Whedon does have class.
Okay, I accept it was real. I just thought it was someone making fun off us. It's just such a ... bitter? letter. Never read him be so disapointed with the other reboot, or the motion comic. I was thrown off.
That's so Joss, lol.
Ok, so we don't have the greenlight to watch this movie. Unless he comes back with a, I'll take a look see when it has been out for awhile. Watching it will only arm us more, for the mocking and laughing and pointing. Dude clearly does not give his blessing on this project and any true fan girl would back the hell off right now, but I'm doubting she will, so she is already a sell out. The Twilight crap is a big hit. If it could happen for that crap it could happen for this. What do we do?
Anybody else notice that the pic they're using is actually of DB kissing one of Sarah's doubles?


I was just asking about that in the other thread. That is pretty amusing.

I'm not sure that it will really happen. Lots of movies get stuck in development hell.
he sounds too bitter which isn't really a Joss thing


That's not how I'd characterize him. That is, I don't think he sounds especially bitter here and I do think he is a little bitter much of the time.

I'm gonna go listen to "Heart, Broken" now...
What David Boreanaz thinks of the reboot: http://tvovermind.zap2it.com/tv-news/joss-whedon-buffy-movie/39860
@ZeeBuffyBot

We have to kill her and everyone at WB. Right now, before it gets any further.

*waiting to see if you get that I'm kidding*

Seriously, what to do, other than not watching it?
Maybe coz didn't think the first 1 was gonna get made at all and now it sounds like 4 deff, and he doesn't want it in sum1 elses hands. That why the lack of bitter b4
While we're at it, my favorite tweet about the reboot came from Emma Caulfield: Buffy reboot? ahahahhaha.."

[ edited by maxsummers on 2010-11-23 02:50 ]
I think he sounds slightly rueful - like bitters, but w/ a touch of herby-rue and just a dash of almondy-cyanide. With some citrus-flavored mocking rubbed all around the edge.

To me, this Buffy Movie Sans Joss 2.0 isn't much more real than the 1st Kuzui-flavored one that departed this life last year. Or, I guess, died stillborn.

After all: Wonder Woman, Ripper, Goners... Okay, now I'm bitter - with just a hint of lime.
The "Whit/Anderson" line sounds suspiciously like a shot to me.
Well the yey Joss,and GRR ARG for the idiots, from the stars is a good start. Wouldn't you say? Emma Caulfield laughed at the idea. Quick, someone gather up all of the comments/reactions from the WHedonverse celebs, and any1 else in that "world". AMMO!!! WE will figure out the point and shoot part later. That is right Skytteflickan88 WE will KILL (the project) with AMMO (words)
I particularly enjoyed the bit: "I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, AFTER."
"You know, no disrespect to Whit Anderson, I don't know anything about her, but... imo, if you are really a big Buffy fan, if you grew up with it and absolutely love it, you don't take a job like that when it involves not consulting Joss. I know, it's a job, money, but... no, you consult Joss."

That's exactly how I feel as well, maxsummers. Taking over writing Joss' characters for a movie when you know he disapproves of the whole situation is pretty insulting.
Hilarious.

In this reboot happy climate, I'm not surprised they gave it the green light. Am curious, but not enough to spend money on it.
Unless Joss Whedon went and talked to both Ridley Scott and Jim Cameron for their blessing before trotting out the script for "Alien: Resurrection", I'm gonna call that a completely unreasonable standard of professional courtesy.
Oh, Joss. Stay classy.
"Unless Joss Whedon went and talked to both Ridley Scott and Jim Cameron for their blessing before trotting out the script for "Alien: Resurrection", I'm gonna call that a completely unreasonable standard of professional courtesy."

HMMM Good point, would like to hear the feed back on that one!
...and the room goes silent! ARe you all typing vigorously? Have we all moved on to a different post. THis is so highschool u guys, u left me behind
Unless Joss Whedon went and talked to both Ridley Scott and Jim Cameron for their blessing before trotting out the script for "Alien: Resurrection", I'm gonna call that a completely unreasonable standard of professional courtesy.

KingofCretins | November 23, 02:57 CET


I don't know much about Alien, so correct me if I'm wrong... R. Scott and J. Cameron were the directors for the first 2 Alien movies but they were not the writers, they didn't create the story, characters and such. They were most likely hired for the job and the creator, Dan O'Bannon sold his script to be made by them, so he probably agreed with it. I know the importance of the director but the original creator of a story is the writer, if he was ok with it, I don't see why Joss absolutely needed to consult him.
So now we're ascribing to Joss a lack of professional courtesy that he doesn't actually exhibit, but rather is something other people are projecting onto the situation?

He expressed his personal, if strong, mixed feelings, and admitted his hands were not the only ones involved in starting Buffy.

Let's not start jumping at things commenters are positing, rather things Joss is exhibiting.
The Twilight crap is a big hit. If it could happen for that crap it could happen for this. What do we do?


That is EXACTLY what I'm worried about. I really don't want our fandom overrun with vapid Twihards. We know how to fangirl aaaaaand be intelligent. I don't want the intelligence to disappear.

And this article claims that they wanted to reboot because the franchise has a built in fandom. BUILT IN FANDOM MY ASS. Without Joss, the so-called built in fandom they're looking for is non-existent.

[ edited by katiegrrl1016 on 2010-11-23 03:17 ]
Oh man some of the comments over on the AV Club are making me die with laughter.

Unless Joss Whedon went and talked to both Ridley Scott and Jim Cameron for their blessing before trotting out the script for "Alien: Resurrection", I'm gonna call that a completely unreasonable standard of professional courtesy.

Maybe. I haven't given this much thought but three points spring to mind. First, Alien was not the baby of any one creator. It was always something that changed hands with each new installment. Secondly, Alien, unlike Buffy, wasn't being canonically continued when it was rebooted. I suspect if Ridley Scott was making an Alien comic he claimed was canonical, Joss would have steered clear. And thirdly, it's not like Joss just made one Buffy movie years before. He spent 7 years of his life on Buffy, another two on its spin-off and more again on the comics.
Let's not start jumping at things commenters are positing, rather things Joss is exhibiting.

KoC's point is that Joss's email to Kristen was unprofessional. I don't agree, but I don't think he's attributing board comments to Joss.
At this rate, people are gonna start making reboots while the original shows/movies are still on...

Hey, here's an idea, let's reboot The Guild without Felicia Day!!!
Agreeing with b!X, I see no lack of professional courtesy. The first thing JW does in his "response" is to poke fun at himself for being hired to write and direct the less-than-original "Avengers" movie. And his jibe about Whit Stillman and Wes Anderson I read as less a shot at Whit Anderson, and more the taking advantage of the opportunity for a silly pun, happenstantially based on her name. "I can't wish people who are passionate about my little myth ill" is a pretty direct statement that he doesn't, you know, wish them ill.

On another note, ZeeBuffyBot, could you use standard punctuation and spelling in all your comments, as per site rules? Cheers.
KoC asserted that it was unprofessional for Joss to express his opinion/feelings on the matter given that Joss didn't talk to the people who made Alien and Aliens. The premise there would be that Joss is saying they should be asking him before doing a Buffy, but Joss never says that. He might wish people would, but he never says they should.

So what's being critiqued is behavior Joss never actually exhibits, but only behavior being ascribed to him by commenters.
Just because if he didn't do it (professional courtesy) doesn't really have anything to do with him. WE the fans (or me, whatever) want Joss to give his blessing b4 watching the movie. To make this short, fangirl making Buffy when Joss doesn't doesn't her to, bad. Should it be considered a bad thing if Joss went and ran with some1 elses story, we shouldn't expect the fangirl not to do the movie if Joss doesn't informally give the go ahead (coz formally he has no writes, even though like Tony Head said, it has been his since he was 19)Worried, that I didn't make any sese just now, but I'm posting anyway. 2:30 in the morning, in Ireland, keep the gun pointed away from plz!
standard punctuation? Nancy, 2:30 in the morning, a little slack if u please. I haven't just yet figured out what u said, but I'm sure ur right but plz, just a lil slack. Also not a writer! Punctuation, not so much!
Loved it. Great response.
What David Boreanaz thinks of the reboot

Thankfully, Angel will not appear in this film (very cute pout though, David).

And the email Joss wrote has made me a little more bitter, on his behalf. Maybe I will write something at that Hero Complex link in the other thread, after all.
Indeed, this was classic MacGruber right here. I thought it was funny, with most of the funny aimed squarely at himself, and as SNT pointed out, "I can't wish people who are passionate about my little myth ill," pretty clearly sums up his feelings towards Anderson. Of course he's not crazy about this, and I don't think it's unfair for him to say so. But he's also saying that he hopes the best for it, as far as I can see.
I thought the comments attributed to Joss sounded JUST LIKE HIM, he uses sarcasm, indirectness and black humor regularly. Joss has put a lot of time into Buffy, maybe he wants to move on, maybe he doesn't, but have the basic human decency to not dissect every syllable to fulfill your own agenda.

It's not like he, Kai and the kids are going to be living on the streets in a couple of months. Joss has mad skillz.
I didn't comment on the professionalism of the letter or of Joss, in point of fact.

I said that as a standard of professional courtesy, "New Writer must seek blessing of iconic creative entity of prior entries of beloved franchise before taking a paying job" is pretty ridiculous. That was in response to a poster, not Joss. I used Joss as an example of a writer who did not, to my knowledge, satisfy such a standard in his own career, making it all the more clear that the standard proposed by someone trying to defend Joss from this "offense", is unreasonable.
Upside? Joss will be making a movie in Toronto! No? Ah well. I find his comments rueful and sad.
Ditto on Dan O'Bannon- he was the one who really came up with the story and created the idea of the Alien. Cameron and Scott were directors of movies. Sort of like saying that we are going to give the directors of the Harry Potter movies say in how the characters are used- nope. That's JK Rowling's sandbox and she and only she gets to make that call. Here, Joss cannot even make that call and the Scoobies are his creations. Not Whit Anderson's. I am further shocked that people did not see that (1) Joss really wrote that letter to KDS, and (2) it was typically Jossian arch and funny and poignant all at the same time.
My mad, mad love for all things Whedon-y just got a little bigger after reading that article. Though, that may have something to do with Joss' very dry sense of humour (it reads dry to me, like great British comedy). I, personally, just don't see how any "reboot" (and I use that term loosely, because well, seriously, reboot -to me- smacks of 'Oh Twilight was a huge hit! Let's make moar moniez with moar vampyrs... what have we got in the vault?') can be successful without Mutant Enemy behind it.
The saddest part about that letter is that writing is better than anything I expect from the film.
maxsummers, no they're trying to remake the Avengers without Robert Downey jr, Samuel L Jackson and all of the original cast also without Joss. I tell you, it's a conspiracy.

I'm really afraid if this movie got success then there'll be war between buffy series fan with the remake fan *shudders*
Living in the suburbs of Toronto I can only hope "The Dark Knight Rises Way Earlier Than That Other One And Also More Cheaply And In Toronto" gets made. :-) Hopefully Warner Brothers can see the light and I can catch glimpses of Whedon & Batman while on my way to work in Toronto.

It's really too bad that Joss doesn't hold more control over the rights of Buffy. Not only to stop this but to have made Ripper happen years ago. Makes me hope that for new characters and stories that Joss either does it for the internet where he owns the characters completely or at least gets a good enough deal to have a say in what happens to those characters in the future.
Dana, I'll be blunt, I think an expectation that ANY creative artist of a long-running franchise needs to go kiss the ring of ANY creative artist who was previously the iconic figure associated with that franchise before they take a paying job is absurd.

If said artist, be they writer, director, author, already gave up the right to make that decision later on (I don't know, for instance, whether Rowling has any actual *say* in the movies), nobody who is later hired to do work in that franchise owes them anything, certainly not a right of refusal for whether or not they'll do the paying work. The biggest laugh I could ever have would be a conversation where Warner Bros called me and offered me a possibly career-making job to reboot "Buffy" as a feature film, and somebody asked me if I thought I should get Joss' permission before I tried. I would be calling that person back the next day to continue laughing, wouldn't even say hello first. What I'd do, and what I assume from her in no particular way alarming interview that Whit Anderson is going to do, is try to come up with a vision of the character that evokes the things that made her a fan of it in the first place while still being something new.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-23 04:30 ]
How do you think Hitchhock would have felt about the 'remake' of Psycho in his lifetime? Tolkien about somebody writing a 'continuation' to the LotR while he was still alive ? Mitchell about Alexandra Ripley's Scarlett? I kind of freaked out when I saw that article...

[ edited by dorotea on 2010-11-23 04:36 ]
Thankfully, Angel will not appear in this film


It's my hope that this reboot will be more in the vein of what Buffy-the-show was to the first Buffy movie (i. e., there was a similar basic concept, and Buffy was still blonde and named Buffy), rather than what the Star Trek reboot was to the original.

Which is to say, if Buffy is the only "familiar" character in this version, that's okay with me. It sounds like they're taking all the teenager out of it, too, which makes it a totally different story.

Much like I pretend that Love Never Dies is in no way related to The Phantom of the Opera, I will pretend that this Buffy is in no way related to my Buffy, and all will be well.
ZeeBuffyBot, it's not 2:30 everywhere. She's not supposed to know that. And she's not asking that you spend an hour on every comment, just that you maintain a look of intelligence for this site by saying "anyone" and "please" instead of "any1" or "plz".
If some exec asked me to write a Buffy movie at this time I would laugh in that persons face and tell them to call Joss Whedon's agent.
No Joss, no interest.

I'll bet the studios are counting on the free publicity....there's going to be so many "Buffy without Joss Whedon?" articles, its going to make the quintessential Joss question, "why do you write such strong women characters?" look like an unusual query.
I think Hitchcock would have been wryly amused, but I also don't think he'd have expected a show of homage or something like -- and I'm very much not talking about Joss, but rather fans -- asking permission to do it.

I don't know from Tolkienn's publishing deal -- did, in order to publish, he give up to the publisher a sequel right to the franchise? If so, he wouldn't have had much to complain about. George Lucas defending his property rights vigorously and he has the control over "Star Wars" that people seem to wish Joss had with "Buffy".

Did nobody read "What If..." comics or the like? I mean, even "Garfield: His Nine Lives" reflected a greater openness to contemplating different visions of the same subject matter. A two hour journey into an idea of a young woman named Buffy who slays vampires that's way more pop, or way more Matrixy, or way more Nolan-Batman-ish, or even more steampunk, or whatever, sounds like a fun diversion.
Can anyone really work on this movie without realizing that the bulk of Buffy and Joss fandom will see them as whores - and not the good kind?
Can you imagine Buffy without the lingo that Joss wrote for her and that his writer's mastered as well? This new Buffy would be an empty shell of what Joss's Buffy was. Unlike Batman, Buffy's personality was a main feature of her character. Whereas Batman is about mythology, costumes, gadgets and people around him. Buffy is all that but also personality.

I hope this project doesn't see the light of day.
Thank you DeezyG! That really needed to be said. Love your name. The lack of abbreviation in your name screams intelligence, which I know you have in abundance. I can tell I have a lot to learn from you.
KingofCretins, I think J.K. Rowling has one of those rare deals where she *does* have say in the "Harry Potter" films. This is unusual, but the book series, on which the films are based, were 800-pound gorillas before the films existed. It certainly wouldn't have helped the movies if Rowling felt she had cause to say, "Wow, that's nothing like what I wrote." But it doesn't seem like the people involved in the HP films are the ones involved here. Writers' input can also be done contractually, even if the book isn't that big a deal in itself - William Goldman had a deal for the script of "The Princess Bride," based on his novel, that stated they couldn't change one word without his permission. It's rare, but it happens. It did not happen with Joss Whedon's film rights to "Buffy."
I have been looking at this from the writer's point of view, though, and as an aspiring screenwriter I gotta say I don't really blame her for taking this job. From her perspective, she's not "an untested writer who's never written anything." She's the writer who's gonna put up there exactly what she's always believed the spirit of Buffy is, and I'm sure she's thinking that at least it's her--a true fan--writing this script rather than some hack who's just cashing in.

I dunno, I guess I'm just picturing myself in that situation, and I'd like to think I'd say no. But I think more likely I'd say, "So I get to write my favorite character, and in the process keep some other, lesser person's hands off it, AND it's gonna become a real film? Where do I sign?"
lt's a shame that the genius behind the Buffy series, wasn't asked to put some input into it. l'm not sure lf want to see the movie. Joss you are still the king.
I don't know Jobo. I would LOVE to collaborate on a Buffy script, but I would never do it without Joss's blessing, and definitely wouldn't do it knowing I would be "replacing" him. That's staking the man in the heart. It's so wrong on so many different levels that they ran out of levels.
It is a great chance for the writer. I think that is where the mixed feelings, I think Joss mentioned, stem from. I think he would completly understand her taking the job. He is a writer first, then King
A back-stabber is still a back-stabber, even if it is a great opportunity. There are unethical people everywhere from old farts to newbies. In life, you make choices, and this woman may get places with the one she made, but it also involves using a pick-ax in Joss's back to climb to her success.

Wrong choice.
I dunno if it's that simple. Joss was offered the chance to do this movie, if I recall correctly, and he passed. Am I right in that? I believe this was the info going around when the news first broke way back whenever, summer of '09 I think.

And while I personally believe she didn't make the right(est) choice, I don't think the position that it was a right choice is entirely indefensible, and I'd be surprised if she thought to herself, "I'm ripping this from Joss's hands, but it'll help me so y'know whatever." I'm just saying, I think this is a lot grayer than just backstabbing Joss to get ahead in life.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer's name can not and never will be tarnished by one movie. Not even a little bit.

Joss Whedon will always be the master.
ITs weird because Joss is still alive. And right now he's consulted on everything for the most part. Even the novels that were published years ago had some tiny input from Joss.
Let us then get another artist to re-imagine the Mona Lisa, only lets make it really cool - and dark - this time.
It's nice to know Joss has responded to it and he does raise a simple point... no one's heard of the person writing it. Yeah they're a fan, but that makes this Fan Fiction: The Movie and that's not what any Buffy fan want's to see.

Now if David Fury or Jane Espenson or any of the writers from the TV show did this I'd be OK with it. Hell I'd be happy if one of the people who wrote the official tie-in novels wrote it, but not an unknown writer who's just a fan.
ZeeBuffyBot and DeezyG - You're on time out, temporarily. I know we're all irritated by this movie thing, but let's all please be good to one another (though preferably not in IM/T9/TXT-speak as per site rules). Also, new people, the name SoddingNancyTribe means he's a Brit not a girl named Nancy :).
Stories live, by being retold. And matter in fact, how many stories have been retold during the buffy run? Almost any classic monster story, has been used to give it a fresh angle.

That said, I don't have high hopes, that this film will be able to catch the spirit of the series, than, if I am wrong, that wouldn't be a bad thing in my books.
And if it is really bad, it will only let the old series shining more, highlighting why it was that good.
It's nice to know Joss has responded to it and he does raise a simple point... no one's heard of the person writing it.

I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text. He makes a silly joke about her name. He's not saying anything more than that.
A back-stabber is still a back-stabber, even if it is a great opportunity. There are unethical people everywhere from old farts to newbies. In life, you make choices, and this woman may get places with the one she made, but it also involves using a pick-ax in Joss's back to climb to her success.

Wrong choice.


If you think you can clearly articulate the ethical duty (there is no legal one in any way, shape, or form) that Whit Anderson owes Joss Whedon and against which she can "backstab" him, I'd be very impressed.

She's not betraying Joss because she owes no loyalty to him. Look, I'll try another Joss' own career example that hopefully doesn't lend itself to the nitpicking the "Alien" example did (which was funny, since I don't think Joss asked Dan O'Bannon anymore than he asked Scott or Cameron). X-Men. Now, surely, surely Joss didn't take a paying job writing X-Men without having sought out approval from Stan Lee. That would have been... betrayal! Backstabbing! Other really over-excited words! Just because he's a fan of the franchise and the licensed publisher is willing to pay him doesn't give him the right to like actually do it without getting the creators' permission, right?

Now, I don't know if he did or didn't, but I don't really have to. What I'm trying to point out here is that people are trying to create a standard for ethical conduct that it's almost certain that Joss himself has not lived up to throughout his career.
Stan Lee was not involved in any way in the X-Men movies, did not approve of them, and had no say in what happened? Really?
The Stan Lee example is actually a worse example as I'm sure you know given the state of work-for-hire for most of comics' history and the fact that Astonishing was a companion series to the still ongoing constellation of X-Books :). Still, you made a good point earlier regardless and I'll not bother adding wood to the fire of what makes a good example to illustrate it :).
In two years, the whole Anything-With-Vampires craze will be a fading, embarrassing memory (particularly for those who were swept up in it in their pimple years).

As ever, the people who pass themselves off as market researchers prove that they have no frakking idea WHAT they're doing, but they're able to persuade people in the industry, who have no frakking idea what they're doing, that they know what they're doing.

And so it goes.
Kalia, I was talking about Joss' run in the X-men comics.

Zeitgeist, the nature of the comic business only reinforces the point to me -- there's what's legal and licensed and agreed to and compensated, and there's everything else. If people want to be all tweaked and ugly about there being a non-Joss movie, they're already doing 99% of what they can, namely, complaining on the internet (the other 1% being not buying a ticket). But letting the FFUUUUUUUU build up so strong that the fandom attributing some sort of moral outrage to a screenwriter taking a high profile paying job is just beyond reason.
KingofCretins: Do we know for sure Joss wrote that Alien movie without O'Bannon's OK? I don't know the history of that endeavor, except that Joss was unhappy with the way the director butchered his script, so I wouldn't even try to argue one way or another.

I'm pretty sure, though, Joss's work on "X-Men" has been with Lee's OK, since they have been collaborating in one way or another for some time. That's the difference between Joss's work on "X-Men" and this new writer's work on "Buffy." It isn't being done with his approval.

I'm thinking of an analogy having to do with sperm donors and gestating mothers and childbirth, with the sperm donor one day abducting the teenager and telling her that that trollop fresh out of college is her new mother... but that may be my brain on one o'clock in the morning.

ETA: My reaction may be strong, but if I were a new writer, I would have problems with taking over someone else's creation without their approval; and while I am not a screenwriter (I have written for the stage), in my paying (non-writing) profession, I have encountered people so eager to get a full-time position that they have done some really despicable things to me personally to get there. Yes, they needed a full-time income (which didn't happen, anyway). Who doesn't? Still, I would never do to them what they did to me, because (I say as I'm looking in the mirror) it's wrong.

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2010-11-23 06:57 ]
Indeed, I'll spare you a dissertation on why the comics analogy is both the best and worst possible place to go with that... Sound and fury, meet signifying nothing, as it were. But then complaining on the Internet sometimes yields results :), so I don't expect that to cease any time soon.
This whole thing is just silly. In one of the articles I read, someone from the studio (if I recall correctly) comments on the established fan base that's eager to see the story continue on the big screen. No doubt there are some casual Buffy fans, but if you're talking about the hard-core fans likely to spend money on tickets, hello. They're Joss fans first and Buffy fans second.

I don't think ill of the writer or those involved in the project. Everybody's trying to earn a living doing their thing. But this film will be in the same category as those awful Buffy novels--nothing I'm particularly willing to spend much money on. Was bored once and ordered a few used novels from Amazon... They were worth the .01 cost but maybe not the 3.95 shipping. REALLY bad.

A studio that can't figure out how to invest in and market an original product, well, they're sure to put out a less-than-quality product. It'll be some test-marketed-to-death cheese, probably with pretty faces, simple dialogue, some action and maybe some cool special effects. *yawn* Wait, didn't they do that in 1992?

Hey, I know. Why not create a NEW Slayer film called Fray? You know, something in the same universe by the same creator, a new spin on an "old" story? Something the established fan base would get really excited about?

The studio wants to invest next to nothing and rake in millions.

Maybe I do wish them just a little ill, such as, I hope they don't profit from this project. Cause if they really wanted a quality film, why not let Joss do his thing on an original project?

Too many execs want something for nothing. Bah.

/rant over

Crap. Edited for clarity.

[ edited by WhoIsOmega? on 2010-11-23 06:53 ]

[ edited by WhoIsOmega? on 2010-11-23 06:54 ]
Nebula, since such a request is so far outside the norm of reasonable business etiquette, I consider it presumptively true that Joss never sought out the creator of any preexisting franchise he's done work on. Because that would be nuts, and simply isn't what's done at all, and is just incredibly corny to get indignant about Whit Anderson not doing. This practice simply does not exist in any corner of the comics, TV, or movie industry. If it was Joss saying the things that posters are saying -- i.e. backstabbing, what have you -- or even sincerely thought it, I would be asking him to recount for us all the times he made sure he wasn't "backstabbing" the creators of X-Men, of Alien, etc.
Yeah, I just find that there isn't a really good counter-example in Joss Whedon's own working life. (Stan Lee had no say in the XMen comics? :P ) Maybe Jane Espenson continuing to work in the post-Palladino Gilmore Girls staffroom?

Hyperbolic attacks on this writer I do find distasteful. I also find them inevitable, internetness being what internetness tends to be.

I just also find the idea of a doing a Buffy movie Joss Whedon doesn't want done distasteful as well. It's . . . well, it's like "Oh, we have the rights to the original movie, so now we can take the character you've poured your heart & soul into for the last 10 years, co-opt that, do whatever we want with it, all so that we make more money". I just don't like that. And I don't think saying "I am a huge Buffy fan & I have a story I want to tell" quite outweighs that. Not that Ms. Anderson, the producers, the studio executives & all else involved don't have every right in the world to do what they're doing; not that they're the worst persons in the world (not really); not that the story is necessarily unbrilliant because it is unJoss. It just seems a little . . . unseemly. To me. And the *only* reason I even mention Ms. Anderson's name in this (it still all falls primarily on producers & studio executives), is that the article states she approached the studio. Now, that actually seems pretty unlikely as a way it all started. As unlikely as this actually getting greenlit as a major release.
Vomit. Vomit comet Grommet. Is there a rule against swearing on this site? Well, I don't know or care at this time. Punish me (or let me know...I promise I will mend my ways later. I do value being a member here...but...)

FUCK this. Hooray for Joss being a gentleman, because I know he is so much better than me, but FUCK this movie, and the Kazoo-ee's. They can blow it right out my Kazoo. Joss can be a gentleman, but I feel obliged to be the asshole for him.

What if John B. Suckington owned the rights to Omar Little, or Captain Ahab's Moby Dick or Heathcliff and decided to make a movie where they starred as Bella Swan's love interests: the drug dealer with a gay heart of straight gold, a beautiful ivory-white but evil whale, and a tortured male love interest?

Ugh. I can't take it. I just can't take it. You can't take Buffy, or my $10, from me, you silly greedy leeches.
First of all, I hope hope hope this thing doesn't get made. I thought this whole thing had died off. Unfortunately it hasn't.

Second, as much as I don't want this movie to get made, I think it's kind of low to get angry with the writer, or any single person for that matter. I don't want the fandom to be thought of as extroardinarily angry and over the top, and it won't help anything anyway.

I'm just scared that this will ruin whatever chance Buffy has of becoming any kind of accepted mainstream success. It's hard enough already with it being mostly mocked and chided. Imagine if it became the next Twilight. Shudder.

But yes, at the end of the day, Buffy will be Buffy no matter what and it won't affect my enjoyment of the series. I just hope it doesn't affect others who otherwise would have enjoyed it as well.
Legal and ethical duties to one side, and ignoring the possibly distasteful rush for cash that this idea might suggest, I find myself unable to share the moral outrage, in truth. BtVS is a story, and it's out there. People get to play with other people's ideas. Sometimes they have to pay to do so; sometimes not. Whit Anderson seems decent enough and, with respect, I can't agree with the "backstabbing" suggestion (plus, it veers a little close to forbidden personal attacks . . . )

On which subject: 5X5B, this is a warning not to engage in such attacks. Especially when it's been established that this does not actually involve the Kuzuis.

I kinda stand by the cover song analogy I made in the other thread. For instance: I may not like Maxwell's version of Kate Bush's sublime "This Woman's Work," but it's reached out to a whole new audience, some of whom may find their way back to Ms. Bush's songs (particularly since he's been generous enough to reference her). In any case, a cover can never ruin the original, which continues to exist; all it can do is annoy us when it sells more than the version we think is worthier. I suppose that might be the worse-case scenario for many here: that a film is made, isn't good, and makes bank.
KofC: I'm still standing by my assessment of the situation, corn and all, but I will refrain from saying anything else detrimental about the writer. I don't wish her failure. I would rather she find success writing for something else.

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2010-11-23 07:19 ]
soddingnancytribe": Understood.

Read the news tonight and flipped.

And, are the Kuzuis really not part of this? Don't they own the property?

Again...yeah sorry. I know I was asking for a rebuke.
Oh, and what are the rules on obscenity? I guess can go look them up myself. Will not ever use them again unless I discover the rules permit them...

Whedonesque has such different (though valuable) rules from many of my favorite sites!
The article revealed that the Kazuis have passed the rights on to Warner Brothers. What that means for their involvement I don't know, but they are definitely not the producers anymore.
5X5B, here's the press release explaining that Warner Bros Pictures optioned the rights from the Kuzuis. As for your other question: there's no hard and fast rule on obscenity. Here, as in life, it's more effective when used sparingly. :-).
Well, I officially say it's all worth it now because it's led to this tweet from Amber Benson. (The content of the tweet might be slightly unsafe to read at work.)
Again, understood.

I think this is my first anger-associated Whedonesque flip-out, and I should know better since I am well-aware of the community here. (and I value it's atmosphere very much)

Also, very interesting to hear about WB and the Kuzuis.
Kalia Nice find. And wow, Amber is something, huh?
5X5B, based on observation, the issue may be more about attacking and less about occasional choice words. After all, everything in context, right? For example, in the context of a Joss-less Buffy reboot, I've already cursed a-plenty and will do so again in time.

You can't take Buffy, or my $10, from me, you silly greedy leeches.
This!!! I love you for it! :D
I saw that, too, Kalia. :) (Alas, I am still a Twitter newbie, and haven't figured out how to link to specific tweets.)

Maybe Amber should write the Buffy movie...
I'm a little confused vampmogs, how do we know that's an SMG double? I thought that was her End of Days outfit rather than one of of the Buffy appearances in Angel's 5th season. And I can't recognize SMG by her ears.

Anyway, I appreciate the writer's interest in the series (there have been so many instances where someone says they like a basic premise but go out of their way to avoid learning details of the original so as to not "sully" their vision) though I have to admit I would *love* to see a Joss written on Buffy directed by Wes Anderson. (Or admittedly even a Wes written and directed project since I just realized Joss basically gave his blessing for that. Oooh, and they both know Olivia Williams and she'd make an interesting Watcher...)

Other points:
Though there have been plenty of female writers, I am curious if as a guiding vision whether she might take that in an interesting direction.
So how do these rights work? The ex-WB we can continue to hate for not bidding enough to have kept Buffy in the first place and canceling Angel, but how tied is Warner Bros to them?
And given how Fox made the original movie and TV shows, did the Kazuis really own enough of a stake in the property to have unilaterally taken it to another studio? Does Fox get money out of it? Did they just pass like people theorized, that 20th Century still wants to be on good terms with Joss?
And I thought I read the article but I'm not clear, in being optioned from the Kazuis, doesn't that mean their production company could/would still end up having some stake in the product?
If it's optioned from them that means they've been paid for it, any involvement they may have afterwards is a separate issue (and no involvement at all is more usual from what I gather).

Heh, classic Joss. Slightly bitter with a dash of hilarious. That guy should write for a living.

Other than that, thank-you international time difference for allowing me to miss yet more wailing, gnashing, rending and uncharacteristic insulting of people who basically don't deserve it before wiser mods prevailed and folk calmed down a bit.

I guess if our hearts are set on sabotaging this movie then there're ways we can approach it but i'm pretty sure being nasty on the internet isn't one of them. Also, cliche much ?
This is pure madness. And refering to the new Star Trek movie as a good example of a succesful reeboot is just plain silly. Succesful perhaps as in bringing in the dollars and presenting a flashy but empty product... wait a minute... are we sure this is not an Active programmed to act as a new Buffy-movie...
Perhaps that letter was really written by Josh Sweden...I wonder what he's been up to lately? Maybe they could get him to pen the script.
The new Star Trek reboot was my favourite thing since Serenity. I watched the opening of it, like, ten times.

But they spent much time and talent on it. I hope they do that with Buffy.

[ edited by gossi on 2010-11-23 08:50 ]
And if folks thought the fans had an opinion. Ms Eliza had a little something to say too on her twitter account - seems a lot of the Cast are backing away with their hands in the air, saying "No Joss? No way."
Oh well, since the Star Trek reboot has been mentioned can I just say that I spent yesterday in NYC watching Zachary Quinto (the new Spock) starring in "Angels in America" parts 1 AND 2. And, wow!

You may now resume scowling and gnashing of teeth.
Barboo, I'm flying out to watch him in that in a few weeks. Fun times.
I'm a little confused vampmogs, how do we know that's an SMG double? I thought that was her End of Days outfit rather than one of of the Buffy appearances in Angel's 5th season. And I can't recognize SMG by her ears.

In End of Days they used a double for Sarah when Buffy and Angel first kiss and the camera pans back to reveal Spike and Buffy/The First saying “that bitch.” It was done so they could get it all in one shot! And I do think you can tell it’s not her from the angle :)
I'll just be over here...crying into my beer.
If y'all haven't had read enough fannish outrage about a Jossless Buffy on the recent related whedonesque threads, twitteresque, and elsewhere today throughout The Land Of Whedonia, peruse this 577-comment thread from last year, when the Kuzuis floated the trial balloon of their enchanting Buffyesque vision.

It's interesting for a variety of reasons, including Tim Minear weighing in, some posted tweets from other Whedon'verse peeps, and a host of other whedonesque members revolted at the idea of JOSS - BUFFY (which ≠ BUFFY) - and including one or two that have now apparently veered towards it. Fascinating.


Jobo: Joss was offered the chance to do this movie, if I recall correctly, and he passed. Am I right in that? I believe this was the info going around when the news first broke way back whenever, summer of '09 I think.

That's not how I remember it. ; >

I'm pretty sure we don't know that. It is conceivable, I suppose, but all we know is that he said he hoped it would be cool - and I don't think we know one way or another if the Kuzuis asked him to participate. They said they "didn't rule out Joss' involvement" but that's an almost meaningless statement (especially in this business).

I don't rule out my ex from thirty years ago finding me on Facebook and apologizing for being such an asshole - but it seems unlikely. ; >
The earlier comment from someone: "No Joss? No interest." summed up my feelings about this reboot quite nicely.

I don't see a reason to get too worked up about this thing. Certainly no need for personal attacks on this unknown writer, or anybody else involved in this whole project, for that matter. After all, this is Hollywood we're talking about here. It's business, it's about making money.

With this whole vampire craze going on, something ridiculous like that was bound to happen sooner or later. I do hope they will get a nasty surprise about their expectations of a "build-in fanbase", but that's up to every one of us, isn't it?

Personally, I plan to just ignore this thing until it goes away.
Good advice. Except where strange rashes are concerned.
I'm a bit puzzled why people are being conflicted about picking on the writer, yet saying they would likely take the job themselves. I don't think the writer should be in this discussion much at all. As far as I know, she isn't the reason this reboot exists - so the hatred and blame should probably fall to WB or the Kuzuis. Or something.
I'm squarly in the 'I have no interest in this and will not pay money to see it' crowd. I, however, have no issue with either the writer, or Warner Brothers - or even the unpopular Kazuis for trying to make this movie.

I think it's an incredibly silly artistic and business decission. Pissing off the built-in audience to the point of hostility, rage and an outspoken unwillingness to pay you money, seems like a bad way to start a movie.

I'm sure there's some audience for this: people not yet burned out by the general vampire craze, casual fans who remember some of the show and/or the original movie, movie goers looking for a fun action flick, etcetera. I'm sure it's possible for it to be a success. But I'm also pretty sure the only reason WB are making a Buffy movie, instead of another vampire action flick, is that they're hoping to tap into the large fandom... to which I say: epic fail.

But while I feel there's no legal or even moral issue here, I don't think it's as clear as others seem to be implying. We've seen numerous comparisons to other properties above - and I think SoddingNancyTribe's comparison to cover songs is interesting.

I just think all of the comparisons have failed at some point, as do pretty much all comparisons I can think of. It's not like the co-writers taking over The West Wing after Sorkin left, it's not like people rebooting Batman or Trek, it's not like Moore's BSG reboot while others were working on something similar, etcetera.

The main issue for me, here, is that Joss Whedon has - while not legally - certainly practically been established as the main creative force of Buffy. He wrote the script to the first movie, and was the main force behind the television show and its spin-off. And while he's not the sole rights holder, there's been no Buffy made without him and his signature writing style has defined what we think of as 'Buffy' much more than just the premise and the character name.

What's more, Joss is still playing in his playground. There's a canonical continuation of the show going on right now and while its medium - comics - is in some ways viewed as 'lesser' to that of television or movies (including by Whedon himself, as per previously made comments), there's no denying that it's still going on.

To now try to reboot this active franchise without its main creative force seems like a weird choice at best. Legally its fine, morally it's a bit shaky, but it's certainly also not clearly wrong or evil to do so.

And, like I said, it's not quite comparable to anything else. For instance, there certainly were Batman comics when Nolan rebooted the movie franchise, but then Batman has been written and reinvented by many writers and in many media over the years. Plus, those comics were not the canonical continuation of a much beloved television franchise.

It's also not like rebooting Trek, where there had been numerous shows without Roddenberry (which had been made with his blessing and/or that of his family/estate).

It's kind of like rebooting Star Wars as - say - a television series instead of a movie franchise, while Lucas is still working on canonical cartoons, but in that case the legal comparison fails, because Lucas is the sole owner of the rights to that property.

So at the end of the day, it's not like anything else and I'm just left with my original assessment: I'm not blaming anyone, but this still feels 'off'. And, as a fan, I have no interest whatsoever in any Buffy not done or at least approved by Joss Whedon. And so I will not pay to see this and I hope it goes away or flops, so that this branch of the franchise doesn't flower to such an extent that it may suffocate the part I'm invested in.
KOC- there's legal, of which none of us have any debate, and there is ethical, about which we do. No question this film can be made as planned, with the writer that was chosen. Should it? I'd say no, for several reasons. And yes, JK Rowling had complete right of refusal over the movies, for any reason. These characters are Joss's creations; it seems somehow wrong to let others play with at least one of them. Joss has earned some consideration, don't you think? How would you like to be the one to plan a Twilight reboot without any involvement- and with disapproval- of Stephanie Meyers, or a Potter film without Rowling in which she tells everyone she is not happy about it? Well, Joss is not happy about this, and to me, that counts for something. He's too canny to come right out, but he ain't blessing this.

(PS. Maxwell could not cover Kate Bush without her express approval- and as a large lover of her music and a person who has studied her career, I can assure you she does not simply say okay to all and sundry- she controls her music carefully. So she had to okay him recording the song- a different kettle of fish than what is going on here where Joss does not get to say okay).

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2010-11-23 13:35 ]
Technically, there's no foul here. Ethically, it's like someone making the LoTR trilogy into movies with Tolkien still alive, without his permission or input. Just IMO, not interested in the debate, which has become increasingly "how many angels fit on the head of a pin-y".

For me personally, it's boycott and make my reasons known in advance, then move on. Buffy may not technically "belong" to Joss ("legal rights" wise) but notice the "Created by Joss Whedon" on the credits? Created by trumps has legal rights to, in my book.

Good luck mods, the new sandbox seems to be overflowing and especially rowdy.
And SNT .... good luck with that gender reassignment thing. :_)
Yeah, that about says it GVH.

As has been noted, comics are a terrible example (because multiple titles by different creative teams sometimes even with entirely different continuities are a staple of the medium) but covering songs is fairly close I think. Covers can be great, even better than the original in some cases, genuinely adding something new to our appreciation of the song. In this instance though, it's kind of like releasing a cover while the original band's version is still in the charts - it may not be illegal or even strictly immoral but it's also pretty definitely not the done thing.
Personally I just don't see it as any different from any other non-Joss (or Joss' extended ME family) Buffy story, barring that we won't see the same scoobies and it's a Hollywood movie as opposed to licensed book or comic. With very, very few exceptions I don't pay attention to them either, so in this case it isn't different for me.

The beef to me is that they didn't do every single thing possible to get Joss on board for what is clearly his creation. It might be legal, but it's stupid and I think since we're posting on Whedonesque a majority of us can probably agree that it's wrong.
This film has great potential. It could be the 'Nude Bomb' of Buffy movies.
It's interesting to see how this is getting reported elsewhere.

Oh internet, why ? Still, clearly he was furious, you could tell by the lack of fury, s'always a dead giveaway.

Next up: Joss Whedon on terrifying anti-Buffy-reboot rampage in downtown LA ! Film as soon as our Photoshop guy gets back from lunch.
Wow. 'Furious'. Certainly not the word I'd have used to describe his comment on the matter either. 'Unhappy with', maybe even 'chagrined'. But certainly not 'furious'.
Joss Whedon is furious at Warner Bros' decision to make a new Buffy The Vampire Slayer movie.


Cos that opening line truly says it all. It's hilariously ridiculous the things that surface.
Ok the thing is, as it says in the av club article, the rights to Buffy don't include the rights to Willow, Xander, Giles, Tara, Faith, Spike, Angel....etc etc. am I correct?

Cus if so how are they even going to make this person Buffy? I really don't see how they can just get someone who is a slayer and call them Buffy with none of the things which make her Buffy (except for super skills etc.). Isn't that like rebooting Trek and then only having Kirk from the original?
Kirk and the Klingons anyway (vampires are public domain obviously).

You're correct BTW but personally i'm fuzzy not on inclusion but allusion i.e. can they even mention Willow et al, can they allude to Sunnydale etc. even obliquely ? Because if not it's difficult to see how this can be true in any way to the series, it's more like remaking the '92 film. Which is better IMO, just because it's even easier to separate it from the TV show in my mind.
I agree almost completely with GVH.
However -- as a fan and a writer -- I would NEVER take someone else's creation and run with it without said someone practically begging me to do so. Particularly when that person is my god. It's been said many times that she may have many good reasons to take this project on, and no legal reasons not to. But in my humble opinion, she just shouldn't -- because it's wrong.
Because if not it's difficult to see how this can be true in any way to the series, it's more like remaking the '92 film. Which is better IMO, just because it's even easier to separate it from the TV show in my mind.


Well, so far it would seem that we are indeed getting a complete reboot, Saje. I.e. the main character's a vampire slayer and her name is Buffy, but that's about it. She's no longer in high school and earlier events probably won't matter much, or will even have happened from the reboot-verse-standpoint - because, well, reboot ;).

So yes, it will very much be like rebooting Star Trek: TOS with just Kirk and the Klingons.

Cus if so how are they even going to make this person Buffy? I really don't see how they can just get someone who is a slayer and call them Buffy with none of the things which make her Buffy


Well, to be fair, digupherbones, I think what makes Buffy (the character), Buffy isn't the continuity, but the character itself - her basic personality. Sure, she changed and grew during the show, but she was always essentially 'Buffy'. In the same manner a reboot could feature someone inherently like 'Buffy' without referencing any of the previous continuity. But, doing so without the original writer (Joss) is pretty difficult, as so much of the Buffy we knew was created by the way he wrote and structured her dialogue.

In the end, the lead character will probably be a slightly similar person with the same job description, also called Buffy. (Did the last name Summers already feature in the movie? I forget.)
As a dude who isn't ready to condemn the lady writing this or the film itself, I love Joss's reaction.

"I can't wish people who are passionate about my little myth ill." Yes. FTW.

If only there was more of that and less name calling, the Internet and this fandom would be a little shinier.
Just realised that Joss' properties really are everywhere. Serenity at Universal. Buffy: The Movie at WB. Buffy: The TV Show, Dollhouse and Firefly at 20th.

Also, Whedonites should totally do that thing that was once said where we buy the Buffy rights and give them back to Joss.
Also, Whedonites should totally do that thing that was once said where we buy the Buffy rights and give them back to Joss.


Would that be particularly difficult? As a community, what would that cost in total? I'd be willing to go something like 200 dollars in if it meant this travesty never happened again. If an amount of people did, I can't see why we couldn't.

/wishfulthinking
Man, even the Register is chiming in with this one! (I'm a loyal Reg reader despite being in the US)

I'm with patxshand on this one. Less condemnation and "OMG!!! BOYCOTT!!!" would make this fandom seem less like, well, how people outside typify it. I am choosing to be hopeful, and think about the possibilities and ways this could be awesome. And wait to see who is directing. And if they need someone to do the score ;-)
It amazes me that the team behind this nightmare seem to think Buffy fans will rush to see ANYTHING new that they produce. I'm going to start stocking up on fire extinguishers and marshmallows now. I expect there will be a shortage later when this nightmare crashes!
Yup, this movie is not even going to fall near my radar. No Joss= no Buffy, and that's just that.

It will be interesting though to see how many people actually show up to the movie to see what they've done with (or to) it.
*le sigh*

[ edited by Simon on 2010-11-23 16:22 ]
okay, this is hard for me to keep up with, it broke while I was asleep and had to work all day away from the net, so my perspective on this is as follows(please pardon the anger!) grr argh! Buffy is iconic for 2 reasons; Joss and SMG, minusing those factors we got a blonde chick with bad direction(as per original film). So seeing as we had an original film that sucked balls in an unpleasant way, why would you try to improve on the perfection that was the correction?
If it's a fangirl writing it then it'll be fanfic to me. I don't read fanfic, it's not Joss or Joss approved. That is all.

No, it's actually not all, I'm suppressing to drop a few f and c bombs as per my twitter update.

edited to correct the font, not sure if it worked, mods! can you see/fix the font please?!

[ edited by BlueSkies on 2010-11-23 15:52 ]
.The making of this New Buffy Movie not like a performer recording a "cover" of somebody else's song. Because the songwriter gets royalties from those performances. Any profits from The New Movie will go to the company that optioned the rights from the Kuzuis, who bought Joss's script & made that mess of a movie. (The annals of Nashville music include sad tales of songwriters who lost the rights to their creations. Oh, for the Angel spinoff in which Lindsay takes over the Music City office of Wolfram & Hart!)

Nearly all Buffy fans (even those less dedicated than we!) were won by the TV show which Joss made--not That Movie. It sounds as though the New Movie Makers are hoping to leech off the spirit & wit of the show(s) Joss & his allies created--without paying them a cent. Of course the movie cannot use any of the TV characters. But most people would have forgotten Buffy entirely if her story had ended with That Movie.

I doubt I'll bother with this New Movie--if it actually ever gets made. (Hey--I saw Original Star Trek in its original run. And I enjoyed the New Trek Movie! But that was after many years & several TV series & movies of variable quality. )

ETA: Why is everything Bold?

[ edited by not_Bridget on 2010-11-23 16:06 ]

[ edited by not_Bridget on 2010-11-23 16:06 ]

[ edited by not_Bridget on 2010-11-23 16:32 ]
Dana, I can't even begin to fathom an ethical breach involved in making a movie that Joss himself had long since punted the the option for another company to make (as all of this proceeds forth from the original 1992 screenplay). I mean, damn, I sold one of my most prized possessions, a trombone, for rent money once many years back. I even left a little note inside with contact info in case the buyer ever wanted to sell it back. But like hell would I consider it a betrayal of me if someone were to smelt it down and turn it into some sort of new, trendy, brass jewelry, or, more likely, to give it to a small child to learn how to play on even though they won't take care of it.

I sold it.

This goes even if -- to Jossify it -- I had been a wildly popular trombone player with a loyal following and it had been one of my fans that bought the thing. I. Sold. It. And I assure you, that thing had as much sentimental pull for me as anybody's screenplay ever did to them. If everybody had the guile or the nerve or the naivete it took to do what George Lucas did and hold on to the level of control he did, then they'd probably be much happier that people couldn't make new movies based on what they willingly gave up, but most don't or can't, and Joss is one of them.

We should not be so self-centered to assume an entirely different, non-existent form of professional courtesy is owed between fans of Joss' work who want to get paid to write movies (such as Whit Anderson) and Joss that doesn't exist anywhere else in the movie and television business. She is doing absolutely nothing wrong by taking -- or even by soliciting -- a paying job that she thinks she can do well. And like it or not, a Buffy fan, if she has the writing skill, is going to do better by the spirit of Joss' work than would Stock Action Screenwriter #9 co-writing with Stock TV Teen Drama Screenwriter #7.

I'm gonna do with this movie what I do with every movie. Watch who is directing it, watch who is writing it, watch who is in it, look at the preview, and if it looks good, I'm going to go see it.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-23 16:17 ]

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-23 16:19 ]

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-23 16:20 ]
KingofCretins, I miss and love you. You bring that shiny shiny thing that I like to call sense.
To compare a trombone with a work of art really is funny. Real common nonsense.

[ edited by Darkness on 2010-11-23 16:18 ]
To not realize most high end musical instruments are works of art... is funnier.

But since the fundamental principle of "I sold it" would apply even if we were talking about a toaster oven, it's also rather irrelevant.
Darkness: Is that really all you took from what King said?
The whole thing is a bit weird, but if it means I don't have to see issue 34 on the big screen, I'm glad Joss said no.
I can't get too worked up about it. If it sucks I won't think about it, if it doesn't I'll enjoy it. I liked the first movie, in a completely different way from the show but I still liked it.
If the comics didn't exist I would probably feel the same rage as everyone else, but I've already had to put aside my obsessively blind Buffy loyalty because I dislike the comic and can't consider that canon. The comics made me rage, so I'm kinda all raged out!

[ edited by Xane on 2010-11-23 16:33 ]
Darkness, for a musician's perspective, even if you look at every instrument as a tool, it's a tool with which you express yourself. It's part of yourself, the way a singer's vocal chords are. Furthermore, every instrument, even mass produced el-cheapo guitars ARE different. Selling an instrument is selling the possibilities. You will NEVER be able to play exactly what you could have played on that instrument, the tone will be different, the expressive response will be different, etc, etc.

Which is exactly what Joss sold. He can't make a Buffy movie. He can never play a song exactly like that. He needs a new instrument to play the same songs (a tv show, or a comic) or a new song to play on different instruments (Firefly, Dollhouse, etc).

Excellent metaphor, KingofCretins, but that's musician to musician. Whenever I sell things (I miss my Prophet!) I usually include notes for the person to send me the music they make with it. They never do :-(
If we treat this, KOC, as a simple question of commodity you are correct. I do not argue the point. But if Joss is not happy now, what then? Tough shit? Were I the one making the movie, and I the one having to market it, this would be troubling to me. Not having the actual creator helping me out does not help me out. I know full well that we often give away a lot in our early days, since that is how we can make things happen. The Runaways don't own the rights to many songs they wrote; Kim Fowley does. All legal, no argument. But it was their creativity that wrote those songs; the rest is business. Joss created Buffy and has reaped benefit in terms of reputation and so on. This has the potential to actually affect that reputation among those not in the know. I think it is sad, but I know it is legal. And in the long run, I will not go see it. Mainly because it will be Buffy in name only, but not with the characters that make Buffy what it is. Buffy is, certainly and inarguably, not Buffy alone.
Dear fans,

We're taking all that goodwill that Joss and co built from the show and ploughing it into a quick cash-in on the vampire craze (if we hurry we can add zombies too!).

Yours disrespectfully,

Warners Bros
So now...do we send all our hate/vehemently disagree mail to Warner Bros?

Or do we just obsessively tweet them?
Zombies are cool, that might sway me. Add puppies and gratuitous nudity and i'm pretty much there but note well, that's not fickleness, that's a carefully considered moral decision.
Well, to be fair KingofCretins, the case here is a little different from selling a toaster oven. Not legally, and not morally or ethically in a sense that anything Warner Brothers, the new writer or the Kazuis did was wrong or evil.

Joss sold his script while completely sane and signed the rights away, making the proposed reboot possible. People who payed for those rights are free to do with them as they please - including selling them to a new writer and a new production company.

But there is such a thing as common courtesy or being nice. If I, to use but another flawed example, were to buy a few paintings by - say - you at your exhibition and then proceeded to burn them down or paint something else on the canvas and make an exhibition of my own, there has been no legal or moral wrongdoing. But I'd still be an ass.

Now, obviously, this doesn't translate directly to this case, but it shows how something can be legally fine, morally fine, ethically fine, but still be a crappy thing to do at the end of the day.

There's also a big difference between doing something that's not wrong and doing something that's right, or nice, or friendly. What WB and the Kazuis did certainly wasn't wrong or evil, but I don't think it was very nice either.
If we treat this, KOC, as a simple question of commodity you are correct. I do not argue the point. But if Joss is not happy now, what then? Tough shit?


Yes. Emphatically yes.

First of all, it really is a commodity. Even a work of art is, in its specific form, a commodity. Joss' screenplay, my trombone, an architect's design, someone's college car. Once you've sold it, unless you actually got someone to pay for it including consideration over your feelings about how they use it, that's it, full stop, game over, your moral authority over it has ended just as surely as your legal ownership did.

Were I the one making the movie, and I the one having to market it, this would be troubling to me. Not having the actual creator helping me out does not help me out. I know full well that we often give away a lot in our early days, since that is how we can make things happen. The Runaways don't own the rights to many songs they wrote; Kim Fowley does. All legal, no argument. But it was their creativity that wrote those songs; the rest is business. Joss created Buffy and has reaped benefit in terms of reputation and so on. This has the potential to actually affect that reputation among those not in the know. I think it is sad, but I know it is legal. And in the long run, I will not go see it. Mainly because it will be Buffy in name only, but not with the characters that make Buffy what it is. Buffy is, certainly and inarguably, not Buffy alone.


Alan Moore breathed fire over the Watchmen movie, far more vigorously than we have any sign that Joss is going to. Didn't stop anyone seeing it ($107 million US that didn't make back its production budget, but I would laugh openly if anyone suggested Moore's disapproval even blipped on the radar of reasons that movie wasn't a bigger draw). Buffy, on the other hand, is a highly recognizable brand right in the middle of a highly profitable time for the subject matter. This is what movie studios do. It is why they exist. They make movies that are likely to get people to go see them so they make money. It is, by no small coincidence, the same reason that Joss was paid for the Buffy screenplay way back when in the first place.

GVH, the "niceness" thing really doesn't push me either, because... again, it can't JUST apply to Joss. And it can't even JUST apply to screenwriters, or songwriters, or names people recognize. If it's the right way to do things, then it is what should be expected when you sell that first car you and your spouse bought when it's time to have kids -- the new owner is going to call you up, to be polite, and tell you that they are tricking it out to enter a demolition derby. If it's a standard of courtesy that can be taken seriously, it would apply to everyone, not just those with websites that follow their work.
I agree with KingOfCretins (so if you have a disaster preparedness plan this could be the time ;). There're not a few people above (and in other threads) who're quite often in the "Well, business is business, what do you expect ?" type of role in similar discussions over other properties but this hits us where we live so it has to be materially different. Except it isn't.

It's true that being nice is, well, nice but it's not exactly the default in the business world, particularly where there's reason to assume some past acrimony between parties. Nobody's owed niceness, that's what makes it nice when it happens.
Props to KingofCretins above (fellow musicians unite!) and I don't like saying so, but most of the ...discussing I've seen going on regarding this project actually kinda makes me want to root for it being wildly successful, even if it is terrible - which I fully expect it to be (I like my surprises to be good ones.)

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-23 17:31 ]
I posted my 3 1/2 cents at the L.A. Times last night and all that's left to do is fall on my sword of humor. As posted at Twitter and then Facebook with an addendum:

My name is Inigo Montoya. You have killed my Buffy. Prepare to die. (added: not literally of course).
It's true that being nice is, well, nice but it's not exactly the default in the business world, particularly where there's reason to assume some past acrimony between parties. Nobody's owed niceness, that's what makes it nice when it happens.


Exactly, Saje. And note that I'm not saying that anyone is supposed to act nicely in this matter. This is why I think the WB and others did nothing wrong and I'm not blaming them or anyone else, but the fact they weren't nice about it also makes me less inclined to see the movie. Which is also not wrong, and maybe also not that nice ;).

GVH, the "niceness" thing really doesn't push me either, because... again, it can't JUST apply to Joss. And it can't even JUST apply to screenwriters, or songwriters, or names people recognize. If it's the right way to do things, then it is what should be expected when you sell that first car you and your spouse bought when it's time to have kids -- the new owner is going to call you up, to be polite, and tell you that they are tricking it out to enter a demolition derby. If it's a standard of courtesy that can be taken seriously, it would apply to everyone, not just those with websites that follow their work.


I disagree, KoC. You seem to believe that there's such a thing as an absolute, clearly defined way to do things, regardless of circumstances. This I just don't hold to. Circumstance is always important to the situation and - like I said in one of my previous posts on here - this situation isn't quite comparable to anything else I can think of.

You can't flat-out compare selling a car to selling the rights to a character and movie title. To make those things comparable, we'd have to make so many adjustments to the analogy - maybe you built the car, maybe it's one of a kind, maybe since selling the original one for some change, you've since made name with a new version of said car - and after we're done with that, we're left with an analogy stretched beyond breaking which still doesn't have the same nuances the original issue had.

So yes, the example you give is obviously silly - no one would be required to call you up to say this, not even as a courtesy or for being nice. But that doesn't mean that some objection on the grounds of being nice isn't applicable to the case of this reboot.

For instance: if I've slept with your ex-girlfriend while drunk and we're friends, I'd give you a ring and offer you my apologies - especially if you're single and miserable and not over her yet. If I did the same after you broke up with her or, even worse, after you cheated on her or - even worse worse - abused her, I'd feel gradually less obliged. Circumstances are important to jugde what is the right or nice thing to do, even if the bare facts 'I slept with your ex-girlfriend' are the same.
The difference between this situation and selling someone your car, trombone, etc. is pretty huge. The only reason Buffy is being rebooted is to take advantage of the unfortunate Twilight hype at the moment. Buffy's entry into the cultural zeitgeist is because of the TV show, not the movie - nearly everyone has at least heard of the show, if not seen it - the same cannot under any circumstances be said about the movie. The movie, or at least the concepts and the rights, are being rebooted, but this is being done on the clout of a TV show that was wildly more successful and recognisable than the movie.

If Joss had never made Buffy (the show) and instead had risen to his level of fame and fandom adoration through, say, six seasons of Firefly and a Serenity trilogy (sigh), I don't think anyone would care about Buffy being rebooted; but on the flip side they wouldn't be rebooting it because the movie had none of the brand recognition, critical acclaim, or intensely strong fanbase that the show has.

Simply put, they're rebooting a smaller property and using the success of a similar but much more successful property - a property that regardless of people's opinions on Season Eight, is still active and has been made very clear on multiple occassions is very dear to the creator's heart - to justify the reboot, and that's what I find really terrible about this whole scenario.

(Also I'm almost offended on Joss's behalf that I'm sure he'll want to see this movie, and have to pay to watch his own creation.)
KingofCretins, I think a more apt analogy would be if you'd *made* the trombone, sold it to an excellent trombonist - and he passed it on to someone else who used it as a flower vase. (The "sold it" part I get, but I think the "made it" part is relevant in this analogy.)

If Fox owns the rights to the non-Buffy "Buffy" characters, Warners could of course buy the rights. I do find it interesting that according to the quoted report, Warners has *optioned* the rights from the Kuzuis, not outright *bought* them.

Joss would automatically get *some* money from this deal as he gets the "created by" credit no matter what they do. (The Writers Guild of America can explain how this works better than I can, but the bottom line is, he does see some financial gain.)

None of this is meant to endorse the possible new "Buffy" film, just to clarify a couple of things. Also, Warner Bros. has hired a writer to work on a really well-known title? They hired Joss Whedon to write "Wonder Woman," which as we know resulted in ... meetings. I think outright panic over the hiring of a writer for a "Buffy" movie may be premature.
Love the trombone analogy, KoC. Sold does mean sold. On the bright side, we're talking purely about the movie script. I doubt Fox will be inclined to grant usage rights over the TV show characters. Such things tend to exist in vacuums, much in the way that only the main crew is common to Firefly and Serenity. So the movie wouldn't have Xander. Or Willow. Or Angel. Or any of the other characters or dynamics we'd grown to love. And if that's the case, does it really matter anyway?
SO, with each new 'article' (repetitive mumbo jumbo), my heart breaks just a little bit more. I understand this is very premature, but the thought of a Joss-less Buffster being seriously considered is disturbing.

It would be nice to see a united front from the original actors/writers as well as the fan base. Let WB know how this is perceived.
GVH: For instance: if I've slept with your ex-girlfriend while drunk and we're friends, I'd give you a ring and offer you my apologies...

The problem with that analogy is, what if you aren't friends? Every time you go out on a date, do you spend the time to track down her most recent ex-boyfriend to have a discussion?

Even with Joss's (rightful) bitterness, he acknowledged that many people had a hand in making Buffy what it was. The studios are under no obligation to do right by Joss (by human standards), especially if management is insulated enough to only make decisions by business standards.

I'm guessing Joss is deliberately staying clear of this movie (even from consulting), because other people are running things. Better to hope that things will turn out right, instead of risking being a first-hand witness to a disaster and having no power to prevent it.
SuperLaz - If you scroll carefully (oh, so carefully) through the comments on this post, there are a fair few links to a few of the cast member's twitter accounts and their opinions, from Emma Caulfield's laughter, to Amber Benson's most awesome tweet about Tara.

And, like Brian Lynch said: "I'm with JoJo."

No Joss? No Buffy.
I disagree, KoC. You seem to believe that there's such a thing as an absolute, clearly defined way to do things, regardless of circumstances. This I just don't hold to. Circumstance is always important to the situation and - like I said in one of my previous posts on here - this situation isn't quite comparable to anything else I can think of.


There usually is, whether you hold to it or not. I'm proposing the wildly radical notion that on matters of etiquette, movie and TV writers aren't due more consideration than everybody else. Indeed, not even that -- here, all I'm seeing in 300+ posts across two threads amounts to "it's different because it's Joss", not even "it's different because it's Hollywood".

You can't flat-out compare selling a car to selling the rights to a character and movie title. To make those things comparable, we'd have to make so many adjustments to the analogy - maybe you built the car, maybe it's one of a kind, maybe since selling the original one for some change, you've since made name with a new version of said car - and after we're done with that, we're left with an analogy stretched beyond breaking which still doesn't have the same nuances the original issue had.


A widget is a widget is a widget. Sentimental attachments and artistic value are attributions made by the possessor/observer/creator. They have no bearing as far as I'm concerned on imaginary, illusory moral oversight you retain over an object once it's been willingly parted with. If you want to have that oversight, you do what Rowling or Lucas had the cleverness or clout to do and retain that interest in your deal.

So yes, the example you give is obviously silly - no one would be required to call you up to say this, not even as a courtesy or for being nice. But that doesn't mean that some objection on the grounds of being nice isn't applicable to the case of this reboot.

For instance: if I've slept with your ex-girlfriend while drunk and we're friends, I'd give you a ring and offer you my apologies - especially if you're single and miserable and not over her yet. If I did the same after you broke up with her or, even worse, after you cheated on her or - even worse worse - abused her, I'd feel gradually less obliged. Circumstances are important to jugde what is the right or nice thing to do, even if the bare facts 'I slept with your ex-girlfriend' are the same.


My comparison of the Buffy screenplay to a car, a trombone, and a toaster is "silly". Your comparison of the screenplay to an actual human being and of ownership of a sequel right to sex with that human being, though... that's completely, completely serious.

Shapenew, I could be Trombonius, the Greek God of Brass Instruments, and it doesn't change the fact that I sold it. There is no "yeah, but" that overcomes "sold it".

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-23 19:08 ]
Very happy to see the tweets from the Actors. Hope to see a statement from the big three, Alysson, Nick and of course Sarah.

This is all really premature, but disheartening none the less. As several have mentioned though, the 'existing fanbase' will be non-existent for this movie.
It would be awfully super if we could all get back to Joss' comments and stop making sarky remarks at each other.
I've put my take on things in this article.
I think you're right, Gossi.

Simon: Sometimes I kind of love you! ;-)
Wow, I haven't been around here much lately and my honey had to alert me to this news, so of course I come here and find whedonesque afire! I thought this idea had fallen through.

Love Joss' response, but I'm with KoC on this one, I don't see what's not "nice" about making the movie. (Not so sure about all the comparisons of Buffy to a trombone or an ex-girlfriend who may have been abused or a car you may have built yourself... my head started to spin a bit with all of that ;)). In spite of what the writer (or producer? or somebody involved?) said about the built-in fanbase, I'm pretty sure they're gunning for Twilight fans, not Buffy fans. A teen vampire movie with a recognizable name just sounds like win right now to a money-maker, so why shouldn't they? Of course, from a fan (or a creator!) perspective it's lame and sort of depressing, but none of us has to go and see it. (I bet most of us end up watching it, if not in the cinema, just out of morbid curiosity though).
For me, this movie — if it ever exists — can never rise above the unsavory bluckiness of its origin: a concept peddled by a pair of wannabes whose lack of understanding made a mess of a good idea (the original movie) and who followed up by taking credit for a successful project to which they contributed nothing (the TV show). The ground was poisoned long ago by some thoroughly unpleasant people. As far as I'm concerned, nothing good can grow out of that pumpkin patch. It doesn't matter if the pumpkins were sold to Warner Bros.; I'm not eating the bisque.
The problem with that analogy is, what if you aren't friends?


No, the problem with that analogy is that it isn't an analogy, OneTeV ;). Like I said elsewhere upthread: every analogy we're trying to throw at this issue fails at some critical point. This one included. It was merely an example of why circumstances matter in general.

There usually is, whether you hold to it or not. I'm proposing the wildly radical notion that on matters of etiquette, movie and TV writers aren't due more consideration than everybody else. Indeed, not even that -- here, all I'm seeing in 300+ posts across two threads amounts to "it's different because it's Joss", not even "it's different because it's Hollywood".


Actually, no, KoC. At least: that's not what I'm saying, not even by a long shot. I think there is a special case here which is complex and nuanced and can't be reduced to 'let's say you're selling a car...'. In fact: we're mostly agreeing anyway. So let me restate on which we agree: nobody has done anything morally or legally wrong. I'm not angry at the WB or the script writer or the Kazuis doing that which they've paid the right for to do.

I, however, also content that this outrage you're seeing here is not simply a case of 'but it's Joss'. While I don't agree with much of the reasoning of the outrage - there has been no moral faux-pas here - I do believe that in this particular case there is a justified reason to feel it. Maybe not rage or anger, but certainly disappointment.

I've been trying to define why and landed - for now - on 'not nice'. What WB did wasn't very nice or considerate to Joss or his fans. Not that they have any moral or legal obligation to be nice. Like Saje said, being nice is only nice by virtue of having no obligation to do so. But there it is.

If you want to have that oversight, you do what Rowling or Lucas had the cleverness or clout to do and retain that interest in your deal.


So, because Lucas or Rowling made a better business deal that's that? Again, this is not 'I'm selling a car'. It's a much more intricate business deal.

If someone sells you bad insurance or a mortgage you can't afford (both of which are, I'd say, morally wrong on the part of the seller unlike this reboot business - again, this is not an analogy as there is no accurate one, but rather just an example), is it then an open and shut case of 'well, stupid, you made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it?'.

Again, I'm just questioning the 'paint everything with the same brush' approach you're advocating. I actually don't think Joss should have the same rights as Lucas or Rowling. But I also think that - given the circumstances - there's a case to be made for him deserving some more consideration than he's received.

WB is rebooting something Joss is still actively working on and has worked on for many years in various media. One can instinctively tell something's 'off' there, and this is probably causing many of the angry reactions. And while I agree there's no moral or legal faux-pas (I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm driving this point home, so that I don't get pushed into the wrong box in this discussion), there is something wrong. I'm trying to define what that is and have come to the - admittedly shaky - temporary conclusion that it's simply 'not nice' or 'inconsiderate'. If someone has a better definition: feel free.

My comparison of the Buffy screenplay to a car, a trombone, and a toaster is "silly". Your comparison of the screenplay to an actual human being and of ownership of a sequel right to sex with that human being, though... that's completely, completely serious.


Again: not a comparison. It was simply an example of why circumstances matter.

There is no "yeah, but" that overcomes "sold it".


Agreed, in a legal sense. Probably agreed in a moral sense. Not agreed in a general sense. Joss has no right to claim consideration, but his fans can act on the lack of consideration. There's a subtle difference there, but I think it's valid.

[ edited by GVH on 2010-11-23 19:51 ]
Hee hee, well done with those last two sentences dorkenheimer. I think I may be missing some background re. the poisoned ground and unpleasant people, though.
Hmm, I think I see what you're saying GVH but you're tripping me up with the "not nice" or "inconsiderate" because I think that's off a bit.

Buffy is a very loved creation with a very distinctive voice and a very loyal and passionate fanbase, so it's hard not to see this movie as ... well, sullying that a bit. Which isn't to say it's not nice. It seems like a dumb idea to me but obviously the point is making money and if that's the objective it might be a great idea. I think it's just... disappointing to the fans. But no worse than that, really. I'd go with eye-rolling over outrage myself, but we all have fun in different ways ;).

Not sure I agree w/ gossi that they are trying to force JW to jump on board. I can't imagine they would think he'd do that. But who knows.
No, personally I think that's way off base too catherine. Apart from anything else they're making announcements now and talking about 2012 release dates, clearly Joss can't do that because he's working on his small, wholly original Avengers project. Not only that but he doesn't have to so why would he ? Personally as soon as I get even a sniff of being forced into something I tend to run a mile the other way and I think most people are pretty similar - why would that not apply to financially comfortable, critically acclaimed writer/director Joss Whedon ?

And again, the emphasis on the inexperience of the writer in gossi's article. Here's the thing: maybe she's got a great idea for rebooting it, maybe she's even written a great script or treatment, why is that impossible simply because she's inexperienced ? Everyone's inexperienced before they gain experience.
Agreed on that, Saje.

(Phew.)

ETA: I agree that 'not nice' or 'incosiderate' is not exactly right, catherine. But it's also not solely a fandom dissapointment thing.

What keeps tripping me up time after time is that WB decided to go forward with this while Whedon is still writing in this world and while Whedon is - for all intents and purposes - the creative 'leader'/'voice' in this world, even if he doesn't have a nice document like Rowling or Lucas proclaiming him to be so.

It's a gut reaction which proclaims that to be 'off' somehow, and I haven't gotten to anything other than 'not nice' or 'inconsiderate', though those are too close to 'ethically wrong' for comfort (which I don't think it is - heck, if I were WB and wasn't invested in this world I might have done the same thing, who knows?).

But at the end of the day I think there is something there, for lack of a better word, and I think it's that something that people are having gut reactions to. I know I am :).

[ edited by GVH on 2010-11-23 20:20 ]
I'm kinda surprised at who hasn't commented on this yet via Twitter....Alyson, Nick, Nathan, Seth, Julie Benz, Tom Lenk, the writers....Jane, Stephen, Drew....

Odd
I figure they would ask Joss to join before attempting to force him to.

My opinion is this: Buffy (the show) ended. The show was glorious and told so many beautiful stories from high school to college. It continued with a comic series.

I am someone who appreciates GOOD TV series more than movies. I view each episode as the chapter of a book. Character development is not something that is easily worked in in 2.5 hours. I don't think a Buffy movie with all of the original cast would work. A Spike TV movie or a Ripper TV movie might work if it was The History Of before Buffy. But I don't think any real movie would really give respect to the franchise or be successful in the theater. Like with Serenity, you can not encompass the vastness of the thing in such a small time frame.

So I can GET a reboot. I can understand why that's the choice a movie production company would take, rather than using original cast members.

What seems so incredibly underhanded and low is the way that they are excluding the creator. Not even consulting him in the integrity of the script or the casting. He IS what we liked about Buffy-- the show that created real people in such a fantastical setting.

I can't even believe that a movie studio would want to throw away money like this. All they are hoping to make money from are the Twilight movie-goers, but even THEY had a huge fanbase prior to the movie because of the success of the book.
Julie retweeted comments from someone else, Irishgirl. Pretty sure Drew did as well. Everyone else probably thinks ignoring this and hoping it goes away is a sound policy. I can see their point. I think it will.
I actually believe they did ask him [Joss] and he said no. I think he commented on this in an interview somewhere last year? (where's QuoterGal when you need her).

By the way, obviously - I question the choice of writer here. I'm not commenting on her writing ability, because I don't know it. Everybody starts somewhere, but not usually on an established international franchise like BUFFY.
Oh deary me. I thought this had gone away! Warner Bros, what are you thinking? Wish I knew.

Gossi - I think they asked him after they'd already gone forward with this. Like an after-thought when the crapeth started?
People go through their life owing one thing and expecting one thing from others, and it's not niceness. It's respect. Both parties sticking to what they agreed to open-handedly is respect, Joss is not getting disrespected. He is not giving disrespect (although if the "Stillman/Anderson" joke may have been intended as such).

Rowling and Lucas struck better deals and, yes, that *is* it as far as I'm concerned. Rowling, Lucas, and Whedon are all getting all the consideration they deserve, because they are all getting the consideration they agreed on. Again, Joss has played in no fewer than four other people's franchise playgrounds that I can count without really thinking about it, and in only one ("Runaways") do I tend to assume he really was hand in hand with the original creator on what he'd be doing. With Wonder Woman, wasn't it actually his disinterest in playing ball with DC's vision of the character ultimately where that fell apart? Another example, then, of inconsistency on whether the great and unspoken etiquette of genre fiction writing require fealty and loyalty to the original creator. That's not a complaint about Joss Whedon, either -- it's a complaint that it's very obvious that the standard of RAGE against WB and Whit Anderson here is something that the angry people don't expect Joss to have actually met in his own career. Joss, see, is not the one calling for this or that boycott and so on.
KingofCretins, expecting fans to act as professionals is always going to lead to disappointment. Fandom is about as disorganised and chaotic as you get.

[ edited by gossi on 2010-11-23 20:31 ]
Yeah, I dunno about it either, catherine... Also, here's just a bit of the Kuzui background here and of course on the thread about their proposed reboot.

Wanted to say to Jobo: - I did some more digging through the site, and you were right; I found that Joss did finally add
this in a June, 2009 popwatch interview about the Kuzui re-boot (that we discussed here:

"I believe [the producers] did ultimately reach out to my agent after the news broke, I think that's something better left untouched by me. So, I wish them luck".

Seems likely his reaction to this one will remain the same, underlined now by his extreme busyness w/ that little comic book film he's working on.

Just for the hell of it, I also dug up some more Whedon'verse reaction - to the original Kuzui Joss-less Buffy re-boot. Don't imagine much will have changed with this one, and I suspect that may be a part of why some folks are not commenting again.

Tom Lenk

Tim Minear

Alyson Hannigan, discussed here

Felicia Day

And of course, the great and powerful Dr. Horrible


ETA: Coincidentally, I was just posting that, gossi.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-23 20:34 ]
QuoterGal, you never fail to be ahead of everything I'm thinking about thinking.
Thanks for finding that, QG. I did some digging this morning with no luck, so it's nice to hear I'm not totally crazy :p
Jane E's significant other (Bob Harris) said on twitter yesterday "Buffy w/o Joss? That's like grilled cheese on rye with no cheese or rye. Just a grill. " which was then retweeted by Drew Greenberg.
See, and that's the major point on which we disagree, KoC: all these cases are not 1-on-1 comparable (just as they aren't comparable to selling a car). Everything else we've been saying is mostly details.

The cases where Joss has played in other people's playground are not similar to what is happening here. None of those were properties with a strong original creator who'd basically done everything up to that point and, critically, was still working in that world himself.

The closest to that Joss got was with Runaways, which was a Marvel property, but which - to that point - was clearly BKV's baby. And in that case he came on board with the blessing of the previous writer.

Let's say Joss did that without BKV's blessing, and after marvel fired BKV. Now imagine Joss kept the name, but changed all the characters: that's starting to get closer to what's happening here (but is still not a great 1-on-1 comparison). Were I a fan of BKV's Runaways, I might have a similar reaction I'm having here, even though nobody did anything wrong legally or morally either.

And no, it's not just that it's Joss. I'd feel the same way with other creators (like the above example with BKV). Plus, I'd have no trouble with people making more Toy Story, playing with characters Joss created for his X-Men run or if someone would want to reboot Titan AE. But those are very different to Buffy - or Firefly, or Doctor Horrible, or Dollhouse, where Joss performed, in all practicality, a similar role as Lucas has on Star Wars.

Again: this doesn't mean he deserves special rights which are not in his contract and it also doesn't mean he has a claim to special treatment in a business sense. But it does mean these things are different and people (fans) are going to have different reactions to them. That's not hypocrisy on their parts, it's simply a case of treating different cases differently.
Julie Benz (she's so dear):

juliebenz Julie Benz
never have truer words been tweeted!!!! RT @jennyandteets I will only say this once. Without Joss, there is no Buffy!
16 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

He is not giving disrespect (although if the "Stillman/Anderson" joke may have been intended as such)


I don't think so on that one. That was a classic for me. I think he just wanted to make a joke. Just like us, he knows nothing about the writer so how can he have anything constructive to say?

expecting fans to act as professionals is always going to lead to disappointment. Fandom is about as disorganised and chaotic as you get.


Let's be fair, that may have been entirely true 20 years ago. But in an age of e-mail, twitter, or this little digital lodging here, we do have SOME degree of control of the dialogue or at the very least the counter-arguement. There's a difference between accepting and discussing differences and allowing the most strident voices to become the loudest.

To me, FAILING to provide the counter-arguement does more harm than good. If a fanbase acts irrationally every time you don't do things exactly the way it wants it done (which is impossible since they're all different - watch a Buffy Season 8 thread if you haven't), as a producer I wouldn't really want any part of it (with or without Joss).

And unfortunately, the size of this fanbase alone is NOT enough to bankroll a feature film. If it was, it would have been made a long time ago.

[ edited by azzers on 2010-11-23 21:02 ]
I pretty much agree with KoC. Until it turns out that Joss was tricked or cheated out of the movie rights it seems that everything is being done properly here. I get that there's a sense that the movie makers are trying to cash in on the success of the TV show but this wouldn't be the first time people who aren't Joss have made money on projects that were tied to the success of the TV show. For instance did Joss have any say over the tie in novels (and if he did why on earth did he approve some of them) or the pre-season 8 comics?

I can't claim any interest in this film and suspect it'll be awful but we should recall that actors-turned writers can turn out to be very good writers even with their first produced script (hint look up Danny Strong on IMDB). The film could involve a brilliant cast and great director, at this point there's no way of knowing. So, I won't state I'll boycot it, I think it's very unlikely I'll see it but if the reviews turn out to be good and the cast interesting I'm certainly not going to say I won't just because Joss isn't involved.
I'd pretty much agree with you, KoC, if BtVS the TV show didn't exist. But it does and that makes a huge difference. The value of this remake comes as a result of all the work done by everyone on the TV show - not from the original movie, which is what the rights relate to.

Without the existence of the TV show, those rights are almost worthless. You might as well start again with a new property as very few people remember that film with much fondness. It would have been long forgotten.

It's not about saying it's "wrong", it's more about it being unfair. And yes, life is unfair sometimes, but it's crazy not to expect people to complain about that.

[ edited by NotaViking on 2010-11-23 21:04 ]
I pretty much agree with KoC.

helcat | November 23, 21:02 CET



I'd pretty much agree with you, KoC

NotaViking | November 23, 21:03 CET



So... that was weird. ;)
So the Dollhouse DOES exist!
And hey, I usually agree with KOC but not today! I am all authorial intent today! :-)
So am I :)

The author intended to sign the contract that paid him for the screenplay that included a sequel right with no sort of oversight.
The person Julie Benz retweeted above was also an actress on Angel.
Are you really content QuoterGal ? I can't tell.

;-)

So the Dollhouse DOES exist!

Or does it ?? Din-din-dinnnnnnn !

No.

By the way, obviously - I question the choice of writer here. I'm not commenting on her writing ability, because I don't know it. Everybody starts somewhere, but not usually on an established international franchise like BUFFY.

True, sometimes it's on an internationally successful, multi award winning TV show. And it obviously doesn't need pointing out that the original Buffy movie was the first produced feature script of a certain other young writer, right ? Guess that's different though.
That's totally different, Saje. On TV, you have experienced showrunners who take you under their wing. TV shows are great environnments to learn writing skills, hence why many screenwriters originate from TV. With the original Buffy movie, it was a small scale horror comedy and not an established brand.
It was perfectly proper and legal to cancel Firefly, Dollhouse and Angel. But the fans didn't go "oh hang that's alright then ", no they roared and it was glorious. The current outcry is just as wonderful, it's good to see all the Buffy fans come out of the woodwork on so many sites.
It's not the outcry itself, just the way some people are choosing to cry out that bugs me. But whatever floats your boat.

With the original Buffy movie, it was a small scale horror comedy and not an established brand.

I don't believe they take the brand that seriously though and a lot of people here seem to share that perspective (as has been said over and over, without most of what makes Buffy Buffy there's not much brand there to begin with). So why exactly would they give it the red carpet treatment ? There's an inconsistency between on the one hand seeing it as a cash-in to make a quick buck from the vampire craze and on the other saying "But they wouldn't get an inexperienced writer on it" as if it's too important to them.

And as has also been said, she's the first writer on the early stages of a project, doesn't mean she'll see it all the way through or even end up on the credits.

And that aside, a good script/treatment is a good script/treatment - why would they look at that and then go "Oh but we can't use it or even give her a shot, she's too inexperienced".

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-23 22:02 ]
@Saje: ; > It was a Sigh of Many Colors, but none of them contentment...

Simon: It was perfectly proper and legal to cancel Firefly, Dollhouse and Angel. But the fans didn't go "oh hang that's alright then ", no they roared and it was glorious. The current outcry is just as wonderful, it's good to see all the Buffy fans come out of the woodwork on so many sites.

Aye, I think so too - for the most part, anyway. The anti-Whit Anderson animus sticks in my craw a bit. But the grouping Jossy-support behavior? Yeah, I like it fine.

There's many a thing that's strictly legal in this world, and that don't make it right in my book - not by a long shot.

As many of us know, the law is often an ass.
a good script/treatment is a good script/treatment
Actually, given how INSANELY difficult it is to get a major studio to LOOK at your script or treatment if you aren't an established writer, let alone one for a major franchise, this leads me to think one of two things:
1) Whit Anderson has the best agent in the world, or knows someone who is owed a favor
or
2) The script/treatment is AWESOME
The entertainment industry, sadly, is not a meritocracy. It happens, sometimes, but being good is far from the only requirement you need to "make it". That said, I choose to be optimistic when I have a choice, so I'm imagining how absolutely unbelievably good things at this stage are.
The anti-Whit Anderson animus sticks in my craw a bit.


Yes, some of the comments are uncalled for. The SJ'ers in the fandom seem to be happy for her though. So at least some fans are optimistic and hopeful about what she might be able to do.
What seems so incredibly underhanded and low is the way that they are excluding the creator. Not even consulting him in the integrity of the script or the casting. He IS what we liked about Buffy-- the show that created real people in such a fantastical setting.

Yeah... about that. When I was a wee bit younger and watching Buffy live on my tv I will tell you right now that it had nothing directly to do with some guy known as "Joss" seeing as I'd never heard of him before (or for quite some time thereafter for that matter - believe it or not my introduction to the whedonverse as the whedonverse only dates back to Dr. Horrible.) I watched it because it was entertaining - which is hardly a quality unique to a single person.

Also, this may come as a shock but there are some of us out there who actually kinda liked that original movie.
Okay, so not long ago there was this mortgage collapse and it nearly brought the United States to its knees. Turned out the folks selling the cruddy mortgage tranches knew they were selling crap, and they lied about how good it was, and then later when all hell broke loose, they simply said, hey, it's business, no one forced anyone to buy anything, we are all adults here and yeah, we lied, but this is the big league. And so, according to my good buddy KOC, that's all fine and dandy. And indeed, it is all legal. But it's wrong. What is legal is not always what is right.

And we do not know why Joss signed the rights away. Maybe there was some sort of coercion (though I doubt it), maybe that was the only way he could get the show made, maybe maybe. It is what it is, but what is is not as clear as it is.
If a Buffy film is made without Joss input, it might be great, it may be awful. But it will not be 'Buffy'. Not for me.
The twitter pic of Hart Hanson telling David Boreanaz about the Buffy remake is hilarious.
Tim was asked at Facebook what he thought and he replied very simply: I think it won't be Buffy.
brinderwalt: Yeah... about that. When I was a wee bit younger and watching Buffy live on my tv I will tell you right now that it had nothing directly to do with some guy known as "Joss" seeing as I'd never heard of him before (or for quite some time thereafter for that matter - believe it or not my introduction to the whedonverse as the whedonverse only dates back to Dr. Horrible.) I watched it because it was entertaining - which is hardly a quality unique to a single person.

Just because you didn't know about Joss Whedon doesn't mean he wasn't the main reason you found it entertaining, so not sure your earlier ignorance of the creator means much in this instance.

And being entertaining is hardly something people are claiming is unique to Joss Whedon - but making *Buffy* entertaining - and unique - is what many, including myself - are contending.

It's not much of a shock that some like the original movie - people have been saying that on whedonesque for years.However, since he was also the original creator of the film you liked, not sure again what your point is...
Joss is "furious" again according to The Guardian who trim off the Avengers gag in his comment on original ideas. Doy.

Surely if you want someone furious, you call David Fury?
Just because you didn't know about Joss Whedon doesn't mean he wasn't the main reason you found it entertaining, so not sure your earlier ignorance of the creator means much in this instance.

My point, in the words of the man himself:
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.

Emphasis mine, of course.
More reactions:

Juliet Landau

OK... I ran out of time. Gotta go to work!
Joss is "furious" again according to The Guardian who trim off the Avengers gag in his comment on original ideas. Doy.

Oh that article is a thing of twisted beauty. Seriously, to miss the point of a series of comments that comprehensively is a rare gift. This is just one of the gems within:
Whedon is cynical about the likelihood of teen-vampire overkill – "But seriously, are vampires even popular any more?" – but is also realistic about the way the movie business operates.

Hilarious. I think I may go back to not buying 'The Guardian' again. Journalist indeed. Hah.
Yeah, Craig Oxbrow - yet another journalist - and there've been many in the past day or so - either actually fails to get Joss' self-deprecating humor, or deliberately misunderstands it for dramatic effect - because they've snipped a pertinent statement so that the humor is vampirically-sucked out of it.

See what they did here:

They've changed this (italics mine):

"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."

to:

"Whedon reacted with fury. "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," he said. "I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, after."

Which is, ya know, actually manufacturing the appearance of fury. Which would make me furious.

It can't be that they don't know how to read, right? 'Cause that's just as effed-up.

(Thanks for clarifying that, brinderwalt - I don't, of course, agree with you any more than before about Joss' importance to the World O' Buffy, but I do understand your words better. )
Dana, to sustain that comparison (the underlying facts of which I'm not going to discuss), aren't you necessarily suggesting that Joss' deal to sell his screenplay was fraudulent or coercive? If so... lawl.

Simon, fan outrage over cancellation is glorious, but then, nobody (or at least not quite so many) spent time enraged that the cancellation was... rude, or inconsiderate, or that the showrunners for anything that FOX offered to go in that timeslot after should have called Joss to ask permission to make a show that would be shown there.

I'm all for fans who don't want the movie made to climb up one wall and down the other fuming over it, but it is maddening to me that this completely false outrage over it being rude or unethical is riding around on top of it.

Joss Whedon is a working professional who made the call a long time ago that the promise of getting his screenplay turned into a movie was worth not retaining control over a project like this, and for his part, from what I can tell, he has stood in Whit Anderson's own shoes at the gates of other peoples' castles in the sky and gone in without their explicit invite. It just really gets to me that people are seriously suggesting that he, and he alone in the whole industry, is owed consideration that nobody gets and nobody expects without having gotten it as part of a contract.

Not for nothing, the reaction to the news of a remake of "Battlestar Galactica" received a similar lashing from both fans of the original and people that made it alike.
KingofCretins - or should that be Trombonius? :) - I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The only way to be sure the trombone won't be used as a vase, a urinal, thrown out or turned into a car bumper is not to sell it. I was simply saying that the analogy is more exact if you're the trombone maker. After all, if you didn't make it yourself, someone sold the trombone to *you*, so you are a buyer-turned-seller, rather than the originator. However, I agree the legal meaning of having sold it remains the same - you no longer have a legal say in the destiny of the script/trombone.
but it is maddening to me that this completely false outrage


Why can't fans be annoyed that Joss and a character they love are gettting treated this way? This is not false outrage, this is genuine.
Uh oh, the big guns are out; Perez Hilton is offended by this, too!

KOC- Ain't nothing false about my outrage, dig?

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2010-11-23 23:28 ]
Sure, if you're outraged you're outraged, if you feel it it isn't false. "Baseless outrage" might be closer ? I.e. (to play devil's advocate) KingOfCretins seems to be saying that people aren't outraged over the principle (since the principle in question - if it even is a principle beyond 'not being nice' - is routinely violated by many/most/all people, certainly in the entertainment industry) but simply because it's Joss. So there's maybe an element of hypocrisy to it (it's OK until we're affected by it).

Outrage is very easy in other words but it's not an end in itself, it has to have some valid basis to be anything more than chucking your toys out of the pram.
Because he's not being treated in a "way", or at least not in a way that he himself, by all appearances, has not also "treated" others -- which he himself drew attention to with the "Avengers" comment but could have made a few different references as well. I don't even remember him making mention of talking to Jim Cameron before his joking offer to buy the rights to "The Terminator".

It's a lot like that "Angel" episode, when Angel tells Darla she's not a prisoner, and then Cordy and Wes quickly clear that right up for her. Here, we have Joss implicitly saying to the situation "I'm not going to be a hypocrite", and a small army turning and saying "no worries, Joss, we've got it covered -- it's only hypocritical if you hold other people to a standard you don't hold yourself to, but if we hold other people to a standard you don't hold yourself to, no hypocrisy there!" A standard, in fact, that nobody holds anybody to in their industry.

Maybe I should have chosen a better phrase -- the outrage is authentic, to be sure. But it's a long walk from the very legitimate outrage of "but a 'Buffy' movie without Joss is going to suck worse than the new Green Lantern trailer" to the very dubious outrage of "it's morally offensive to not ask or involve Joss in a remake" (even though the "offenders" had paid cash money to the man himself for the ability to do just exactly that).

Want to go to war for something, go to war to get Fox and Joss and Dark Horse, et al, to look over their rights and launch their own Buffy movie that would render the Warner flick irrelevant. But energy spent acting like Warner is doing something unethical is energy wasted, IMO.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-23 23:30 ]
Alright, I've commented over at The Guardian's story about their mangling/snippage/misquoting of Joss' original remarks.

Hope the comment stays and that they change at least that blatant meaning-changing snippage, but I don't know enough about them to know how responsive they are.

I will say this: any time I've ever commented on any news blog about a misstatement of fact or or a mis-quoting of Joss, they've not changed it. And I'm pretty damn sure of my facts, my evidence and my quotes before I say anything.

Kinda makes me mistrust much of what I read even further...
" to the very dubious outrage of "it's morally offensive to not ask or involve Joss in a remake"


They're not even bothering to acknowledge him. If you go by the press release, Joss has been airbrushed out of history completely. This line was great.

Warner Bros. Pictures optioned the rights from creators Fran and Kaz Kuzu


Someone's lawyers somewhere must be twitching over that reference. And then there's the bollocks about "an active fan base eagerly awaiting this character's return to the big screen." Where are these people? Who are these people? Either Warner Bros have no idea how to do PR or they just don't care. And that smacks of arrogance. Which never goes down well with fans.
yet another journalist - and there've been many in the past day or so - either actually fails to get Joss' self-deprecating humor, or deliberately misunderstands it for dramatic effect - because they've snipped a pertinent statement so that the humor is vampirically-sucked out of it.

Interesting to see that "journalists" seem to be learning their trade from the cable news stations these days. Poor Joss. His work of genius is now in the hands of others, and his words concerning the matter are minced and mischaracterized by still others. Certainly not his week.

ETA: writing while QuoterGal and Simon add even more to the issue.

[ edited by palehorse on 2010-11-23 23:48 ]
His work of genius is now in the hands of others, and his words concerning the matter are minced and mischaracterized by still others. Certainly not his week.

It's astonishing he ever says anything for publication by this stage. Or, y'know, out loud.

Bit of old Kippers seems apropos:
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
...
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Chin up Joss ;).
Jeebus, this is a nettlesome issue. I'm outraged but told it's either false or baseless- and what is the difference, by the way? Folks, I feel what I feel, okay?

I am no Joss defender, but I view myself as having a sense of ethics that often runs counter to conventional wisdom in that there is right and there is legal. OJ Simpson was found not guilty, but despite the judgment he either did or did not murder his wife. Legal and right are often not the same. No matter what Joss did 15 years ago, it is clear that he is not happy now. This is his work, it's associated with him, it is playing off all that he has done and his good will and he has no say. Legal? Yes. Right? Not so much, in my opinion. But I've said this, and so won't say it again.
Well, the writer is on Twitter and is openly engaging and addressing Whedonites. It's actually finally setting in with me this might be the end of the Joss-Buffy era.
I hope that ends well for her. But I've seen how disgusting twitter can be. What's coming will be inevitable, but I suspect there will be a whole lot of people saying a whole lot of nasty things to her as her @ account becomes public knowledge.
Oh, she's already had a 'I hope you die' tweet from somebody. Because some people? Kinda crappy. She responded by saying she used to live in their neighbourhood for two years, heh.
Kristy Swanson all for it & would like a part, please.

azzers, my experience is that twitter is no more and no less disgusting as any other open/unmoderated online meetin' place. That is: there are the civilized, and then there are the barbarians. Death threats and offers of help. The block function is your friend.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-24 01:05 ]
I love Twitter. It's very much overhyped as a marketing tool - it's not that useful for selling things. But it's great for quick communication with friends and like minded people. Also, because it's online occasionally you'll encounter the odd dick move. I just let it wash over me.
I hope not, azzers, but from what I've been seeing on Twitter you are most likely correct.

I'm not particularly open to this Joss-less Buffy idea. Seems kinda silly to try do something well a second time when the man who did it so perfectly the first time is still around to do more. If, y'know, you asked him nicely. I just think that it would have been nice for Joss to have been approached for an opinion beforehand. At least for the sake of appearances, if nothing else.

That said, the way that this has been turned into such a nasty attack on Whit Anderson is extremely disturbing. Not so much here but certainly in many other places online. Physical threats? Really? I'm well aware that other vampire related fandoms are capable of that level of overreaction (in fact, I've experienced it personally) but since when did we get so negative? I'm all for a firm proactive response to make it clear that we think this is a bad idea but some of the things I've seen flying around Twitter directed towards Whit are pretty damn ugly.

The way I see it, Whit seems to me to be a genuine fan who has been given the opportunity to write a movie based upon a concept she cares about a great deal. Why is it such a crime that she said yes? I'll tell you now, if I had been given the okay to write the upcoming Highlander reboot, I'd have done it for free!

To any Buffy/Whedon fans out there who have gone so far as to verbally (virtually?) attack or threaten Whit, please just take a moment to think about what you're doing, because the ill conceived actions of even a minority of this fandom will no doubt taint us all. You can attack the basic idea of this reboot all you like (because it's a very bad idea indeed) but there's no need to take it out on the writer. None at all. She doesn't deserve it and we are, I would hope, considerably better than that. Hope so anyway!
Because he's not being treated in a "way", or at least not in a way that he himself, by all appearances, has not also "treated" others -- which he himself drew attention to with the "Avengers" comment but could have made a few different references as well. I don't even remember him making mention of talking to Jim Cameron before his joking offer to buy the rights to "The Terminator".


Again, KoC, I believe those examples are completely different and therefore not all that relevant to analyzing the current fan outcry. I can't wrap my head around why one would think that these are similar things - writing for X-Men, for example, is playing in a sandbox littered with interpretations, writers, and reinventions.

I can't think of one - not one - instance where there's an active franchise in which the main creator/creative 'head'/'leader' of that franchise is still telling canonical stories within that franchise, which got a simultaneous reboot by people who hold the rights to the basic premise and one character, but nothing else.

The only example I can come up with on the spot is that rogue James Bond movie, but then that was never a creator-based franchise to begin with; Ian Fleming wasn't a part of those movies.

Same thing goes for the earlier Watchmen comparison. Yes, it was similar in that the original creator did not like what was happening with his brain child (and I did feel that Moore had a bit of a point there, despite the legality of things), but then a movie adaptation of ones work is a very different thing (more similar to the earlier mentioned covers of songs) than a complete reboot of only part of the franchise, while one is still working on the original incarnation.

The Battlestar reboot comes close, as a comparison, but in that case the original creator also wasn't still actively publishing things within that franchise. It's that unique combination - a remake of an active property driven by a main creative 'leader' who is not the sole rights holder.

I for one can't imagine any similar scenario. But if there is one, I think I'd feel the same way: it's just not the best way to go, to ignore that creator and simply reboot because you can and are allowed to. That's not because this is Joss and now it's our guy who's receiving the short end of the stick, it's because this situation is different to all those others.
The problem is, while "block" is available, people in these situations don't have time to sit down all day blocking people. And it also doesn't help you not see the trash in the first place unless you start blocking out every word you don't want to see.

And I'm not saying Twitter is the devil here. I'm just saying, in this particular instance, it allows a very small but belligerent group to essentially cyberbully Ms. Anderson freely. And they will (and in some cases have).
It's only the tiny minority, azzers. If she doesn't like it, she can set her profile to private. She's actively engaging with people, so I doubt she cares.

If people want to complain on twitter, tweet @wbpictures (the studio).
I think Twitter is a little different than other unmoderated places, too, in that tweets to a person are directed at that individual, right? Whereas personal comments/attacks on group sites get lost in discussion threads, even when there are little off-shooty comment bits. Seems like the structure of Twitter makes it more susceptible to that kind of targeted hostility, especially if the recipient is someone who wants to keep her profile public for professional reasons . . . (this, of course, coming from a non-tweeter. I could be way off.)

It should go without saying that I hope none of the members here would stoop to such nastiness.
I can't think of one - not one - instance where there's an active franchise in which the main creator/creative 'head'/'leader' of that franchise is still telling canonical stories within that franchise[...]

Like it or not, comic books are very much a niche market. For most intents and purposes (and from the perspective of the vast majority of the potential viewing public) the franchise has been dormant for more than seven years.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-24 01:35 ]
It is so wrong to push all this on her. She's just doing what anyone of us would want, she's putting her version out there. My friend tweeted the idea that if anyother fanfic writer got the opportunity they too would take it. I may disagree with the notion that any/all would, but the possibility to see your thoughts and desires for the character you loved on the big screen is kinda tempting!

WB are wrong to let her write and star in this though(if the casting rumours are true). Kristy Swanson took an unknown role and did what was needed of her. SMG took a role that was mocked and looked down upon and made it iconic. This girl has nothing behind her but a company. We've seen/heard nothing from her before this, so perhaps allow her to pitch but have another to write it. I just can't get behind this idea, there's nothing that in anyway instills any kind of faith in me.

Even excluding the character of Buffy and telling the story of a random slayer would be better than this, alot better, infinitely better!! I would probably illegally download and watch that(not pay for it of course!)
Gossi said:
"Also, because it's online occasionally you'll encounter the odd dick move. I just let it wash over me."

It might be the hour, but the oddest mental images popped up into my head...

It should also be noted that Maurissa Tancharoen is not a fan of Joss-less Buffy, either.
I certainly hope no one is deciding to steal or illegally download someone else's property simply because they disagree with the people working on it. That really isn't acceptable. Ever.
Oh, I do get that brinderwalt (I mean, Joss himself said he'd possibly throw out the comic book continuity if he ever got to make another Buffy movie).

And that's one reason why it's a bit less 'horrible', subjectively speaking, than it could have been. But make no mistake: had this happened while the show was still airing, the legality and morality of it would have been exactly the same - although the subjective fan outcry would probably have been considerably stronger (and rightly so). Which proves my previous point: this does not exist in a vacuum where the specifics of the situation don't matter.

I'd have found this worse had Buffy still been on the air. But right now it's worse, because S8 is still appearing in comic book form, than if that hadn't been the case and Joss had ignored the property for a couple of years. These circumstances matter.
I've checked and it's okay to be out there - the writer is @WhitAnd on Twitter. She's actively engaging with the fandom.
Oh, I do get that brinderwalt (I mean, Joss himself said he'd possibly throw out the comic book continuity if he ever got to make another Buffy movie).

And that's one reason why it's a bit less 'horrible', subjectively speaking, than it could have been. But make no mistake: had this happened while the show was still airing, the legality and morality of it would have been exactly the same - although the subjective fan outcry would probably have been considerably stronger (and rightly so).

Yes, because there also would've been numerous other factors - such as founding cast members still in the right playing age ballpark and less already-traveled narrative territory in the established continuum - which would make for much better grounds for fan outcry than what we have at present. No one is trying to say that the specifics of the present situation are fine and dandy. Merely that much of the outrage being directed at the present project itself is - from an objective standpoint - a little more than is warranted.
If only Whit Anderson had been a fan of 'Charmed' instead.
If only Whit Anderson had been a fan of 'Charmed' instead.

Hahahaha!!!!

Thank you! :)
GVH, I think the "still actively working" thing is, I'll be honest here, a hollow distinction that's contrived to create a difference. It is, in fact, the crux of why I think people are doing "it's different because it's Joss", because I defy *anyone* here that's that upset about this to say straight-faced that they'd feel differently if Season 8 and 9 weren't going on. In point of fact, on any other day on this board and most others you can find at least 50% of fans who look upon that work as "non-canonical", despite being managed directly BY Joss, if not looking on it with out and out contempt and disdain. No, if there were no Season 8 or 9 comics, I suspect there would just be a "well, it's just too soon" deflection at work.

I don't have twitter, and I'm not going to get it just to track what I'm sure is a downright malevolent assault on the new screenwriter.

As for the continuing show of... is it support, if they are reacting more vigorously than Joss is? For want of a term, support... of Joss' actors and writers and so on, I absolutely respect that. They worked for the guy, he made many of their careers, on that franchise, no less. But I'd really be curious to know what, for example, JJ Abrams thinks, Joss' contemporary from that one panel. Someone who, in other words, doesn't very implicitly owe Joss their livelihood and who, incidentally, is also the creator of one or more revered franchises. Show me one of Joss counterparts expressing the same level of condemnation, I'd be very curious to see it.

Kristy Swanson, on the other hand, I don't blame at all for supporting it, but I don't consider her all that objective either -- she's spent more than a decade having her face pushed in by fans of the television series and, albeit indirectly, even by Joss, for his occasional ridicule of the product the movie turned into that undoubtedly she takes as commentary on her own effort.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-24 04:37 ]
Oh these are fun times with all the drama and the ... drama! I agree with you basically KoC - at least insofar as I don't think !OUTRAGE! is justified in any logical way - but I do get a definite "ugh" feeling at the idea of a Joss-less Buffy, and so... I don't know, I'm kind of enjoying the outrage. I like that the reaction to Buffy without Joss is a big noisy angry WHAAAAA? Even if I don't feel noisy or angry (or particularly big) myself.

I'm not following closely enough but gather some people have been nasty to the new screenwriter on Twitter, and that's lame, but if she's out there chatting with the fans on Twitter then I'd guess she was expecting a certain amount of pissiness and can also handle it.

She's right that the basic premise is fantastic, and a whole other great story could definitely be told with it (or many great stories). It could even be a movie I would like (though my guess is the target is Twilight fans, so I don't know what kind of movie they're really looking for). But it's hard for a fan to think of my / our beloved Buffy being someone other than the Buffy we know and love, in someone else's hands. I'm sure you get that, the emotional reaction. I think that's all it is, some people reacting emotionally. Which I think is awesome, except for the emotional and mean people, they are not awesome.
KOC,I know this is kinda between you and GVH, but I just wanted to weigh in myself on the bits you were discussing;
If you don't mind I'm gonna start from the bottom of your post, cause I'm awkward that way :)
When ridiculing the film he's doing it about his own work. He did write the script and he was on the set everyday. That's all there is to it, so to say that it's a slap in the face for everyone else that he didn't like the finished product is reductive. It's not just to everyone else, it's his own failings as a writer and his efforts to be taken seriously.

Asking people unrelated to the show how they feel about something they never had any investment in is off the mark. Support comes from the internal group as they rally around him then it shows a unity of those who loved what they made together. Abrams showed up on a panel with him. How does his opinion on this factor remotely into it? They are not condemning the writer, only the idea that Buffy would be the Buffy we all knew and loved without him. I don't see anyone outright saying "this should be stopped immediately because it is wrong" The general consensus seems to be that it won't be Buffy. It'll be a figure of the same name.

Actually I checked her twitter and most have been surprisingly nice saying that they have reservations toward it but as fellow fanboys and girls they wish her well. It's been quite civil other than the initial attack.

Joss said he would discount the canon of the comics if he were to make a film so it's easy for the anti-8 to not care, but the fact is that for now we have a canonical representation of the series and this coming on the heels of it is poorly timed. For a show with a fan base as active as this to feel that 7 years is too early to hand the reigns over to someone else is kind of okay. I mean there's no need to draw comparisons because each fanbase is different, but as a Pro-8 poster, I do feel very much opposed to the production of this, for the simple fact that it has yet to provide me with something good to back it. All the parts that were familiar to us are in the hands of another company, it's being written by someone with no background and produced by the team who made me dislike the character of Batman in his own reboot. Not promising.
That was all really well put, BlueSkies.
Yeah, BlueSkies, aside from the only one nasty tweet I've seen (by someone who has 5 followers, I might add, and rarely tweets) folks are being what I'd have to call gentle and well-behaved: from those that want the Buffy-reboot to those that don't but want to make sure she feels safe and isn't abused by the fandom.

You can look at these tweets to her - don't let any remarks above scare you. ; > . No writers appear to have been harmed in the making of these tweets.

Out of dozens and dozens of tweets (click "more" at the bottom to see more) - they're almost all more worried about potential mean and crazy fans than they're saying anything negative about the Buffy re-boot.

In fact, if you ask me (and who did), it's starting to feel a little sycophantic and possibly... a tad opportunistic, maybe? Anyway, she seems to be doing WB's PR work for them.

I dunno what all the worry about our fringe-y fans says about our fandom - maybe it says a bunch of stuff - but it sure is A Thing.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-24 05:46 ]
Thanks Catherine! Seems we're very much on the same page!(not in regards to my post, but in regards to fan reactions, that almost sounded obnoxious!)

But yeah, QuoterGal, that initial tweeter was just more than a little odd, were one to believe in conspiracy theories one might conjecture that perhaps it was a plant who, in light of recent reactions, decided to portray the fandom in an ill shining light, one might say...not me though. Full faith in the humanity and morals of networks and production companies.

And it seems her followers have doubled since that resulted so we'll see where this takes us. But like I always say, or am just saying for the first time ever and may never have call for it again, one crazed fan does not a fandom make.
I dunno what all the worry about our fringe-y fans says about our fandom - maybe it says a bunch of stuff - but it sure is A Thing.

LOL! Yes it is!

FWIW, even though I think what she is doing is unethical, it doesn't mean that (1) I want harm to come to her; (2) will go out of my way to make her miserable; or (3) I don't get why someone would do it. It's simply something I know I wouldn't do, because - standard business practice or not - it's wrong.

It's probably one of the reasons why I'm still near-poor in my advancing years!
No one is trying to say that the specifics of the present situation are fine and dandy. Merely that much of the outrage being directed at the present project itself is - from an objective standpoint - a little more than is warranted.


No, I think if we were saying just that last bit, I would've stopped replying in this thread ages ago, brinderwalt ;). I agree that the rage part of the outrage is a little more than is warranted. I do feel the 'WHAA?'-part is justified, though, and like that people are coming out of the woodworks left and right to say so, but the condemnation of this as unethical is a bit much.

And I'm not sure, KoC would have to say so for himself, but I actually do think he's saying that the specifics here are fine and dandy. If not, I've misunderstood his posts and have been trying to challenge a lame duck position ;).


GVH, I think the "still actively working" thing is, I'll be honest here, a hollow distinction that's contrived to create a difference. It is, in fact, the crux of why I think people are doing "it's different because it's Joss", because I defy *anyone* here that's that upset about this to say straight-faced that they'd feel differently if Season 8 and 9 weren't going on. In point of fact, on any other day on this board and most others you can find at least 50% of fans who look upon that work as "non-canonical", despite being managed directly BY Joss, if not looking on it with out and out contempt and disdain. No, if there were no Season 8 or 9 comics, I suspect there would just be a "well, it's just too soon" deflection at work.



Well, KoC, there is a big difference between liking the S8-comics and thinking they're a factor in how one would feel about this. If the comics weren't out there - and for the record, I'm still a bit on the fence about them in terms of actual story content - it'd feel a lot less 'iffy'.

I'd certainly still be on team 'too soon' (like brinderwalt mentions, the original cast menbers still being in the right age bracket hints to that), but it'd certainly feel like less of a unfriendly move by WB. And while I'm sure that there'd still be some wackiness going on, I'm sure it would have an effect in the amount of people saying this is unethical/wrong.

And again: this is not the only distinction I made between this and, for instance, Joss writing an X-Men comic or doing the Wonder Woman script. And it's the combination of all those things in which they're distinctive that mean they're, well, distinctive ;), and different and can be treated as such.

BlueSkies, that was well put. I think I agree with pretty much everything you wrote up there. Feel free to step into one of these discussions any time ;).
Being able to do something (i.e. reboot Buffy, especially without Joss' involvement) does not mean that you SHOULD do something.

That being said, I'm of extremely mixed feelings on this right now, because I'm both annoyed that it's happening without Joss, and also slightly interested simply because it's Buffy.
FWIW, even though I think what she is doing is unethical, it doesn't mean that (1) I want harm to come to her; (2) will go out of my way to make her miserable; or (3) I don't get why someone would do it.

Ah cool, so you don't think she's a back-stabber anymore then Nebula1400 ? Or is it still OK to call her that ?

I don't see anyone outright saying "this should be stopped immediately because it is wrong"

Seriously, i'm not sure we've been reading the same threads BlueSkies. Several people have said "this is wrong" and though i'm not sure anyone's said "This shouldn't be made" outright (feel free to search, i've got to go to work ;) they've certainly said it in so many words.

As usual, it hasn't been anywhere near as bad here as elsewhere on the net a) because for the most part we're nicer and b) this is a moderated forum (whaaa ? You mean we may not be nicer after all ?? ;) but let's not rewrite history and put everything on Twitter, there was enough personal animus on here to be noticeable.

I certainly hope no one is deciding to steal or illegally download someone else's property simply because they disagree with the people working on it. That really isn't acceptable. Ever.

What if someone held a gun to an innocent little child's head and made you do it ? Eh ? Why do you hate innocent little child's heads TamaraC, why ?

(is it the fontanelle thing ? Cos I get that. Kinda ewww)
I'm just now catching up on this entire slew of comments so this is gonna be a long one...

Can anyone really work on this movie without realizing that the bulk of Buffy and Joss fandom will see them as whores - and not the good kind?


I find this offensive. Especially in light of one news source already getting "cute" and describing Whit Anderson as hot (because yes, clearly her being hot is what's important--I know I love it when male writers are described as fat or balding or whatever because it really affects their talent /sarcasm'ing so hard it hurts).

But in all seriousness, Nebula1400: "You're so far past the line you can't even see the line. The line is a dot to you." :/

A back-stabber is still a back-stabber, even if it is a great opportunity. There are unethical people everywhere from old farts to newbies. In life, you make choices, and this woman may get places with the one she made, but it also involves using a pick-ax in Joss's back to climb to her success.

Wrong choice.


Seriously? WOW.

I'm still standing by my assessment of the situation, corn and all, but I will refrain from saying anything else detrimental about the writer.


Oh well, it's a relief to see a refrain from the offensive namecalling. Makes me feel all warm and tingly. :(

I'm pretty appalled. I'm also disappointed that no one said anything about this. There's over 200 comments and no one objected to the repeated namecalling of a professional?

I hope Whit Anderson doesn't even know Whedonesque exists and I really hope she doesn't stumble into this thread.

If only there was more of that and less name calling, the Internet and this fandom would be a little shinier.


And there's the class. Thank you, Pat. THANK YOU.

I'm gonna do with this movie what I do with every movie. Watch who is directing it, watch who is writing it, watch who is in it, look at the preview, and if it looks good, I'm going to go see it.


*stands up and claps* YES. Right on, King.

I don't like saying so, but most of the ...discussing I've seen going on regarding this project actually kinda makes me want to root for it being wildly successful, even if it is terrible - which I fully expect it to be (I like my surprises to be good ones.)


Yep. Fandom ganging up on this project is making me root for it, too. Whit Anderson's already got me sharpening my tongue to defend her against personal attacks. I'd like to think we as a fandom are better than this.

I actually believe they did ask him [Joss] and he said no. I think he commented on this in an interview somewhere last year? (where's QuoterGal when you need her).


They asked him to make a Buffy movie last year? I forgot that detail. Ah, and there's Quotergal with the quote: ""I believe [the producers] did ultimately reach out to my agent after the news broke, I think that's something better left untouched by me. So, I wish them luck."

True, sometimes it's on an internationally successful, multi award winning TV show. And it obviously doesn't need pointing out that the original Buffy movie was the first produced feature script of a certain other young writer, right ? Guess that's different though.


Preach, Saje. Preach all day and all night.

The SJ'ers in the fandom seem to be happy for her though. So at least some fans are optimistic and hopeful about what she might be able to do.


SJ'ers?
Don't have much time to write an extensive response to all the comments I've been busily reading through, but thought I'd drop in just to link J. August Richards' response.

Which, you know, is somewhat funny in light of the discussion going on as to questionable 'ethics' of the reboot.
Ah cool, so you don't think she's a back-stabber anymore then Nebula1400 ? Or is it still OK to call her that ?

Yes. I still think so. The world is coming to an end. I'm that powerful.

I'm gonna go make some vegan Thanksgiving stuff now.
SJ'ers?


The social justice faction. Isn't how they are referred to in fandoms?
?

I'm not au fait w/ my fandomspeak - of that there is no doubt - but even with your translation, Simon, I don't know what that might mean.

What would a social justice fan faction look like when it's at home, and why would they be for the re-boot?

Not being sarky or disingenuous here - but am possibly being thicky...

ETA: Alrighty, I waited for enlightenment, but I sooo have to head for bed, and so I will find out more about "SJ Facts and Figures" on the other side of this night. Ciaosies...

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-24 10:29 ]
And here I was thinking it was a new ship Simon.

I have a cold, so I might not be thinking straight, but I am so conflicted. I really dislike the fact that the WB have decided that the inbuilt fandom is hanging around waiting for anything Buffy related. It's obviously a cynical greedy move, which is why I dislike it. It's not "wrong" it really is just business, but I think they may have overestimated the amount of fan base that is there.

However, there's also a part of me that wishes this success. Mostly because female lead orientated films aren't getting the love.
I have no concern about this project being morally or ethically wrong because it is fiscally wrong and that will take care of the whole problem. The rest is noise.
Hehe, can only hope TamaraC is right! ;)

"I'm pretty appalled. I'm also disappointed that no one said anything about this. There's over 200 comments and no one objected to the repeated namecalling of a professional?

I hope Whit Anderson doesn't even know Whedonesque exists and I really hope she doesn't stumble into this thread.


It was noticing that trend that finally caused me to log in and comment, Emmie. I was starting to feel a little uncomfortable on her behalf, to be honest.
You know what I'm most worried about? They're gonna take an awesome complex female character and turn her into a stereotype. I think there's been a link here before to someone writing about how Hollywood really fails at 'strong' women because they've (willingly or unwillingly) misinterpreted what being strong means.

And when I said before I don't see how this Buffy will be Buffy without the rest of the characters in the Buffyverse this is what I meant. Yeah they might get the basics right: superstrength, vampire fighter, blonde, female, attractive. But that isn't what really makes Buffy the woman I love and respect and there is no way they could portray the depth of character that we have been used to in Buffy in a two hour film.

I don't care about the legitimacy of my feelings and I don't care to rationalise them away, this pisses me off and I hope it fails miserably and I will most definitely not be seeing it.
Tim Minear has spoken: "I think it wont be Buffy".

Has anyone noticed? .... every single person involved in any of Joss's many projects, who has commented, has said basically the same thing.

All the way back to Alyson Hannigan's comment last year when this first surfaced ("If Joss isn't involved, it's only the title"), to the most recent comments from former cast and writers, there hasn't been a single person who hasn't supported the indisputable fact the Buffy is Joss's *artistic* creation, the child of his brain and his heart and soul and all his vast creative genius.
I couldn't care less about technical and contractual legalities. Atristically and creatively, Buffy belongs to Joss, and that is where all the (not at all "false") outrage is coming from.

Nothing personal and due respect and all KOC, but what I find offensive is the idea of viewing a creative work as nothing more than a "commodity". Using that criteria, no painter was ever a bigger failure than Van Gough, as not a one of his "commodities" was sold, during his lifetime.
My point being that for me, this is not at all about "it's just because it's Joss".

From a legal standpoint, anyone who can purchase the right to use the name from whomever owns it, has the right to make a movie about a character called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Whatever else they have a legal right to seems to be in question (apparently none of the characters from the series, thank the gods). But that doesn't make it less a case of artistic thievery, IMO.

As I said on another thread, my idea of a valid "reboot" is the Star Trek movie, decades past the original and done as a prequel.
I don't care about the legitimacy of my feelings and I don't care to rationalise them away, this pisses me off and I hope it fails miserably and I will most definitely not be seeing it.

Well you can not care of course digupherbones (luckily the thought police have a day off ;), the point is that doesn't make the outrage any more valid. Here's the thing: imagine if people were becoming outraged because, for instance, gay marriage had become legal and they were against it - wouldn't you consider their outrage less valid if (just say ;) it had no actual rational basis and was even (let's try to imagine ;) somewhat hypocritical ?

That's how I try (and admittedly often fail) to see outrage that I actually do agree with on a visceral level - we have to apply the same criteria to issues we agree with as we do to issues we don't, anything less just sits wrong with me, feels dishonest.

Some folk seem to think that just having a feeling makes it worthy but as a person who's felt e.g. disgust or aversion when I know that it's wrong to do so I don't hold with that. Feelings point you in a direction, they drive us and IMO they make life worth living. But they're not right just because they're what we feel otherwise everyone who feels anything genuinely, no matter how appalling, would have the same moral authority.

I'm not au fait w/ my fandomspeak - of that there is no doubt - but even with your translation, Simon, I don't know what that might mean.

Me neither. Does it mean part of the fandom is against social justice ? And if so, how the hell did we get them to admit it ?
What would a social justice fan faction look like when it's at home,


I may be wrong here, I would see them as fans who are passionate about social justice and want to see these issues at the forefront in their fandoms.

and why would they be for the re-boot?


Because female screenwriters seem to be far and few in Hollywood, so it's good to see someone like Whit getting chosen to write the Buffy reboot i.e. a woman writing about a strong woman character

Social justice does seem to be a rising trend within the LJ fandoms. It's a radical movement and not to everyone's taste. And that's my take on the matter. If anyone wants to correct, you're more than welcome.
Too bad we don't have the real powerhouses behind the project to focus our ire on. (Hey, where's their airbrushed sexy pics?) After all, what's a writer? ...Pffft... In Hollywood? Wouldn't it really be much more satisfying to beat up on one of the people actually responsible for making this happen? You know, the deal makers, the money bags, the masterminds behind the dastardly scheme? They need a good exposing. Trying to take out the replaceable specialists isn't going to stop this train. Of course, being producers their skins are made of Teflon. So...
Saje, no I would not consider their outrage any less valid. Outrage is a word that describes a feeling. Feelings are valid whether you agree with them or not.
I'm emphatically not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with someone's feelings, i'm talking about those feelings making sense when you consider them with a cooler head. Or do you not accept that it's possible to feel something (particularly on the spur of the moment) which is irrational or even morally wrong ? Because I couldn't disagree more.

If it's just a matter of what we feel then fine but as soon as we act on our feelings (even the relatively minor action of insulting someone) then I prefer mine to have a more solid foundation than "Because that's how I feel" - isn't the ability to consider our internal state and adjust our actions accordingly one of the things that separates us from other animals, makes us moral agents ?
And, as much as I hate to admit it myself, there is the possibility that a new interpretation of Buffy, no matter who does it, might actually be good!

Shock, horror! Yeah, I went and said it!

I'm not saying that it will be any good. And even if it is, I seriously doubt that it is going to be Joss Whedon good! All I am saying is that whatever we feel right now is based on very little information about the end product. We know that it is happening and we know there is a name behind the project. That's it.

Now, if your basic outrage reasoning is the very notion that anyone would ever dare to touch Joss' work, no matter how well they might adapt it, then the quality of the end product is neither here nor there to you, I'd imagine. But if the new Buffy movie is made and it's actually pretty good, to the point where even Joss himself gives it his nod of approval (because I have no doubt that the guy is big enough to give credit where credit is due) then surely that makes a difference. Surely then you aren't going to feel the same level of disgust you feel now. Because that would be kinda petty.

[ edited by Highlander on 2010-11-24 13:42 ]
Shock, horror! Yeah, I went and said it!

Angry mob ?! Be angry ! And also a mob !

;-)
We need to stop conflating Whit Anderson with the decision by studio heads to make this film. There is no issue at all with the former; the real discussion is about the latter. No point in criticizing the potentieal screen writer, as she is just making the best out of an opportunity, and I suspect she had to well understand what she was walking into. But the idea of making the film to begin with, while Joss is still active in the world of the character, and has expressed his feelings about it- that's rife for discussion and obvious disagreement.

But here is an analogy. I was the author of a textbook with 2 colleagues. When it came time to revise the text, I was done with my revision on time; they took 2 more years to finish theirs, at which time they wanted me to re-revise mine again. By then, my life had changed and I did not have the time- but I was done on time as per contract. I opted to let them buy me out, for a lump sum. The new revision was then published. In doing so, they completley altered the chapters I wrote for the text. All completely legal, right? But I was still really unhappy about it. I still am- I did not write what they ended up publishing under my name, and I had not anticipated that. Can I be outraged even while knowing that nothing illegal was done, and perhaps not even anything unethical? I am, for sure- and this is why perhaps I see support for what is going here with Joss. It is his creation, his work, his good will, his labor, his reputation and his future all at stake here- and he has no say. Courtesy alone ought to have him involved in some fashion. Don't you think his involvement would be a boon to the success of the show?
Yeah, let's collect some really good news about this film:

a) The author is way hotter (sorry Joss).

b) It might animate some younger people to give the old series a try.

c) It will ultimately sell some more BtVS DVDs, improving Joss market value.

d) It might open the market for a really new slayerverse franchise.

;)
Courtesy alone ought to have him involved in some fashion. Don't you think his involvement would be a boon to the success of the show?

His agent was apparently asked, if it didn't get any further than that that's hardly the producers' fault surely (however little we may think of them/the entire enterprise) ?

I think the textbook example is more clear-cut Dana5140 - words that aren't yours have been misattributed to you (this is like Joss being partially/mis quoted by 'The Guardian' newspaper as mentioned above). To me that's basically lying which, y'know, i'm usually against, it's clearly unethical (ETA: or at best incompetent - "never ascribe to malice..." and so on[/ETA]).

In this instance though, no-one's saying "Joss is behind this project" or "This is Joss Whedon's 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'" or (I assume) using his words, they're rebooting it from scratch using rights that they hold. Is the situation less than ideal and more than that, ill-advised on a number of levels (mainly, IMO, because Joss Whedon's 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is still ongoing and because we're such incredible nutters ;) ? Absolutely. Would I do it if I were them ? No, I wouldn't. But so it goes.

(if they totally bought you out BTW couldn't you ask for your name to be removed from the later editions ?)

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-24 14:10 ]
Some folk seem to think that just having a feeling makes it worthy but as a person who's felt e.g. disgust or aversion when I know that it's wrong to do so I don't hold with that. Feelings point you in a direction, they drive us and IMO they make life worth living. But they're not right just because they're what we feel otherwise everyone who feels anything genuinely, no matter how appalling, would have the same moral authority.


What Saje said! What Saje! Whew, haven't said that in a while - I feel much better.

Also baffled by the Social Justice faction of fandom (and their mysterious nefarious opposition!).

I agree Highlander, I really think the premise of Buffy is fantastic and a good writer could write a really good script and it could end up being a really good movie. I still think they're going to go the Twilight route, but we shall see. It still gives me a saddish feeling to see somebody other than Joss doing it, and of course, it won't be Buffy as we know and love her. I'm sure even Whit Anderson knows that, and is just super excited to have the right to work with that premise. As for the studio wanting to make it, I find it hard to get worked up about a movie studio wanting to make money. The shock and horror just isn't coming ;).
What Saje said! What Saje! Whew, haven't said that in a while...

Your cheque's in the mail catherine, as usual.

;-)
I'm thinking that basically all the outrage boils down to "It just isn't fair." Which is interesting. Because the stock reply to that is, "Life isn't fair." Which in that case begs the questions of where does this sense/idea of fairness come from and why does everyone "know" what "fair" means? (Even if they choose to ignore it for their own reasons.)

I think there is also the sense that it "Just isn't the done thing." But... few people seem to ascribe to that POV in general and I imagine that it's pretty much an alien concept in Hollywood.

*****

Well, IF it actually comes to fruition, maybe it will be good. Maybe it will bring new fans to the show. Maybe it will be a stand alone entity that won't color people's perceptions of the real thing for ever after. I think I can even understand what the writer is probably feeling. But all this is in my head. My head can be very rational and reasonable. For some reason though, my heart can't see it. My heart hurts to think of it. My gut reaction is that it still S.U.C.K.S.
The original LA Times article led off with a quotation from Ms Anderson:

Back in her high school days in a Delaware small town, Whit Anderson’s days were jammed with activity — academics and athletics were all-consuming, and there was little time for empty entertainment. ”I didn’t really watch much television at all, but I always watched ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer.‘ That was the one show I would watch when I got home. I just loved this character. I was the same age as Buffy, and it was so rare to have a female lead character on TV in those days who was strong and capable and smart but also allowed to be feminine.”

Why is she using the TV show to promote her project? Yes, somebody other than Joss has the rights to make a Buffy movie. But it can't include any of the characters or details introduced in the TV series. Why isn't Ms Anderson telling us how much she loved the first movie?

And why didn't she watch Xena?
I'm curious about the inevitable comic prequel/adaptation. Will Dark Horse feeling comfortable publishing it? Or hilariously, could IDW pick up the rights? And most importantly, will it be canon?
Feelings don't have to make sense either now or later. I wouldn't discount my feelings because logically they don't make sense or align with a moral perspective. We seem to agree that feelings are not logical, I just don't think it's necessary to later evaluate my anger in logical terms when all I'm doing is commenting on a message forum. I have no personal need to make sure that my response to this news is balanced and reasonable.

Do I think feelings are a sound base for action? No actually. I totally agree with you there. Expressing a feeling can be an end in itself though and that's all I'm interested in doing.

It's ok I know you're not saying anything about me personally, just like I'm not being personal here.

Just wanted to add that this is on page 3 of the Guardian's news section today. Made me shake my head in disbelief.
ETA: Ooops, intercepto-post ! ;)

Expressing a feeling can be an end in itself though and that's all I'm interested in doing.

Fair enough. I see expressing a feeling in a public forum as a sort of action (which can have positive and negative consequences both for the expresser and the expressee - for want of, err, actual words ;) - and so requiring at least some consideration) but not everyone does, accepted. And yep, glad it didn't come across as personal, certainly wasn't intended that way ;).[/ETA]

Or hilariously, could IDW pick up the rights? And most importantly, will it be canon?

Not sure you can licence the same character twice can you ? So IDW could presumably produce a Buffy comic with everything from the first movie except Buffy (for whom Dark Horse hold the licence). Not sure though.

And of course it's canon although it may not be.

*runnnnnnnnns*

Why is she using the TV show to promote her project?

...

And why didn't she watch Xena?


1) She's saying she liked the TV series. The context - and whether she then uses the series to promote "her" project - is unclear. For instance, she could very easily have been answering a question like "What drew you to the project ?" or "What does Buffy mean to you ?". Seeing that perspective may require extending the benefit of the doubt to her though, which seems thin on the ground at the moment.

2) I seem to be missing the part where she says she didn't watch 'Xena'. Bit of help ?


ETA2: Ah, read that bit about 'Xena' back and got the joke. D'oh, apologies ;).

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-24 15:28 ]
Showin' the love:

jaugustrichards J. August Richards
#Buffy without #Joss... SO WRONG!
8 hours ago


I concur and that's a wrap for me.
GVH:

And I'm not sure, KoC would have to say so for himself, but I actually do think he's saying that the specifics here are fine and dandy.


Absolutely, unequivocally.

Emmie:

Yep. Fandom ganging up on this project is making me root for it, too. Whit Anderson's already got me sharpening my tongue to defend her against personal attacks. I'd like to think we as a fandom are better than this.


Thanks for the support, and I agree on this. I am more likely after this week to buy tickets for imaginary people for the first time since Serenity than I am to boycott it.

Shey:

Has anyone noticed? .... every single person involved in any of Joss's many projects, who has commented, has said basically the same thing.


Do you consider them to be objective commentators? I pointed this out already -- many of these people really owe Joss their entire careers in TV/film.

I want to see one of Joss' peers -- a writer/creator/showrunner, one who has never been in his employ -- come out against this movie on moral grounds. Only then will I do anything other than laugh off the idea that there is some violation of the etiquette and courtesy of Hollywood going on.

Can we not say enough times that this is a project that Joss apparently already passed on doing? Meaning that he was given every fair opportunity to have the control that people are imagining he was denied? So even if what I feel is a completely illusory obligation to ask him existed, it was fulfilled?

not_Bridget:

Why is she using the TV show to promote her project? Yes, somebody other than Joss has the rights to make a Buffy movie. But it can't include any of the characters or details introduced in the TV series. Why isn't Ms Anderson telling us how much she loved the first movie?


I'm now certain, after reading this, that if Whit Anderson were to get up and walk on water, there would be a decent percentage of Buffy fans that would point at her and say "look! Whit can't swim!"

Y'know, this fandom often (and fairly, IMO) rolled its eyes at claims by Stephenie Meyer that she had no familiarity with "Buffy". But now, NOW, we have a screenwriter who is explicitly acknowledging that the tone and themes of the TV series (in other words, the very things so sacrosanct that people are wanting to protect) will influence the screenplay she's going to write, and it's just her trying to ride Joss' coattails, as though she should instead disavow the TV series altogether? Oy gevalt. As if she wouldn't get even MORE bloodied by saying "I really like the movie, the show was 'meh'".
"There's a TV show ?"

... there would be a decent percentage of Buffy fans that would point at her and say "look! Whit can't swim!"

Thanks for the laugh.
I wish I could claim it as original, but it's actually an old Lawler-ism. But for illustrating unreasonable criticism, there are few better ways to say it.
Ah well, you're the proximate cause of me laughing at least ;).
Question:

So, if a remake actually happens and Joss isn't involved except in the um, most basic seminal sense, will it be covered here at WHEDONesque? Obviously we all have at least a train wreck interest here, but if it's not really Joss or ME (or arguably Buffy) then...
Feelings don't have to make sense either now or later. I wouldn't discount my feelings because logically they don't make sense or align with a moral perspective. We seem to agree that feelings are not logical, I just don't think it's necessary to later evaluate my anger in logical terms when all I'm doing is commenting on a message forum. .....
Expressing a feeling can be an end in itself though and that's all I'm interested in doing.
digupherbones | November 24, 15:18 CET


Thanks for expressing that so well digupherbones, and saving me the trouble.
I am so not appreciating the self-appointed arbiters of the absurd contention that feelings aren't valid unless they can be connected to logic.

Showin' the love:

jaugustrichards J. August Richards
#Buffy without #Joss... SO WRONG!
8 hours ago

I concur and that's a wrap for me.

Tonya J | November 24, 15:22 CET


Me to, with the concurring and the wrapping.
saje- in the third edition, my name was removed. I am okay with that.

Adding to the list of people commenting on this, Roger Ebert mentions it today in his Ebert Club material.

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2010-11-24 16:14 ]
If Joss WANTED to do a Buffy movie, and the studio said, nah, we'd rather do it without you, I could understand the vitriol.
But it's been almost 8 years, and Joss hasn't shown any interest (as far as I know) in doing a Buffy movie.
I would have LOVED a Buffy movie, with Joss, and all the actors. But that was never going to happen. All we got was Season 8 which I personally loathe. If that was the movie Joss wanted to make then I don't want to see it. That's not the Buffy that I love.
I love Joss and am grateful for the wonderful, magical TV series that I have spent far too much of my head space on in the last 10 years. I love him for creating these characters that I have spent most of my leisure time watching, reading about, talking about.
Now this new movie Buffy might suck, but then again might be more like the Buffy I knew and loved. Or might just be something completely different that doesn't suck. I won't be hyper-involved like I was with the series, or filled with joy like I would have been in the last decade if a Joss movie had been made, but the comic has killed that possibility for me anyway. Buffy destroys the world by spacefrakking her high school boyfriend is not a movie I want to see, even with Joss at the helm.
saje- in the third edition, my name was removed. I am okay with that.

Seems like the best solution, I wouldn't want my name attached to something I hadn't written either (particularly if I felt it presented a view I disagree with).
I am so not appreciating the self-appointed arbiters of the absurd contention that feelings aren't valid unless they can be connected to logic.

That sounds a bit harsh, shey. After all, nobody is appointing arbiters of absurd contentions so we often have to self-appoint. But really, I think the point is just that saying something makes you angry or upset is obviously fine (I hear about this movie and have the WHAAA? NOOO! reaction too) - the issue is surely the (occasional, not much here really) refusal to recognize that in fact the "other side" is not doing anything wrong or bad or unkind in spite of one's feelings about it. It's like when I'm mad at my husband for something stupid. I can be mad, but it's important for me to recognize that the reason I'm mad is stupid and not to assume I'm totally right and justified. (Now I'm treading into the used car / widget is a widget / you slept with my ex-girlfriend land of bewildering analogies so I'll stop there ;)).

eta - I don't mean that it's stupid to be angry as my analogy suggests! But ignoring the "reason" side of things isn't really a good thing either.

[ edited by catherine on 2010-11-24 16:34 ]
Y'know, this fandom often (and fairly, IMO) rolled its eyes at claims by Stephenie Meyer that she had no familiarity with "Buffy". But now, NOW, we have a screenwriter who is explicitly acknowledging that the tone and themes of the TV series (in other words, the very things so sacrosanct that people are wanting to protect) will influence the screenplay she's going to write, and it's just her trying to ride Joss' coattails, as though she should instead disavow the TV series altogether? Oy gevalt. As if she wouldn't get even MORE bloodied by saying "I really like the movie, the show was 'meh'".


Because the fact is, as I mentioned before, for all intents the BtVS!Movie and BtVS!Show are completely seperate entities. While the producers of this reboot have the rights to the original movie, they don't have the rights to the TV show and as such they shouldn't even be acknowledging it. Whit's love for the show is completely irrelevant because legally they have absolutely no claim over the show or any connection to it. The similarities between the movie and the show are essentially "blonde teenager killing vampires" - the movie had none of the mythology or backstory that the show did, and it's fairly obvious to anyone that's seen both that they're incredibly different thematically and tonally - and let's be honest, I like the movie, but the TV show is by far better quality. By discussing the TV show it sounds like they're trying to drum up hype based on a project that they a). really have nothing to do with, and b). are not legally entitled to. It's a little like saying "Hey, who liked Firefly? You're going to love my Mr. Universe spinoff!"
From a legal standpoint, anyone who can purchase the right to use the name from whomever owns it, has the right to make a movie about a character called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Whatever else they have a legal right to seems to be in question (apparently none of the characters from the series, thank the gods). But that doesn't make it less a case of artistic thievery, IMO.


Beautifully said, Shey.
By discussing the TV show it sounds like they're trying to drum up hype based on a project that they a). really have nothing to do with, and b). are not legally entitled to.

As I say, we have no idea of the context of the quotes. Say the journalist asked her "What does Buffy mean to you ?", is she meant to lie and say "Well it's nothing to do with the TV show, that's for sure. Nope, nosirree". Or maybe "Well, I could tell you but it might make the internet angry ?".

Now I'm treading into the used car / widget is a widget / you slept with my ex-girlfriend land of bewildering analogies so I'll stop there ;)

I did not sleep with your ex-girlfriend and I am outraged at the suggestion !

(When is a widget not a widget ? When it's a jar !



...That may not be right. Jars are in it though.)
Because the fact is, as I mentioned before, for all intents the BtVS!Movie and BtVS!Show are completely seperate entities. While the producers of this reboot have the rights to the original movie, they don't have the rights to the TV show and as such they shouldn't even be acknowledging it. Whit's love for the show is completely irrelevant because legally they have absolutely no claim over the show or any connection to it. The similarities between the movie and the show are essentially "blonde teenager killing vampires" - the movie had none of the mythology or backstory that the show did, and it's fairly obvious to anyone that's seen both that they're incredibly different thematically and tonally - and let's be honest, I like the movie, but the TV show is by far better quality. By discussing the TV show it sounds like they're trying to drum up hype based on a project that they a). really have nothing to do with, and b). are not legally entitled to. It's a little like saying "Hey, who liked Firefly? You're going to love my Mr. Universe spinoff!"


So, just so we're clear -- the remake is wrong precisely because the show is the real Buffy and only the real Buffy should be a movie... but DON'T YOU DARE let the reboot be influenced, by the show, because then you'd be pretending to be the real Buffy and aren't the real Buffy because the only really real Buffy is really Buffy and she's gone who?
Ah, yes - the majority viewpoint is just emotional fanboys and girls raging about absolutely nothing, with no logical arguments behind their rantings, while the minority viewpoint is simply objective reasoning.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

[ edited by NotaViking on 2010-11-24 17:02 ]
Poor Ms Anderson, possibly quoted out of context to make it seem she's using the TV show to promote her movie.

Perhaps she should write a Press Release with, maybe, a couple of paragraphs of text? Let her show us what she can do with words!
There is nothing at all even vaguely, remotely, distantly, in any way resembling rationally inappropriate about her referring to being a big fan of the TV show in an article about her getting the job to write a screenplay of a reboot based on the separate IP that is the original movie. I hope that she issues a press release that says EXACTLY that she thinks her appreciation of the show will be beneficial to her trying to write a screenplay that captures the thing that makes the Buffy character so important to people.
Then we could interpret that in the most negative way possible too, it's fun for all the family.

...with no logical arguments behind their rantings, while the minority viewpoint is simply objective reasoning.

That was sarcasm, by the way.


I'm very willing to hear a logical argument personally NotaViking. For myself i'm not saying a logical foundation doesn't exist, i'm saying I don't see one nor has one been presented (despite GVH's efforts) - to say that that in no way means there isn't one would be understatement of the first water. Enlightenment is always welcome ;).

It "feels wrong" to you ? Yeah, to me too. But, to be blunt, so what ? Why should anyone else care ?
As I say, we have no idea of the context of the quotes. Say the journalist asked her "What does Buffy mean to you ?", is she meant to lie and say "Well it's nothing to do with the TV show, that's for sure. Nope, nosirree". Or maybe "Well, I could tell you but it might make the internet angry ?".


Acknowledging that the reboot is based on the movie and not the show would have been good. "I loved the show growing up, but my movie is more in line with the original movie" would not have been difficult to mention and I think would have cleared up a lot of confusion and angst. I get that Whit is a Buffy fan and I'm pretty pleased about that (as opposed to Generic Screenwriter #34), but the fact is they're two seperate products and given the PR disaster this has been so far it makes me uncomfortable for the movie reboot to be hanging its hat in the show's place. To be fair it's not just Whit's statements, it's also and predominantly more the comments from the producers behind this thing claiming that Buffy fans have been waiting for a movie and there's a huge built-in audience for the reboot already.


So, just so we're clear -- the remake is wrong precisely because the show is the real Buffy and only the real Buffy should be a movie... but DON'T YOU DARE let the reboot be influenced, by the show, because then you'd be pretending to be the real Buffy and aren't the real Buffy because the only really real Buffy is really Buffy and she's gone who?


No, come on now, you're being silly and putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about the reboot being wrong (I'm cautiously pessimistic about it but only because there's such potential for things to fail - I hope I'm proven wrong) and I not once said anything along the lines of "the only REAL Buffy is TV Buffy!!!11eleventy."

The original Buffy movie has as much claim to being called the "real Buffy" - maybe even more, depending on how you look at it. But that's not the issue here, and neither is the idea of type of Buffy pretending to be another type. All I'm saying is that the movie and the show have completely different rights in completely different hands, and legally speaking they are two distinct properties. The reboot can't have anything to do with the show - not because the show was better than the movie and is expected to be better than the reboot, or whatever level of fandom argument we're up to now - but because they're separate products. If one studio (or ideally Joss) held the rights for everything Buffy ever then we wouldn't have this problem, but the fact is they don't and we do.
So, if a remake actually happens and Joss isn't involved except in the um, most basic seminal sense, will it be covered here at WHEDONesque?


Not really. For the next couple of years the main focus of the site will be Buffy seasons 8 & 9, The Cabin In The Woods and The Avengers. I've no real desire for Whedonesque to be taken over by a non-Joss project.

BTW I'm over the sniping at each other so this thread will be locked until after I've had my tea.
For myself i'm not saying a logical foundation doesn't exist, i'm saying I don't see one nor has one been presented


Obviously I disagree. I think many people have made good, logical points, including myself, but I dislike endless repetition of the same points and I don't think there's anything new I can really add to convince you at this point.
Fair enough, I haven't seen any that didn't come with pretty decent counter-arguments but I agree this isn't going anywhere interesting ;).
This is one strange discussion thread, as I find myself flung between agreeing and disagreeing with the same people in the space of a few breaths. For intance, I'm firmly on the bandwagon with KoC with respect to this (and I think it was well-said enough that it deserves to be quoted here in its entirety):

Y'know, this fandom often (and fairly, IMO) rolled its eyes at claims by Stephenie Meyer that she had no familiarity with "Buffy". But now, NOW, we have a screenwriter who is explicitly acknowledging that the tone and themes of the TV series (in other words, the very things so sacrosanct that people are wanting to protect) will influence the screenplay she's going to write, and it's just her trying to ride Joss' coattails, as though she should instead disavow the TV series altogether? Oy gevalt. As if she wouldn't get even MORE bloodied by saying "I really like the movie, the show was 'meh'".


Hear hear.

On the other hand, I'm still not sure what to think of the rest of this discussion. To summarize, my opinions on this reboot are (and this means I basically disagree with everyone on something, yay me ;)):

1. I dislike it. My gut reaction is I don't want anything to do with it and I won't be paying good money to go see it (despite the fact that the end result may be artistically fine).

2. I don't believe anybody did anything legally or morally wrong. Definitely not new screenwriter Whit Anderson, who jumped at a good career opportunity.

3. The reasoning behind and targets of the fan anger are not right. Be mad at the world for being unfair, not at WB or Whit Anderson for doing what was in their best interests and what arguably any of us might do if they weren't invested in this fandom. On the other hand: I would sign a petition trying to convince WB to not do this reboot, but that's a different thing :).

4. Having said all that, I don't think that this is a simple open-and-shut case. There is an inherent unfairness here, which boils down to something like this: Buffy was built on Whedon's work and yet others now stand to profit from work (i.e. the succesful television show) which just happened to simultaneously boost the worth of the content of the original deal (which focusses on the movie script and sequel rights).

Plus: what is happening now is outside his realm of influence, yet the results do stand to influence what he's currently still doing (the Buffy comics and/or any other possible contination of Buffy's story as built up in the television show).

This unfairness might not be anyone's fault - or, arguably, it might be WB's "fault", yet we can hardly blame them for what they did - but it's still there . And that's not simply emotion, that's emotion that is based on the particular unfairness inherent in this case (which I called 'not nice' on the part of WB before, while searching for the right words and have since decided that 'the inherent unfairness of the situation' is a better description because it makes WB a less 'active' partner in that unfairness - although the wording still seems a bit thin).

So, basically, all this anger/resentment/'WHAA? What?!' people are feeling might just be a general 'life is not fair' reaction. But then that 'fair' itself is based on an instinctive appreciation for what would be fair - and not what would be legal and/or on what would be morally justified behaviour. And I think it's in that space that lies between those concepts, that the logical justification for these feelings can be found.

5. And finally, I still don't believe that any of the comparisions we've seen here are right. I believe the distinctions between the proposed cases - like Joss writing for X-Men, or him doing the Wonder Woman script - and the case at hand are important. They are at the center of this unfairness fans have perceived and is (partly) causing how they are reacting to it. This doesn't mean that these distinctions matter for the moral or legal implications of this news, but I think they do matter for the gut reaction we're feeling, which is caused by what I would now call, for lack of a better definition still, justifiably perceived unfairness.
Well said, GVH. Unfair is the word I used earlier and I still think that's the best way to explain it.
3. The reasoning behind and targets of the fan anger are not right. Be mad at the world for being unfair, not at WB or Whit Anderson for doing what was in their best interests and what arguably any of us might do if they weren't invested in this fandom. On the other hand: I would sign a petition trying to convince WB to not do this reboot, but that's a different thing :).

This. Events have converged and unfortunately Joss (and ourselves) are suffering as a result. The universe doesn't owe us fairness, it doesn't even "know" what fairness is. Could the people behind this be more fair by not doing it at all ? Arguably, yep, but I agree they're not doing anything wrong (in any sense) except pursuing a business opportunity in an area that to us is far more important than mere commerce. I'm not even convinced about the profiteering angle to be honest because if the film was riding the show's coattails that much then why wait until the show's been over for 6 years (for the Kazuis) or 7 years (for this iteration) to "cash-in" ? And why did the Kazui attempt founder if there's that much to gain ?

Something's just occurred to me BTW and if someone's mentioned this in the cross-thread tangle previously then apologies (and upfront, I also don't mean this as an accusation or to in any way imply that he "deserves" what he's getting) but i'm curious to know if Joss has ever tried to buy back the film rights ? Is that even realistic or would they cost megabucks ? Cos if I were him and could afford it I have to say i'd be hella tempted (horse has bolted now of course).
Yep, everything GVH said. Right there with you too on finding myself agreeing and disagreeing with the same people in a short space. But then, I pretty much have that sort of relationship with myself too, so it might just be a "me" thing.

Interesting question re. Joss buying the rights back. I'd never thought of that.
The reasoning behind and targets of the fan anger are not right. Be mad at the world for being unfair, not at WB or Whit Anderson for doing what was in their best interests


Is it in Warner Bros' best interests? The backlash and mockery must concerned some of the execs. I would imagine it will subside if the pic does get released but even so it's a risky venture. They will either look like they are leeching off the tv show or can't be bothered coming up with a brand franchise.

And btw the fandom is supposed to be anti The Man. It's in the rule book.
I'd imagine that would be a lot of money to spend without any certainty that he could actually get a film financed and made. And would Joss really want to give a big bundle of cash to the Kazuis? I very much doubt it given their relationship.
Indeed, NotaViking, I think it was your comment there that sparked my current line of thinking :).

Also, Saje, that is an interesting question. Not sure he could 'buy out' the Kazuis, though and just be rid of them. I think WB probably also 'only' payed the rights to make this movie - and possibly a sequel or two within a certain period of time - but the Kazuis probably retain the basic rights themselves as well (they'll probably also still get a portion of the profits from this movie, for instance). Though, of course, I'm not sure how the contracts work exactly.

I do imagine that Joss would've made a similar deal with the Kazuis that WB has done now (or, alternatively, he'd have gotten the movie studio he approached to do so), to get to make a Buffy movie for the big screen. But that's probably only profitable if there's the possibility of income from that movie on the other end of that deal.

And btw the fandom is supposed to be anti The Man. It's in the rule book.


Maybe we're slowly becoming/identifying with the man? This fandom is all grown up. We're all slowly becoming sell outs and ex-hippies ;).
One of us should be that person that never breaks, never quits, never compromises ! Fight the power !

I nominate someone else because I like my car and it works better with petrol in it.

And would Joss really want to give a big bundle of cash to the Kazuis? I very much doubt it given their relationship.

Sure, I doubt it too. But if it's that or let them retain control i'd be tempted just for future peace of mind - pull the plaster off quickly sort of thing.
Maybe we're slowly becoming/identifying with the man?


It never ends well for the fandom when we accept the corporations' point of view or try to engage with them as friends.
True dat. But not being friends isn't the same as being enemies.
I'd prefer to hold them at arm's length and tilt at windmills when I have to. And enjoy mixed metaphors as well.

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