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
"And hello, gay now."
11972 members | you are not logged in | 30 November 2020


November 22 2010

"I'm with JoJo." Brian Lynch succinctly summarizes his position on the Joss-less BtVS remake.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2010-11-23 06:54 ]

Already tweeted him to suggest that everyone use that as their Twitter avi. It'd be pretty awesome to see lots of Joss' (Jossi?) lining up on the timeline :)
Is there a Facebook page yet?
im changing my Facebook profile too!
can this be the poster for the cause?
It's just so ridiculous that I can barely understand what these people are thinking. I mean really? Buffy with no SMG or Joss?
Never ever going to be a success. Never.
Where're the T-shirts?
I'm so stupid and slow. I kept clicking and looking for an article, lol. Need the caffeine.
If this thing is boycotted by Joss fans it will lose a mint. So much that I think the threat of a boycott will stop it from happening.
Glad you guys dig it. Feel free to use it as much as you want. Buuuut my name is spelled "Brian", just a heads up. I know it's stupid to point out, just a thing of mine.
Buffy without Joss is like vanilla ice cream without the vanilla. And no other flavors.
Lynch - corrected the post as I had meant to when it popped up, but was distracted by having to wave the magic wand on another thread (yes, that's a euphemism for putting people on time-out).
Thanks so much!

Glad to see the "I'M WITH JOJO" pic is making the rounds. I love this fanbase, you guys rock!
Love the image, Brian.

Also, I approve of the facebook group. Although I've never felt that facebook groups have very much effect, it's still nice that it exists.
Brian without the "i" is like Buffy without Joss. Or something.
Great news to come home to after a long day at work, oh wait, it isn't. I'm thinking the only thing that can cure me at the moment is a Buffy marathon.
Aww...Brian, good trumped me with the poster, ha! Thanks for the compliment on mine (which is also on the "I'm With JOJO" Facebook page).
Brian Lynch Wait...are you saying your name isn't spelled B-R-A-I-N?

Dammit! Shadow frantically calls the T-shirt company to cancel the order of 100 T-shirts that proclaim "I'm With Brain!!"

As far as this "Buffy reboot" idea, which is the Wrongest Wrong in Wrongonia, I have to say not only am I with JoJo, but also with the Buffy'bot:

"'If we want her to be exactly she'll never be exactly I know the only really real Buffy is really Buffy and she's gone' who?"
...but was distracted by having to wave the magic wand on another thread (yes, that's a euphemism for putting people on time-out).

Ah. I've been using that one wrongly in that case.

And hooray for solidarity, let the message spread as if borne on wings of a global, interconnected series of tubes. And then let it not be largely ignored by the broad cinema-going public because that would be bad.
There is no reason why they cannot use the original TV cast from BTVS for any remake of the original Buffy movie if they bring Joss on board to do it. Disney has shown that they can create a younger version of actor Jeff Bridges using special effects in the coming movie Tron: Legacy. The technology therefore exists to recreate the younger versions of SMG and fellow cast members if the studio execs believe that the original actors have gotten too old to play their characters again, like Angel and Spike who are supposed to never age.
I think Joss and most of the rest of the cast are a little bit too busy doing anything except this, jettamesis.
There's nothing that says a follow-up movie (not a reboot) can't be done with all the characters when they are older. It could be kind of amusing to see arthritic Xander, Buffy cleaning her reading glasses to read an ancient scroll, and Giles beating a demon with his cane.

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2010-11-23 09:35 ]
well, that's better than mine, but mine might amuse some of you here

this is astonishingly dumb.
I'm at my desk at 4:00 a.m. and Saje can still make me laugh.
Neb - they can't use the characters from the TV show as Fox own them.
thespian - LOVE it! LoL
I love this picture so much, I just made it my facebook profile picture.

Here's my hope, see if anyone agrees. I hope by some miracle that both the Avengers and this reboot get released in the same week (it's possible, just go with it) and we can watch while Joss's Avengers movie creams this reboot at the box office, just destroys it. Maybe then the Kuzui's will realise that while they own Buffy, the have no clue how to use her and stop trying to get rich off of someone elses creativity
Boycott. With loud advance notice.
thespian - that's hilarious! I couldn't stop laughing.

Saje - Or we could chuck a Fruity Oaty Bar and broadcast our subliminal rousing chants of "I'm with JoJo" sporadically. The unthinkable alternative is that we retain some semblance of integrity instead. *shrugs*

"Fruity Oaty Bars: They're fruity, they're oaty, they're on morally safer ground than a Jossless Buffy reboot !"

(whaddya mean retain ? And what is this 'subliminal' you speak of ? That can't be as good as liminal right, it has 'sub' built into it ;)
Well-done, Brian.

Also, I approve of the facebook group. Although I've never felt that facebook groups have very much effect, it's still nice that it exists.

Mention that to Betty White.
"Fruity Oaty Bars: They're fruity, they're oaty, they're on morally safer ground than a Jossless Buffy reboot !"

Sufficient for the moment, but don't you know it has to rhyme? Poetry, song lyrics, they're nothing without rhyme ;). So instead, I propose:

"Fruity Oaty Bars: they're fruity, they're oaty, they're more float-y than the Jossless Buffy reboot boat... -y.

It's a bit wordy, but we'll work on that.
I think we need to drop the oats from Fruity Oaty Bars, oats don't rhyme with rebooty. Maybe if we added a few grammes of tooty to every bar ?
B-but there was the boat-y! Come to think of it, I never liked those Fruity Oaty Bars. They're evil and I've heard they make you attack surrounding people, and if we're keen on establishing that integrity we were talking about - well, maybe Fruity Oaty Bars aren't the way to go. (...because I'm with JoJo ;)

Fruity Tooty Bars though? Excellent idea. We'll launch the revamped product. /irony
Hmm... Fruity Oaty Bars... How about for a first pass:

They're fruity, they're oaty,
They won't make you feel all bloaty.
They're morally safe and they'll strengthen a waif,
Eat more and forget the wrong note-y.


Fruity Oaty Bars
Birth Ideas that aren't half baked
Fruity Oaty Bars
Have more Buffy than a fake
Eat, erase the crime-
Tell us you'll rewind.
Reboot your little mind...

And as far as chanting goes:

We don't want crap dross,
No Buffy without Joss!
Joss Whedon is trending on twitter.
That's pretty good BreathesStory, you may have saved the oats from a fate worse than ... I dunno, what's bad for an oat ? I mean, they're already going to be ripped apart, burned and eaten.

That said, i'm still a fan of Fruity Tooty Bars. You could even say I root for Fruity Tooty Bars. You just shouldn't is all.
gossi said: "Neb - they can't use the characters from the TV show as Fox own them."

We all know THAT is right, Fox fought tooth and nail to keep any fans from selling even a single Firefly t-shirt, there is no way they would allow WB to steal even one character, or place name (Sunnydale is Fox copyrighted I'm sure), or anything else from the TV show! In fact if the WB wants to make the movie quickly they may find themselves held up while Fox goes over it with a fine tooth comb.
thespian, great poster. Not without my Whedon! Love it.
Neb - they can't use the characters from the TV show as Fox own them.

I know this, Gossi. I was just saying that the Buffy story doesn't have to be stuck in high school forever (in a better world where the profit motive ends up screwing everyone). The story wasn't stuck in high school in the TV series.

Does this mean I want WB to hijack the Fox-owned characters as well as Buffy? Not without Joss or a Joss-chosen successor running the show/movie/shadow puppets.
embers, I expect a team of lawyers to descend on the screenplay and for it to seriously hold up filming. I see this as 20th providing a public service. :)
LOL TamaraC! Let's help and list the people they can not even mention, or have Buffy talk about:

Angel, Spike, Willow, Xander, Joyce, Giles, The Watchers Council, Sunnydale, The Hellmouth, The Master, Glory (or Ben for that matter), The First, Darla, Drusilla, The Scythe, Tara, Anya, Andrew and Dawn. The list just goes on and on.

I can't think of anything that they can do that would keep Buffy being Buffy unless they just wipe her memory. Which, I suspose they could, but then she would just cease to be Buffy and they would never be able to let her have her memory back.

It just maketh no sense!
Why would not mentioning Glory also mean not mentioning Ben?

okay okay I'm going I'm going

[ edited by Jobo on 2010-11-23 20:38 ]
They also can't use the Buffy font/logo (Fox own a trademark on it)... And, uhm, a lot more. I looked at this when the project was announced and Fox owns something like 100+ trademarks related to marketing of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER".
I'm beginning to see the Buffy remake as a slow-motion odd real-life discussion as to what makes a character a character.

Tbh - if you leave out the relationships that became the cornerstones of WHY a franchise became sucessful you end up with Star Wars parts 1-3. With the greatest of the respect, Star Wars has a far bigger fan-base than Buffy, if quite a few of us decide not to shell out money on this, then it won't make the money that they are expecting.

The issue is that it will damange the franchise for any possible future projects and that's a sad thing inho.

Jobo - I have no clue what made me type Ben and Glory in the same sentence, I must be losing it.
Maybe Whit Anderson is gonna go a very French, "making movies about movies (or TV)" direction with this thing. Make the whole movie about the question of what defines a character in a TV series, how much of it is elements outside the character (and outside the piece itself, perhaps--what fandom lends to the character, what the cultural myth of that character becomes, etc.) and how much comes down to the personality set out for the character from day one (in this case, snarky, ass-kicking girl trying to live a normal life).

I think this is very likely, and have now decided to support this film.
(Actually, there's always space for a kick-arse girl/woman character in the movies, I just wish they'd decided to take the franchise and NOT call it Buffy and even then I'd want Joss' blessing).
Presumably they can use anything from the original script and also come up with their own original *cough* take on vampires.

So, some "key" points from the movie:

1. "Small-ish", blond high school girl
2. Chosen One, baring the mark of the Coven aka 'big hairy mole'
3. PMS is her weapon
4. Prophetic dreams
5. Only one Watcher - one really, really, like way old Watcher
6. Vampires float
7. Vampires have to be invited into any building
8. Vampires don't dust
9. Vampires never morph
10. Vampires are ugly and bad (I'm convinced the studio doesn't know this yet)
11. She has friends - but only of the shallow fair weather-y variety
12. There's a cute slacker guy finds a girl who kills vampires hot and ends up damseling a lot
13. Pee-Wee Herman steals the show.
Too bad his character bit the big one. Ah, so to speak.
You could even say I root for Fruity Tooty Bars. You just shouldn't is all.

Which kind of exactly sums up the entire reboot issue.
Deadline is doing a poll on if people think Warner Bros, should go through with a Joss-less redo of "Buffy": 45% say no, 46% say yes (with 9% not caring/voting).
"Should Warner Bros reboot 'Buffy And The Vampire Slayer' without Joss Whedon?".

JFC. Hilariously depressing. Clearly even today, no-one believes that a cheerleader could kill vampires.

Surprisingly close at the moment too. I suspect that may change.

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-24 18:02 ]
If fans want to change the poll, then we can, but as it is it's telling us something. There are a lot of casual Buffy fans, and crucially casual Twilight fans, that'll happily go see a Buffy reboot without Joss Whedon. If it looks decent and is well promoted, of course. Whether there's enough to make it a success given whatever budget it'll have, who knows. But they're who the studio is after, not us. Some bad PR on the internet isn't going to damage the film that much.

Which is a way of saying, yes, Saje, no-one has to really care what we think.
Sneaky ;). But true sadly - we're loud but small, if every single one of us boycotted the film it'll do basically nothing to the bottom line. As I say on another thread though, the scepticism of the vast majority of entertainment journalists might have an effect.

(that said, to be honest I don't take this poll seriously at all, even by the standards of online polls I mean, and not just because they can't even get the title right - we don't know how many people have voted for instance, without that it's hard to tease out any meaning)
Yeah, I know, I just used the poll to transition into what I was going to say anyway. ;)

The reaction of entertainment journalists may make an impact. Critics don't seem to have much sway, ie. Transformers 2, but I guess this type of entertainment coverage is more widely read, especially by the younger audience that the film will need to target.

If it gets made that is, which is still a very big "if " (imagine that as a very big "if ", I just don't know how to do that ;).

[ edited by NotaViking on 2010-11-24 18:57 ]
IF. Viola !

(same as italics except instead of 'i' put 'big' so [big]BIGTEXT[/big] except use '<' and '>' instead of '[' and ']'. Though that said, the mods aren't that keen on crazy formatting so you didn't hear it from me ;)
IF. Viola !

That's a very big if with strings attached.

. . .

I will indeed be getting my coat now.
Hehe, thanks. Should have guessed really, but I thought it was more amusing to point out that I couldn't actually do it. Well, more silly anyway. I'll keep that one in my back pocket for later.

Off-topic (what am I saying, we've been off-topic in this thread for a while now) - someone mentioned elsewhere that the story of the reboot was on page 3 of The Guardian, but I didn't realise until I actually had a look just now, that it's practically all of page 3! Shame it's the article that warps Joss' words and fails to understand his jokes, but it's pretty amazing mainstream coverage of the story. Is there any other paper in the world that would give it such prominence? It's too much prominence really, but it's nice to see that there are still some Buffy fans pulling the strings at my favourite newspaper.

[ edited by NotaViking on 2010-11-24 20:32 ]
One problem behind the current controversy is the photos accompanying the articles! Nearly all of them show SMG as Buffy--usually accompanied by Giles, the Scoobies plus Angel and/or Spike. Which is false advertising, since the New Movie Folks don't have rights to the TV show.

The New Movie Folks ought to send out more pix from The Original Movie to accompany future articles. Until they have publicity stills from The New Movie. Whenever that might be...

[ edited by not_Bridget on 2010-11-24 20:48 ]
Shame it's the article that warps Joss' words and fails to understand his jokes, but it's pretty amazing mainstream coverage of the story.

It's nice that they cover it but to be honest, i'd rather it wasn't mentioned at all than that article see the light of day, it's either truly terrible journalism or deliberate misapprehension. The Graunie used to be my regular paper but that kind of sloppiness seemed to be on the increase (and I started really worrying about the reports I don't know anything about) so I became an irregular reader and now i've stopped. It's, err, certainly not the kind of laissez faire attitude you'd see on, for instance, Brian Lynch's blog post in support of Joss Whedon, that's fer sure.

(seamless right ? Almost embarrassing in its deep, rich topicality)

That's a very big if with strings attached.

No shame some people (I laughed before I groaned though ;).
Oh dear, as Simon just pointed out on twitter, the sub-heading on The Guardian piece is "Buffy ceator Joss Whedon reacts with fury to news". Umm. At least they got his name right. :/

Honestly, it's as if they do it on purpose. I really don't know how they let so many spelling mistakes through the net. But on the other hand, George Monbiot column yesterday on PFI was excellent, so I can live with it.
Just to be fair to The Guardian coverage - Lucy Mangan's piece in G2 yesterday was far superior to their news article. A nice mix of optimism and pessimism.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

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

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