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
"This house will fall"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 26 November 2014




Tweet







November 24 2010

Kristy Swanson wants in the Buffy remake. "I love everything Buffy. I don’t care who's doing it" she says.

< play the ball, not the person -- Simon >

[ edited by Simon on 2010-11-24 09:52 ]
Not sure why, but I laughed so hard I nearly choked to death on my coffee, reading this article.
Before we all jump on Kristy Swanson, let's remember that Joss actually had some very kind words regarding her work in the original film--and, perhaps as or more importantly, the respect she showed him during filming--and that interest in this new version does not equate to a lack of respect for Joss.

EDIT: Or a lack of respect for art, or the Buffy franchise, or whatever you wanna say.

[ edited by Jobo on 2010-11-24 09:31 ]
I think I'd be more okay with the project if she were attached to it, more so than the tv cast. This way it is very much distanced from the one that brought it all the international recognition and contained within the bubble of cinematic Buffy. So essentially, Swanson and her history with this would actually almost sway me to rent it like I once did with her original performance.
And as Jobo said she and Joss got on fairly well apparently and she bared no ill will toward the televised version of her original role so I support her. Now if they turn her down I may re-sharpen my pitchfork! (only kinda kidding.)
Hrm, she comes off really pleasant in that interview actually even though I sort of only remember her from the Buffy movie and expected her to be a bit more vapid like the character.

I'm a bit surprised that they never did a sweeps stunt of ever having the movie Buffy's lead guest star in the TV version at any point though?
….and that interest in this new version does not equate to a lack of respect for Joss.

Very well said Jobo! It’s been really nice seeing so many actors and writers show their support for Joss and what he achieved with this amazing TV show. However, there’s also nothing wrong or “disloyal” about embracing the reboot as well and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I wasn’t that enamoured by Kirsty’s portrayal of Buffy (especially in comparison to Sarah’s who IS Buffy for me) but I did love her in that one scene she shared with Sutherland where Buffy/Merrick bonded and made jokes. It was sweet and vulnerable and was one of the very few times in that movie where I saw bits of the show shining through.
Kristy was one of the few things that I actually did like about the original movie, so I'd have no problem with her playing the role of Buffy again, in principle. At least she has some legitimate tie to the part. Obviously I'd prefer an SMG Buffy (in a movie written by Joss, naturally) but Kristy wouldn't be a bad second choice.

I suppose then they could at least claim that the new movie was a sequel to the original movie following a different continuity to the series. Like how they wanted to reboot the Stargate franchise in new movies, creating a different version of events from the series continuity. Not sure that I'd be any happier with watching the new movie under those circumstances, but at least then it would have some sort of significance to what Joss has done. Kinda.
If you don't care who's doing it, you don't love it.
If they have to do it, i'd prefer a sequel to the original film in an entirely separate continuity so I have no problem with Ms Swanson playing the Buffster, particularly because my own personal preference for any future Buffy movies is for one set when the characters are older, an aged but still potent Buffy is a pretty powerful idea (and as i've said before, it's kind of a logical continuation of The Message because if there's one group represented less and more casually dismissed than women in Hollywood it's older women in Hollywood. Also, changing and ageing is an integral part of what makes the show so great, unlike most superheroes Buffy actually can mature, become elderly and, eventually, die, we can see her whole story because entropy is built into the narrative fabric of the Buffyverse).

That said, i'd still rather have 'Dark Buffy Returns' played by the cast of the series, written by Joss and I don't see that changing.
"I love everything Buffy". What a JOKE! She has seen one episode of Buffy and that's "Welcome to the Hellmouth". Sounds like she just wants in on the cash like the rest of these people involved.
The whole thing is a bad idea from top to bottom. Swanson is an actress though, and you can't blame her for wanting to be involved.
Apparently we can.
If she loved Buffy then she'd want it to be written by the best person, which is Joss.

If she loved Buffy she'd realise that the only reason anyone loves it is because of the TV show, which is what the movie should be based on.

And if she loved Buffy she'd be fighting like mad to make sure that they don't make a lame movie just to make money, which is all this is trying to do.

Kristy was a good Buffy and yes without her we'd have nothing, she gave Buffy the kick start and I respect her for that... but she is not the true Buffy, that honor belongs to SMG and her alone and if they're going to try and revive Buffy then they need to bring back the one true Buffy and her creator too.
danielc2384 - source on that please? Otherwise that seem like a bit of an unfair attack.

As for Kristy on the series, wasn't there a rumour that she was originally meant to play Sam Finn?
"Apparently we can."

So it appears.

I'm really hoping that we don't start ripping the flesh off the bones of every person who dares to not hate this idea, because that is going to get old very fast.

Both Whit and Kristy have the right to "love Buffy" any way they see fit, even if it doesn't fit with what we deem to be appropriate criteria for that particular feeling. They aren't saying or doing anything wrong here. Just offering their own thoughts and opinions on an admittedly volatile topic. Let's not go all angry mob every time someone says something we don't quite agree with, huh?
Yeah, wouldn't hate that myself.

Apart from anything else, eventually someone's going to wear the same outfit as me to an angry mob. Awk-ward.
The angry mob faux pas! Never a good thing!

I remember the last angry mob I was involved in. Standing next to the bloke with the exact same pitchfork as I had! Never been so embarrassed!

*Waits for Family Guy style cutaway scene to appear...*
Or when everyone brings rotten fruit and there're no rotten vegetables at all ? And then an argument breaks out over the status of tomatoes ? Nightmare.

If there's one thing I can't stand it's an angry mob that feels like it was just thrown together at the last minute.
Matt7325-Kristy Swanson did say she had only seen "Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest" at Dragoncon 2009. I'm not sure if this is the exact link to the correct panel, but you could start with this one. There are several vids listed there; the one where she states that is on one of them.
Matt7325
edit: Thanks menomegirl.

To say you love everything Buffy and have only watched the pilot it just ridiculous. She wants in for the money, period.
You're welcome. :)

To clarify, I was just providing a link. I have nothing against Ms. Swanson. She was great in BtVS the movie.
I actually like the idea of her being involved if this has to happen. This movie is a reboot of the original Buffy movie, and along the lines of what Blue Skies said I think her being involved would reiterate that. As for being in it for the money, well she's an actor and that's her job. Why wouldn't she take advantage of this? Kristy's gotta eat too.
Ms Swanson is about 8 years older than Ms Gellar--according to IMDB. Ms Anderson's scanty IMDB page does not include her birth date--but the original story about this project mentioned she was the same age as Buffy. Thus, even younger. And some versions of this ongoing story say she will act in the movie as well as write it.

Perhaps Ms Swanson could play Buffy's Mom!
I asked her at Fan Expo in Toronto if Joss had been on set, and in her answer she mentioned that she'd heard that Joss didn't like the movie, but that she didn't think it could be true.
Kristy Swanson would be perfectly cast as either A) new Buffy's mother (which I doubt could even be named Joyce, since I don't know her name in the movie, but would hopefully be a far different character from that), B) a female Watcher for the new Slayer, or B) a teacher/professor/cop/doctor or whatever other person would be around depending on the setting of the film.
Candy Clark was only credited as "Mrs. Summers" in the movie.
If the new Buffy even has a mother -- she could be an orphan, or a street kid who more resembles Gunn in her motivation than Buffy -- I just hope it's not the goofy cliche that we got in the original film.

Heck, they could flip it around and have Buffy be the the daughter of a single father (tweak at that other gal) and Kristy Swanson play a potential love interest to him/authority figure to her.

That's kinda the fun of something like this -- if people still liked fun -- we're basically going to see a $30 or $50 or $60 million "what if?" comic about Buffy.
No Joss, no interest. I don't care how many actors, actresses or producers come out of the woodwork.


But I am excited about the Goodfella's reboot with Justin Bieber, Jac Efron and Willow Smith. (With Willow Smith playing the Joe Pesci role, of course.)

This is like a bad dream.
not_Bridget, she said via twitter that she(Anderson) won't be acting in it...small mercies. Maybe we'll get an established actress for it, one we like. Natalie Portman?! (I know she's not Buffy, I just happen to like her).

alexreager, HILARIOUS!!
Begging your pardon, alexreager, but you obviously have interest, as evidenced by bothering to riff on the project. Nobody disinterested is commenting because... they aren't interested.

I didn't really know about any Whit Anderson writing/starring rumors, and I prefer she wear just one hat, but I have never seen her in anything, so I can't pre-judge that she'd have been that bad, but at 29, seems a bit old to be bothering with a "reboot".

Names that came up in another forum were Emma Watson, American accent in hand and doing probably the one female role that could have the best chance of giving her an identity outside Hermione; Brie Larson, Envy Adams in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World; Anna Kendrick, also of Scott Pilgrim but even more amusing some other vampire franchise where she's probably the best but most underused actor in the cast.
I don't think that's necessary KingofCretin, I was inferring that I had no interest in watching a Buffy movie without Joss. I thought my example of another ridiculous reboot of a classic would be sufficient in conveying this message. Didn't mean to confuse you.
Regardless of Kristy Swanson's motivation for being in the film, I've always admired how cool she was about someone else taking over her role and being a lot more successful in it than she was. Pretty class act, since a lot of lesser actors would just go about signing things as "David Prowse, the REAL Buffy Summers".
noway234 said:
If she loved Buffy she'd realise that the only reason anyone loves it is because of the TV show, which is what the movie should be based on.


Not so! I loved Buffy long before the show existed, and it was (obviously) 100% because of the movie. Speaking for everyone is almost always a bad idea. ;)
I loved Buffy first because of the movie, in fact, as I knew nothing about the behind the scenes drama, I didn't watch the show at first because I thought *it* was probably your typical bogus ripoff TV adaptation. But here's the thing... I *still* love the movie. AND I love the show.
If a Buffy reboot must be made then no one should play her but Hayden Panettiere.
Hayden Panettiere would work for me, it's almost too too, though, with her already having played a superpowered cheerleader, even though she did so with exactly the chops you'd want from a new Buffy and was one of the only reasons that show stayed watchable to the end.

I'd put her on the list, though. Isn't she doing a TV movie about Amanda Knox though? That's no way to raise your profile, IMO. But, she's in Scream 4, so that's points in her favor (and, amusingly enough, a nice common bond she'll have with Sarah Michelle Gellar).
"Speaking for everyone is almost always a bad idea. ;)"

And I think we can all agree on that! ;)
Oh, and I was a fan of the original movie as well! The show was way better, but the movie was pretty cool in it's own way, although mostly in that 'so bad it's good' kinda own way!
Yes, we all do.

Hayden Panettierre could do the job, for sure. If it's real fantasy casting Ellen Page would be great I think, if it's unreal fantasy casting then it has to be Morgan Freeman (cos Buffy is all about the gravitas).
(and i've seen worse films - Pee Wee Herman was pretty funny for instance - but i've watched the original movie about 1½ times and the half felt redundant. Not exactly a must buy DVD for me)
I say give Charisma Carpenter or Julie Benz a shot. They've waited long enough!
< play the ball, not the person -- Simon >


Fair enough, perhaps I was slightly harsh. I just feel that after a less-than-prosperous career since then, it looks slightly cheap of her to jump on this bandwagon sans-Joss, who gave her that opportunity in the first place. Of course, i'm sure i'm just being overly pessimistic and she's just eager to replay the role.
Or when everyone brings rotten fruit and there're no rotten vegetables at all ? And then an argument breaks out over the status of tomatoes ? Nightmare.

I thought the memo said we would be throwing fruit and various meat? If this is a vegetarian mob, I'm out.
Two things: I am a hypocrite and I very suddenly realize if this is a sequel to the original WITH Swanson on board I wouldn't mind watching it even without Joss. That is said because a movie with her in it and with little in put from Joss minus the script already exists. A continuation of the Swanson/Buffy would actually be welcoming. In the TV show they kept mentioning how she burnt down a gym, which did not happen in the movie. In fact the closest we can get to the original script/Joss version is the comic Origins. So the tv series itself could/should be seen as a reboot, a Buffy 2.0 that we actually love. The movie is what got me interested in the show. IDK, picking up from where the movie left off doesnt bother me to the extreme as a Buffy 3.0 would.

Second thing: If we are all with JoJo on this no movie without him then why are we all doing fantasy wanking casting calls?

I'm a hypocrite, said that going in, what's your excuse?
Cerberus-I highly doubt that Joss had much to do with her being cast as Buffy.
I really doubt she meant the title role. I have no idea what the pre-edited comment was, but I suspect it was just "less than prosperous career" and "cheap of her" put more emphatically.

The Goose, I'm doing fantasy casting because I'm into the movie. I have already made the "movie canon"/"TV canon", or if one prefers "Kuzui canon"/"Joss canon", leap and just want awesomeness.
Second thing: If we are all with JoJo on this no movie without him then why are we all doing fantasy wanking casting calls?

I'm a hypocrite, said that going in, what's your excuse?


I'm a fantasy wanker personally.

(that and I say above "If they have to do it..." i.e. given that it happens... Also, fantasy casting is pretty much the endpoint for any thread that has the word "cast" anywhere near it. It's also the middlepoint and quite often the near-the-startpoint too. Also also, if we can have some fun as a result of the reboot then why not ?)
I have mixed feelings about this. If it doesn't suck then I'd welcome it. I'm all for good genre entertainment because there isn't enough of it. But on the other hand what if people start saying that the reboot is better than the show? Never! Not in my world. And whether the movie bombs or fails we'll never get to see a film continuation of the tv series after this sets in people's minds.
< play the ball not the person - Simon>

[ edited by Simon on 2010-11-24 18:36 ]
KingofCretins-But the movie canon and the series canon has always been sort of a separate thing.
Yeah, that's sort of my point -- I can watch and enjoy a "Buffy" movie that has absolutely nothing to do with Joss' TV series and comics and their events, and enjoy it if it happens to be good.
Honestly, her answer makes sense. Swanson hasn't really been in much since 2000 and a movie role would be good for her career at this point. So even if they were planning on remaking "Dude, Where's My Car", "The Phantom", "Big Daddy", or any of the other movies she was in I would expect a comment along the lines of "I think it's great that they're finding a way to bring the story to a new generation and hope that they might find a way to work me in".

It would be a big mistake for her to unnecessarily burn bridges. We can sit behind our computer screens and say "If she really liked the franchise she would come out against it" but Hollywood is her job, not a hobby.
Let Kristy Swanson write the film!

Why not?
Simon - "< play the ball not the person - Simon>"

One of those days when copy and paste seems like such a blessing, huh, Simon? ;)
Honestly, how many people think this film is actually going to happen? There isn't even a script yet! It isn't cast! We don't even have casting rumors, which means it's not even as far along as Wonder Woman was. There's a lot of acid traps between here & the big screen. Or even here & the direct-to-dvd release.

I thought Kristi Swanson was one of the few things right about the original Buffy movie. And I've got no problem with her being on-board with some reboot *of that movie* - which we all know, btw, is all this could ever be, because that's all they have the rights to.

Look, to me the only blame I place in this is really the person who decided now was press release time. Maybe Ms. Anderson thought they'd be talking with Mr. Whedon before things got too far along? Maybe others at Warner Brothers did too? Maybe Ms. Anderson and others really do like the original movie better than the series - I bet people who think that really do exist. Who knows? No reason to ascribe evil intention here. Especially when most of us seem more upset with the 'how' than the 'what'. (If they'd gotten Joss involved in even the slightest way, or passed this by him first, just shown some courtesy.) And the 'how' when it's studio PR can so likely be ascribed rather than evil to incompetence.
They (apparently) approached his agent when the idea was first mooted kalia (before Whit Anderson or the current producers were attached).

Joss: 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.


(thanks to QuoterGal for doing the hard work of finding the link)

Honestly, how many people think this film is actually going to happen?

41 but that number is subject to arithmetic.

So even if they were planning on remaking... "The Phantom"...

Believe it or not, they actually already did. Not great unfortunately (IMO, of course).

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-24 20:01 ]
kalia, I don't believe for a second that this film will ever be seen in theaters. I don't know what WB is playing at, but it isn't a financially a successful endeavor.
I have mixed feelings about this. If it doesn't suck then I'd welcome it. I'm all for good genre entertainment because there isn't enough of it. But on the other hand what if people start saying that the reboot is better than the show?

Well... what if - despite everything - it actually is better? I wouldn't bet on it, but imo people who disavow the inconceivable are just sitting ducks for the karmic gunman.

And whether the movie bombs or fails we'll never get to see a film continuation of the tv series after this sets in people's minds.

To be honest, going by the logistics of such a potential venture, I don't see this making much of a difference on that front at all.
If they had given the show a decent enough time to decompose, I would be more receptive to the idea of a radical reboot. But it's not even been eight years since the show went off the air. It's still too fresh in people's minds.
The more I think about it, the more a reboot makes sense for Hollywood. Sure, Buffy is 8 years gone (or still ongoing, if you read comics), but given that there already is a split between Buffy (movie) and Buffy (tv), well, the movie is 18 years in the ground. That IS a respectful timeframe...really kinda short in today's remake/reboot friendly culture. Reboot and do something new with the premise? If it's something new, then I can get behind that.

Particularly if you figure in that Buffy has already established itself as Alternate Universe Friendly. If the new movie takes place in a world with no shrimp, I will be 100% behind it, regardless of any other factors.
Or Cleveland.
If they had given the show a decent enough time to decompose, I would be more receptive to the idea of a radical reboot. But it's not even been eight years since the show went off the air. It's still too fresh in people's minds.

A). Since it has already been established that this venture has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the tv show and it would probably be much more accurate to consider it as being related to the original made for tv movie, that would make it 18 years - not 8.

B). One of the intrinsic aspects of the whole Buffy story archetype is its appeal to adolescent audiences. Considering how fickle and short-sighted members of that demographic tend to be by definition (not to mention how relatively short a period of time adolescence takes place in the grand scheme of a person's life), 8 years could be seen as a very long time indeed.

ETA: narse it appears I read your mind (or maybe you read mine.) :)

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-24 20:47 ]
But publicity for The New Movie has pointed out that New Buffy will be past her high school years!
Which would make sense if it's some sort of continuation from the first film. Of course, hasn't it also not been written yet?
Yeah but the producer did say "While this is not your high-school Buffy, she’ll be just as witty, tough and sexy as we all remember her to be.”" so it seems to be set post high-school (which also isn't to say it's not aimed squarely at the teen/young adult demo obviously - 19 is out of high-school).
I don't think people are reading that sentence correctly, Saje. Everytime I read it, I see the emphasis on your, meaning its not the same one you watched in high school. It's gritty and dark, or whatever.

It probably more likely that your right though.
Well, your read isn't unreasonable either Jaymii, like a "Not your father's Buffy" type of thing ? The quote's a bit ambiguous, text is slippery that way.
Yeah, the original Kuzui project did a pass - post-press-release-about-that - by Joss' agents. But this would be a whole new thing, no? That flopped, went nowhere, WB bought the rights to do Buffymovieness whatevertheywantodo? Would it be improbable for people involved with the new WB thing to think this would be a new approach to Whedon, at least prior to new press release? (That's a serious question, I am A) easily confused and B) often totally wrong! :P )

TamaraC, I am exactly there with you. What does Warner Brothers gain from this?
Yeah, jaymii, I too got the Darker and Edgier as-a-vital-pr-talking-point vibe from that one.

ETA:

TamaraC, I am exactly there with you. What does Warner Brothers gain from this?

Whatever it may be, I'd say it's increasing every day, and we all know that pr alone can spell success where Hollywood is concerned.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-24 21:24 ]
A). Since it has already been established that this venture has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the tv show and it would probably be much more accurate to consider it as being related to the original made for tv movie, that would make it 18 years - not 8.


No one really cares about the movie (or really remembers the movie) and will associate the reboot with the tv show. You say Buffy to people and they say "oh the tv show". So the eight years thing stands.
I care about the movie....
Well if we're going by what most people know about then the existence of the comics is I suspect the awareness of them is even more limited than for the original movie.
I feel positively compelled to say something on the whole "Joss passed on this so what the hell can he have to say about it" notion I've seen bruited about hither and yon. (I'm doing it here, because this is where the re-boot discussion seems to be at. ; >)

Unless I'm missing something, which is possible, we don't know what the hell it was that Joss "passed" on. All we know is that the Kuzuis approached Joss through his agent - after they'd made their announcement last year about their Buffy re-boot idea. This seems to be confirmed by both Joss and the Kuzuis.

We don't know what they may or may not have wanted to discuss with him - a production role in some capacity? Script? Producer? Director? Consulting in some way?

We don't know what kind of creative control - if any - they were willing to give him. Script? Casting? Decision on directing? A host of other factors? None?

(We do know that since they don't own the rights to the TV show, all they could offer was some role in some capacity on a film which couldn't use the characters, etc. that he'd developed w/ his writers and cast on his landmark show.)

So: all of these are highly relevant factors in Joss' decision not to get involved in that proposed production.

And we apparently don't know anything about them, so we can't discuss what he may have passed on in any meaningful way.

And as far as this re-boot, with the new production company and writer and so on - we don't know if he was approached at all. (If we do, I'd sure love to see it.)

So: when folks say that Joss gave up, I dunno, some rights to have an opinion or feelings about this re-boot because he passed on it, it's either not true, or if it is, we certainly don't have any evidence of it.
brinderwalt, I don't believe that old maxim. There is bad publicity. See: Lindsay Lohan. Warner Brothers will never make this film and release it in theaters.
No one really cares about the movie (or really remembers the movie) [...]

Well then - I guess that makes me Odysseus... :)

[...]and will associate the reboot with the tv show. You say Buffy to people and they say "oh the tv show".

No, actually. They tend to finish the sentence with "...the vampire slayer" since, thanks to pop culture, general knowledge of the character's existence in the abstract is far more widespread than the specifics of any one of its existing incarnations.

Believe it or not just as knowledge/liking of Buffy the tv series is not a universal truth, so too is ignorance/dislike for the original movie also not universal. Yes - most people (at least that I've come in contact with) who really like the one tend to hate the other with a passion, but myself I kinda like both of them - just for very different reasons since I consider them to be very different creative entities (one I see as an entertaining B-movie based on a silly premise while the other I see as an entertaining tv drama also based on a silly premise.)

And it seems to me that assuming a new/different incarnation of a story is going to somehow retroactively destroy the positive aspects of its predecessors is built entirely too much upon making a lot of negative assumptions about other people's hypothetical future behavior, and - pardon me for saying it - probably speaks more to the current mindset of those holding such opinions then it does about what the "unwashed masses" might think in the future.

ETA:

brinderwalt, I don't believe that old maxim. There is bad publicity. See: Lindsay Lohan.

When it comes to fame and fortune, there is no such thing as bad publicity (as I'm sure those involved in the Lindsay Lohan debacle could tell you.)

I feel positively compelled to say something on the whole "Joss passed on this so what the hell can he have to say about it" notion I've seen bruited about hither and yon.

I'm a little curious where you've seen that particular notion expressed in such an obnoxious manner since I have not seen it - at least not here on whedonesque anyway ('hell' is a very harsh word in that context, and afaik you are the first one to use it.)

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-24 23:14 ]
Well, I knew Kristy Swanson would think about being in a Buffy remake because I saw her in Sacramento last year for a Halloween event. Actually, I kind of hope she'd be the new Buffy's mom who, for some reason, isn't surprised by what her daughter does. You might as well do that, or for any movie that's about a Slayer who has another name (which I clearly prefer instead of a remake).
thanks to pop culture, general knowledge of the character's existence in the abstract is far more widespread than the specifics of any one of its existing incarnations.


Not really. Buffy is not James Bond or Sherlock Holmes. She's not that well established as a character. When people think of Buffy they think of SMG and they think of the seven seasons of the show. The character is linked with the tv show and will be for a good few years yet. They go hand in hand so to speak.

I think Warner Bros will have an exceedingly difficult job in trying to separate the character from the tv show if that's what they are trying to do. I don't think it will be done sucessfully.

I care about the movie....


I pondered about this after I made my previous comment and it occured to me that in the 25,000 front page entries since 2002, we've had less than 10 about the original movie. It's like the mad aunt in the attic, we just don't talk about it. And we usually talk about any old Joss project till the cows come home.
I think Warner Bros will have an exceedingly difficult job in trying to separate the character from the tv show if that's what they are trying to do. I don't think it will be done sucessfully.

Certainly not with a whole bunch of journalists (and fans) pointing out that it probably won't be as good as the TV show.

Which, y'know, it probably won't. Just thought i'd start the ball rolling.
Buffy is not James Bond or Sherlock Holmes. She's not that well established as a character. When people think of Buffy they think of SMG and they think of the seven seasons of the show. The character is linked with the tv show and will be for a good few years yet. They go hand in hand so to speak."


This is precisely the reason I'm curious to see how this reboot goes. Because I want Buffy to be James Bond or Sherlock Holmes.

(Also, SMG once said she wanted to play James Bond. If Buffy becomes like James Bond, consider it done, Sarah. And then one fan, Bobby Blue, can argue that Sean Connery is the real Buffy and another fan, Sammy Sly, will then beat Bobby over the head with Timothy Dalton's Oscar.)

It's interesting to me how Joss wants Buffy to be an icon and wants her to live on after his death, but he wants it to be after his death. That's the thing about art and success and fame. You can't capture the light in a jar and dole it out in small bits (especially when you've sold your rights to it).

Joss created Buffy to be an icon. He wants her to be bigger than life and to live on. Why are we trying to limit her? Out of good taste? Out of nostalgia for our DVDs? This movie isn't going to hurt the show--not for me. The show is golden. Joss' work on the show is golden. Actually, let's run with that. The TV series is Buffy's Golden Age. But don't we want to see what the Romans do with Buffy? Maybe Buffy will become a greater ruling military force under this new era. The cultural influence of Buffy-Greek will become a world influence of Buffy-Roman. TV Series Buffy will be Alexander the Great to Reboot Buffy's Julius Caesar. (And if not this reboot, then maybe some other reboot down the line.)

This is about Buffy becoming an icon that can stand the test of time. A living icon who will change and grow unto each generation.

Who wouldn't want that? Joss apparently does want it though he's uncomfortable with it happening outside his control (and understandably so). I hope for his sake he looks at this as "when you love something, you let it go."

Buffy the Living Icon. Unto Each Generation She Will Be Chosen.

I'm on board for that.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-24 23:50 ]
Well, if the Buffy movie was all there was, I don't think there would be a reboot.

I honestly have no desire to watch that movie past the first time I saw it. It's quite a corny movie, and is very much out of the 1980's. And if some of us like that, that's fine with me, but my problem with this is that the movie, while somewhat unique, is not the Big Reason that there is a reboot going on here. The big reason is the show.

So pay some respect to the creator of the show.

I'm not saying these people shouldn't be doing this movie. I'm just saying they should care even mildly about the ethics of how they're doing it! It's a matter of respect.

So in this sense, neither WB nor Kristy are showing the franchise of Buffy any respect.
brinderwalt: I'm a little curious where you've seen that particular notion expressed in such an obnoxious manner since I have not seen it - at least not here on whedonesque anyway ('hell' is a very harsh word in that context, and afaik you are the first one to use it.)

I'm sorry - I thought it was obvious that that was my sarky summation and characterization of various and sundry mistaken or misleading related statements I'd read on whedonesque and elsewhere (and which incorporated my somewhat indignant reaction to them) regarding the matter, and not a specific quote, but apparently not, so:

It's not meant to be an exact quote, brinderwalt, despite the quotemarks.
A living icon who will change and grow unto each generation.


Why? Why change or reboot really good art for the sake of the latest generation. Why can't we say "Here was something excellent, forever trapped in amber to preserve its perfection".

Unto Each Generation She Will Be Chosen.


We're kinda still in this generation of the current Buffy, that's the problem.
Generations don't always go quietly into the good night with an adequate morning period before the new generation grabs hold of the reins. And frankly, fandom has been dying a slow negative death. You know what I'm talking about. The vitriol spewed against Season 8 that's been killing the joy. I'm actually ironically delighted to see the same people who've been tearing into Whedon for Season 8 being an insult to the TV series now returning loyally to his side--you see, this project has already done some good for fandom.

Why can't we say "Here was something excellent, forever trapped in amber to preserve its perfection".


Because the perfection of the TV series will always be captured in amber. Just as the Coliseum will forever be its own magnificent work of art. But it will inspire more great works. The art that comes after it will live on. Art doesn't exist merely to be admired. It exists to inspire creation, to spark our imagination. We are not creatures meant to hoard delight in our secret hearts, but to love and embrace and create.

I watched the first movie when I was a kid. I watched the TV series when I was a young teenager and I graduated high school the year BtVS ended. To me, that time feels like forever ago. When this movie eventually comes out, it will be almost a decade since the series ended. That doesn't seem like too soon to me, but it's different for everyone. (Especially when you can watch the first season of BtVS and realize how dated it all is. Ooh look at the dangers of something we call the Internet! We're already living in another generation from when BtVS first started.)

I'm ready for this now. And I hope this spurs Joss on to make his own Buffy movie after The Avengers. Or maybe make a Fray movie. The same way the directors for the first movie mucking it up inspired him to do the TV series. I hope this movie inspires Joss to do it "right" in the future ("right" = Joss' vision).

There is literally nothing this movie can do that will tarnish the captured-in-amber-perfection of the show. Not for me. I'm not afraid that this movie will somehow ruin the show for me. Because, damn, my love is still going strong after thirteen years and love like that? It endures.

So bring it on, Hollywood. Show me what you got.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-25 00:20 ]
I don't have a problem with a reboot in theory; however, who is in control of the reboot is of great concern to me. I was adamantly against a Kazui-helmed reboot because I don't think they understand the property (e.g., Joss's authorial intent). Therefore, I think they would damage the good will / reputation that the show has built over the years with a cheesy, campy reboot.

I know nothing about the people involved in the current production. Nonetheless, the fact that they seem to be in a rush to get this to the screen to ride on the coattails of Twilight's success does not inspire much confidence. Also, as others have expressed, I am horrified at the prospect of a Twilightesque rendition of Buffy.

It's hard enough as it is to get people to give Buffy a chance or at least not to look at you like you've been drinking the koolaid without another subpar (as the original movie was in my estimation) movie.
A living icon who will change and grow unto each generation.

A living icon shouldn't be dragged into the mud then. If this reboot attempt were being made with respect to the original and artistic integrity, I might be interested. Might, because Buffy without Joss is hard to stomach.

But this looks like a cheapie grab to cash in on the vampire craze. They're rebooting the movie, not the show from which 99% of Buffy fans remember her from. It looks like a rush job, made for not much money and with people of unknown talent.

To my mind, these peeps are not treating Buffy as intellectual property on the same level as Sherlock Holmes (the new BBC incarnation is pretty good!), Bond, etc. It's more like the ramshackle attempt to squeeze more money out of the Alien franchise -- Alien Vs. Predator is so obviously a movie made by people who owned the rights and no longer cared about the legacy Ridley Scott created.
Simon said:

We're kinda still in this generation of the current Buffy, that's the problem.

Are we? I don't like the BsG reboot, Night Rider, A-Team movie etc.
I get it that vampires are hot (again) but show some respect to Joss Whedon. He and the cast of the series deserve it.
For all those having a go at Joss for not doing this first, or getting on board when offered(not saying those people are here, I'm just venting), there is that huge thing of having other commitments in the pipeline first and the original cast that we want back also have those. I mean when Bones, HIMYM, pregnancies and movies are all out of the way there may have been a chance, but he, as god like as some may believe him to be, could not have arranged that.

If he went ahead and made a Buffy film without our Buffy it still would not be okay.

If in maybe 5 years time everything were to be lined up perfectly(in our eyes) and he still turned it down, then I could understand the pro-rebooters using that as a legitimate argument against the anti-rebooters(thinking of saying pro-boots and anti-boots, cause it's winter). But until such time as that, I don't see how Joss not plunging into a half baked castless effort would have been a better alternative for Buffy(not including the possibility of continuing a slayer story without her, which i think is a viable option for any screenwriter instead of recreating Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
Emmie, can I ask why you've changed your mind about the idea of a Jossless Buffy?

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

I mean, I know the nature of the universe is change, and BTW and obviously you are certainly under no obligation to answer me, but I was just wondering what it was that made you reconsider a Buffy without Joss?
Not for nothing, but "Alien vs. Predator" did absolutely nothing to diminish the reputation or popularity of "Alien" and "Aliens". Not a damn thing. Emmie is absolutely right; the show will always be the show. To that end, I don't think there's any possible argument against the idea that a successful feature film, Joss or no Joss, will actually sell more DVD sets and thereby make the TV show more visible to more people.

I don't think the Kuzuis have much interest in creative control over this -- they are business people who, while I think they might have had a ball with their own personal vision of "Buffy", probably realize their limitations as creative artists. Why else would the TV show have existed, if they had a burning drive to run the creative side? When I see an article that attaches one of the producers who worked on "Batman Begins", I get a happy feeling that Nolan people are the sort of people who might get the call when it comes to casting, shooting, directing, or co-writing a "Buffy" reboot. Point being, whatever vague generalities the Kuzuis might speak in when it comes to actually making the movie themselves, I think they are in this for their paycheck, and they know the biggest paycheck comes from hiring better talent.

Obviously I'm just speculating but judging by Emmie's other comments in that same discussion thread - of which there are quite a few - that come after the one you partially quoted it seems to have been the Kuzui connection Emmie had a bone to pick with more than the general idea of a new Buffy.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-25 03:40 ]
I don't think the Kuzuis have much interest in creative control over this


Since Warner Bros optioned the rights from them, I assume they won't have any control whatsoever and therefore won't be involved in making the movie or hiring anyone, talented or otherwise. But they will get their paycheck, of course.

I get a happy feeling that Nolan people are the sort of people who might get the call when it comes to casting, shooting, directing, or co-writing a "Buffy" reboot


I admire your optimism, but that's about as likely as getting Christian Bale to play Buffy.
Brinderwalt has it right, Quotergal. I objected to the Kuzuis once again profiting off of Joss' work (just as I object to 20th Century profiting off of Joss' and DH's work on Season 8 without compensating them). The memory of Joss on a commentary snarking about their obligatory Exec Producers credit on an ANGEL episode forms the way I view them considering they didn't contribute creatively to that piece at all, but just cashed their checks. In fact, I doubt the Kuzuis have even watched the entire ANGEL series (or have they even watched a single episode?). I was vehemently against that previous project because I felt the Kuzuis had already demonstrated their inability to execute the Buffy concept. In that old thread, I said they'd gotten their chance and it was time for them to hand over the wheel.

I saw the Kuzuis project as old school profit mongering while I see this project with WhitAnd as the next generation of Buffy. A fan who loves the character and was inspired by Joss' work and is now seeking to reinterpret and recontextualize my favorite fictional character of all time.

I collected my thoughts and posted them here (and I go on at length in the comments). I love Joss. To a ridiculous degree. He's the storyteller that's shaped the way I think about stories. He's my favorite storyteller actually. His episodes are my favorites, his writing style inspires me, and his directing--well, I'm so familiar with Joss' way that I could feel it when he directed Glee or even The Office (even when he's trying to blend in, I can tell it's Joss; he has this thing about mirrors). That's the degree of my fannishness when it comes to Joss.

Here's the thing. I believe Joss wants Buffy to be an icon. But a character that is dependent on one sole creator to exist? That character is no icon. What hope does Buffy have of living on after Joss is gone if she cannot exist without him now?

If there is no Buffy without Joss, then Buffy will die with him. And that to me is a true tragedy. Because it means his legacy will not live on. If it's true, then Buffy the Living Icon cannot exist without Joss. And that means Joss failed in creating a true pop culture icon that will become a part of our cultural consciousness for generations to come like Sherlock or Bond.

To say "No Joss No Buffy" is to diminish his greatest accomplishment and arguably his greatest legacy: the creation of an icon. "No Joss No Buffy" reduces Buffy to an empty shell that only he can breathe life into. She's a puppet and only he knows how to properly pull her strings.

I reject this notion. Buffy can live without Joss. He made her so three-dimensional and complex and real (as real as any fictional character I've ever known) that she can walk without Joss training wheels.

He created her to walk away from him. He made her so strong and true that she can walk away from him and still be Buffy. That is the legacy of his creative genius.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-25 05:37 ]
Emmie, do you mind if I quote this post on another discussion forum? I've been arguing adamantly against this whole project and saying I'm not at all interested in seeing it unless Joss tells me to, no way, never, and your post was the first thing I've seen in 2 days of obsessively reading these Whedonesque threads that has me thinking maybe there's reason to change my mind on that...

This is precisely the reason I'm curious to see how this reboot goes. Because I want Buffy to be James Bond or Sherlock Holmes.

(Also, SMG once said she wanted to play James Bond. If Buffy becomes like James Bond, consider it done, Sarah. And then one fan, Bobby Blue, can argue that Sean Connery is the real Buffy and another fan, Sammy Sly, will then beat Bobby over the head with Timothy Dalton's Oscar.)

It's interesting to me how Joss wants Buffy to be an icon and wants her to live on after his death, but he wants it to be after his death. That's the thing about art and success and fame. You can't capture the light in a jar and dole it out in small bits (especially when you've sold your rights to it).

Joss created Buffy to be an icon. He wants her to be bigger than life and to live on. Why are we trying to limit her? Out of good taste? Out of nostalgia for our DVDs? This movie isn't going to hurt the show--not for me. The show is golden. Joss' work on the show is golden. Actually, let's run with that. The TV series is Buffy's Golden Age. But don't we want to see what the Romans do with Buffy? Maybe Buffy will become a greater ruling military force under this new era. The cultural influence of Buffy-Greek will become a world influence of Buffy-Roman. TV Series Buffy will be Alexander the Great to Reboot Buffy's Julius Caesar. (And if not this reboot, then maybe some other reboot down the line.)

This is about Buffy becoming an icon that can stand the test of time. A living icon who will change and grow unto each generation.

Who wouldn't want that? Joss apparently does want it though he's uncomfortable with it happening outside his control (and understandably so). I hope for his sake he looks at this as "when you love something, you let it go."

Buffy the Living Icon. Unto Each Generation She Will Be Chosen.

I'm on board for that.

(quoted post by Emmie November 24, 23:31 CET)
(just adding that bit because if I don't then it ends up looking like I wrote it which of course I didn't)
I'm flattered to be quoted, sab39. Thanks for asking.
I'm not sure Emmie that the icon want-age for Buffy that you are attributing to Joss is actually there or if it is, is quite that simple. Isn't he on record in some interview somewhere (I can never find these blasted things. How does QuoterGal do it?) as saying that the small blond girl without power that he based Buffy on was really him? So that would make her a sort of an alter-ego--even though she has obviously gone on to have a life of her own as all the best characters do. Self-identification would make it smart all the worse, I would think. I know my characters "live" inside me and I would be quite upset to see them being made to do, feel, say, and think things that I wouldn't want. And I don't think of them as being me at all.

Of course Buffy will live on after Joss. She's already too iconic not to. I've read too many book blurbs that say things like "If you liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you will like this" and "A cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and ____" to believe that she has been forgotten about in her "series form" at all. I think the point here is that there is no "after Joss" at this time. He's still here! Buffy does not need WhitAnd & Co. to keep her flame alive right now. I think this is clearly demonstrated by the endless polls we get sucked into voting on and also the almost daily front page links. She's still alive and kicking (and staking ;) )and finding new converts just as she is.
BreatheStory here is an interview where he essentially says what Emmie was saying...Buffy was intended to be an icon;
http://www.avclub.com/articles/joss-whedon,13730/
I think Joss has indeed expressed he wants Buffy to be an icon that lives on without him (he said he dreamed of her being an icon after his death, just notably after). And that means being iconic not merely in that people still watch the show and buy the DVDs, but that she lives on in stories, that she continues to grow and have new adventures. Joss just doesn't want it happening now because she's already living on for him in the comics he's writing. He doesn't want her living on until he's out of the way essentially, but that's not how it's working out unfortunately.

The timing is the shame. But I hope someone else picking up the reins inspires him to write his own Buffy movie and show 'em how it's done. Frankly, I haven't felt much drive from him to make a Buffy movie and I've given up hope that he's going to anytime soon. We've already reached the point where James Marsters and David Boreanaz are too visibly aged to play their immortal vampire roles. James gave Joss seven years back in 2004 before he was too old to play Spike and Joss is booked for the foreseeable future with The Avengers. Time's up. *quietly mourns a Spike movie*

There's a difference between an icon like say Scarlett O'Hara and an icon like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes who both continue to be reinvented and reincarnated (I adore Moffat's Holmes in the BBC's Sherlock series). If BtVS remains the only truly relevant Buffy, then the distance of time will eventually alienate and isolate her iconic status, holding her chained to the past. Even Shakespeare's plays will be more relevant with their constant revision and recontextualization than a cult TV series from way back when that people really loved but could never make a go as a successful feature film.

Basically, I'm imagining Buffy like the Doctor. A new face, a new writer, a new TARDIS, a new world to explore, but the mission is still the same: save the world and be awesome while doing so. Just as the Doctor is still essentially the Doctor in all his incarnations, so too can Buffy still be Buffy.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-25 06:08 ]
Self-identification would make it smart all the worse, I would think. I know my characters "live" inside me and I would be quite upset to see them being made to do, feel, say, and think things that I wouldn't want. And I don't think of them as being me at all.

'tis been my observation that most every good artist ends up putting at least a little of themselves in their creations, whether they realize/intend it or not. After all, when it comes to supplying a sense of realism in terms of the human experience, the only real thing you have to go by is yourself.

I've read too many book blurbs that say things like "If you liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you will like this" and "A cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and ____" to believe that she has been forgotten about in her "series form" at all.

Obviously I have no concrete knowledge regarding the specific habits of the current adolescent generation insofar as fiction-based fandom is concerned, but I think it's safe to say that they are not the dominant demographic for all things Buffy at the moment.
Emmie, while I think you make an otherwise cogent argument, I see absolutely no way that this movie getting made ends with Joss making his own Buffy movie.

This is a wild success; Joss is no longer relevant to successful Buffy, and studios don't need him but rather the people involved with this.

This is a humongous failure; Buffy is not what the public will pay money for & studios are less likely to put money behind a Buffy bigscreen enterprise.

I doubt the studio executives would see a failed Buffy movie & make the distinction "but it wasn't Joss Whedon" (especially after Serenity); remember that it isn't just Mr. Whedon who determines if he can make a movie or not - I mean, a movie with any sort of budget & distribution power behind it.

What might get a big Whedony buffy-verse movie would be the Avengers movie he helms coming in underbudget, on time, with no problems, and being a big box office hit. Especially that last one.

At least, that's my totally uninformed opinion. ;)
Emmie, I see what you're saying and pretty much agree, but there is that underlying fear that the new Buffy's will become Like "Batman & Robin" for the franchise and just be rubbish. Or that someday one of the future generations will only be able to say "Christian Bale is Batman with his slick hair and chronic tonsilitis. Who is this Michael Keaton you speak of? Tim Burton who? Only Nolan can make Batman" and then suddenly all we once fought for and loved is gone and forgotten about and we're octogenarians who are wheelchair bound and can no longer type to protect the name that once rested on our lips as the defining hero of our time.

Of course that argument could be made for Swanson vs Gellar as much as for Whedon vs Anderson. Although Bale is not my favourite Batman, see chronic tonsilitis. And Gellar not only took on the role but took on the critics to win us over for 7 beautiful seasons of ups and downs and drama and comedy, action and adventure. So maybe my comparison is inaccurate(as I have just undone my own work) but still, there was a point to this rant that I hope someone else can find cause I'm lost, but it should be there somewhere.
It's one of the legacies of true adulthood, BlueSkies, where everything has a rosy tint and the sunsets are glorious. :)
Adulthood?! I feel tained already, brinderwalt ;)
Although the second last Bond film was quite good, even though the latest actor wasn't exactly Pierce Brosnaning me(I just said typed that didn't I? Angry mob I'm an open target!). They proceeded to follow it with a sub par film that had a silly premise and now the forthcoming one isn't being produced(for many reasons outside of it's own control).

But this is what I fear for Buffy, that if this is the last reminder of her we get in live action, will it be a Quantum of Solace or a Casino Royale? Or will we get a Casino Royale and then lead it to a Quantum of Solace and never hear from them again? Will the actor make the character silly(Bale) and get overshadowed by her co-stars(Ledger)? Will it even get made or is this a load of hot air? Am I actually getting to be that old person who complains about new things? New and fangled that lot of them are, I tells ya!!
Emmie,

I don't know you from Adam*, and am sure you are probably an otherwise nice, reasonable and smart person, but I gotta say I am absolutely sickened by your posts on this thread.

Joss did not "create Buffy to walk away from him". Joss is still actively creating Buffy as we speak (via the comics). Joss and Buffy continue to walk hand in hand, thank you very much.

To assert oneself as a fan of a creative work and its creator, and yet at the same time also support and encourage anyone other than the creator to concurrently and willfully infringe on it strikes me as absolutely reprehensible. I am literally sick to my stomach from reading your posts.

You say you want Buffy to be an icon, like Sherlock Holmes or James Bond or Tarzan or Harry Potter. Great, awesome. But what if, while still writing/publishing new Holmes, Bond, Tarzan or Potter stories, Doyle, Fleming, Burroughs and Rowling were suddenly faced with other authors deciding to publish their own version, or mount their own adaptations in other media, without the permission or consent of the original creators?

Well, first of all, that couldn't happen, because it's illegal under copyright law. But because what Joss created (and continues to create) was initially in the form of a screenplay and not a short story or novel, he's getting screwed under the perverse double standard of copyright law. I mean, my God, he not only wasn't even mentioned in the press release for the reboot, but the Kuzuis went so far as to refer to themselves as the "creators" of Buffy! Welcome to the Hellywoodmouth. Again, what if this were a Holmes reboot while Doyle was still alive, writing and publishing his original Holmes stories? Etc.? It's an outrage.

I get that there is probably some level of fanfic wish fulfillment in seeing a writer with no produced credits inexplicably getting a shot at writing their own Buffy movie, but this is just sick and frakking wrong. (And as has already been documented in this thread, Swanson's comments are shamelessly opportunistic and disingenuous, as she's on record as having seen only one or two episodes of the series.)

I'm all for future generations having the chance to reinterpret/reinvent/reimagine Buffy - absolutely. But as long as Joss is still with us, he should have the right to determine her destiny - not you, not me, not Whit Anderson, not Charles Roven, not anyone else. It's a basic, moral principle of creator's rights.

Thanks for listening.

P.S.: Simon, I salute you in solidarity. Bravo.

(*no season four reference intended)
Adulthood?! I feel tained already, brinderwalt ;)

It gets to us all eventually. The best you can do is learn how to go on living your life despite it.
And I had fended it off for so long. But you're right brinderwalt, if Buffy has taught us anything(and I think she may have taught us many things) it is that eventually we all have to grow up...and lead an army of angry/scared/youngish girls against those we feel will do harm to Sunnydale! Perhaps these are the Avengers that Joss is secretly creating, the villain is the WB? Perhaps all this Anderson effort will be quashed like the ubervamps? Perhaps...
To assert oneself as a fan of a creative work and its creator, and yet at the same time also support and encourage anyone other than the creator to concurrently and willfully infringe on it[...]

FYI the specifics regarding the ethics of authorship are very different when switching between mediums where solitary authorship is the default (such as novel length fiction) and ones where group authorship is the default (such as serialized multimedia productions like tv shows.)
Robogeek, I get that you're passionate, but you need to rein it in a bit with respect to other members. Thanks.
I guess I wasn't clear in my last post, Emmie, and I surely do get the point about the Kuzuis, with which I agree. They certainly made the prospect grimmer.

But my specific question was about the bit that I quoted: what makes you think now that a Buffy re-boot without Joss would neither be "a fail" nor an insult to the man who's "still steering the story of his universe"?

If you felt those things last year, I genuinely want to know why it's no longer insulting while he's still driving, and why his presence is no longer necessary.

I still feel both, myself, so I'm interested in anything that feels different for you that's not about the Kuzuis... if anything.

Sorry to keep pushing on this, and once more, feel free to ignore me, but that was my question.


ETF: typo

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2010-11-25 08:23 ]
Robogeek, you've really whiffed on the copyright law issues -- or, well, complete lack thereof. I assure you, if Joss had written a novel and had sold the movie rights, including sequel rights, to that novel, we'd be in exactly the same position we are right now and he'd have no leg to stand on*.

Nobody is violating anything of Joss' under any intellectual property law that is followed in any state or country in which it could reasonably be litigated. Period. Not opinion, just fact, full stop.

What you either don't realize or choose to ignore in your examples of Rowling, Fleming, or Doyle is that nobody is doing anything right now that Joss hadn't already given explicit permission to do in his freely and fairly negotiated agreement to sell the screenplay.

*To be clear, Joss doesn't need a leg to stand on, because Joss is not showing any sign of the indignation coursing through his fandom. So it would be better to say those indignant on his behalf -- no matter how contrary to his presumptive will -- have no leg to stand on.

What you're pretending is a question of the "basic, moral principle of a creator's rights" is frankly just an appeal to emotionalism that ignores the long-since exercised right of the creator to sell his work on to others. Want to take the deal back? Fine. Guess what -- the TV show never got made. Run down the history on that. That show got made, and got back into Joss' hands in the first place, because the Kuzuis wanted to make more money off the property. So by all means, walk back Joss' fairly agreed upon deal to sell the screenplay. See if "Buffy" as we know it ever gets made without having first been a movie that at least had *some* name recognition and entertainment value for a network executive to be swayed by. Take back that deal, and it's perfectly plausible that Joss is still touching up movie scripts, sometimes with no writing credit, and writing sitcoms. He became JOSS WHEDON because of the show, and the show became anything because of the movie, and the movie became anything because he sold the screenplay.
I'm not against a Buffy movie so long as if Joss is not involved that it stays away from the television canon (which I believe it will since there's that whole rights issue with FOX and such...). Especially since it's stressed that it will be a reboot, this movie could actually prove to be an interesting look at how Buffy would be growing up in the 21st century (I don't think she'd every ask any one to page her at a sign of the apocalypse!).

Thinking about the idea of how a new Buffy can exist while Joss is still evolving TV-Buffy through the comics and how reprehensible some find this, why can't we compare the idea of multiple versions to Batman. Currently, DC publishes multiple Batman comics each month which seem not to all take place in the same continuity meaning there are multiple versions of Batman, and people are okay with this. He's also featured in multiple cartoons being made right now, and people are okay with this. Nolan is also working on a third film in his series, and people are okay with this. A sequel to the Arkham Asylum video game is currently being worked on, and people are okay with this. For some reason, the universe is able to handle the concurrent existence of one character when it comes to Batman and many other superheroes, but not with Buffy.

From this above example, I'm okay with a Buffy movie because she'll just be B3. She'll be incapable of destroying the others: B2 (my favorite Buffy, of the show and comics - who, if I may add and has been mentioned before, IS AN ALTERNATE HERSELF) and she also can't ruin B1 which is one of the few good things in the movie as I see it. She'll just be another interpretation of another character. It's nothing the universe hasn't seen before.

Rather than pre-boycotting this film because of this "No Joss, No Buffy" stance, we should be hoping that the movie that does get made is the best it can be, Joss or not.
I get a happy feeling that Nolan people are the sort of people who might get the call when it comes to casting, shooting, directing, or co-writing a "Buffy" reboot.


What exactly about Nolan's art suggests any hint of interest in a female protagonist with a motivation other than an obsession?

- a man is obsessed with finding the murderer of his wife (Memento)
- a man is obsessed with catching a killer (Insomnia)
- a man is obsessed with fighting crime (Batman Begins)
- a man is obsessed with besting another in magic tricks (The Prestige)
- a man is obsessed with unmasking a vigilante (The Dark Knight)
- a man is obsessed with his dead wife (Inception)

And there's usually at least one dead woman at the core of this obsession:
- wife
- a 17 year-old girl
- Mom (dad, too, of course)
- girlfriend (or was she his wife?)
- ???
- wife

See, I've pretty much outlined what Nolan's movie would be like. Buffy's parents murdered by vampires. In her obsession to avenge them, she becomes a slayer, and quite possibly a man played by Al Pacino. Facepaint may or may not be involved.

The good news is, my anger's almost gone. Nothing lifts one's spirits more than annoying another passionate fandom.

For the record, I think Nolan is a great director, but a Buffy movie would be a distinctly wrong project for him.

[ edited by Effulgent on 2010-11-26 04:54 ]
[eta] Wow, the moral outrage is boiling over here. Quotergal, if you want to continue discussing, feel free to email me (I don't plan on coming back to this thread). I'm not really interested in continuing discussion here as it's beginning to feel personally hostile.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-25 10:14 ]
imdb are even polling people's feelings on the remake, with surprising results!(or you know, not).
http://www.imdb.com/poll/
Well I can see this thread is going as well as yesterday's debacle discussion. It would be advisable for various parties to step back for a while and be thankful for things *. Otherwise I'm just going to swing an axe willy-nilly.

*obligatory topical reference
What did you end up having for your tea BTW Simon ? I've been in suspense since yesterday.
Heh Saje. In fact, my message has been hanging somewhere in internet limbo ever since I hit 'preview' just before Simon decided to have tea yesterday, and subsequently saw my message dangling underneath that thread without any option to hit 'post' ;).

Emmie on the off-chance that you are still reading this thread: I might not agree with everything you said in your posts, but they sure were inspiring. They were the first bits of text that actually made feel a bit more positive about this whole thing, even though I'm still in the 'no, thanks'-crowd. To which I say: thanks and kudos! Because positivism has been hard to come by in these discussions :).
In fact, my message has been hanging somewhere in internet limbo...

Me too ! Well kind of, mine went when I closed/refreshed the tab after it became apparent that either Simon was having a sumptuous 8 course feast complete with between courses entertainment (dance extravaganza, magic show etc.) or the thread was unlikely to ever actually be unlocked.

It was like the post was frozen in midleap, like i'd let a caged bird free only to see it fly straight into the patio doors. Felt kind of sorry for it.
Didnt we already get a bunch, and i mean a REAL bunch of dark horse comics without Joss so many years ago? And novels? Remember Immortal? They had, as i recall, no Joss involment at all. And the idw Angel outside of After the Fall and such... Arent those also without Josses involvement?

I´m honestly asking, not trying to make a point.

Cause, yeah, cinema may be a bigger market and all and those at least worked inside of the canon universe, but personally i dont see that much difference between those inmense Omnibus books collecting the old dark horse non-JOss comics that are published now, here in Spain (on the other side of the atlantic-no small market. And BUffy isnt even that big here) an this suposed Reboot. To me, Buffy sans Joss a´int news.

If i´m wrong, please clarify. Thanks.

[ edited by Darkness on 2010-11-25 13:52 ]
It was like the post was frozen in midleap, like i'd let a caged bird free only to see it fly straight into the patio doors. Felt kind of sorry for it.

Poor little post, I hope it was just stunned and not killed. Since that thread is closed I'll say here in case she's reading a quick sorry to shey as I think my last post there, sort of responding to hers, missed the main gist of what she'd been saying (that's the trouble with reading / posting too fast - seems like whenever I get a little computer time these days I hear CRASH and then silence and then "uh oh..." from the next room - oh the joys of a toddler).

Also enjoyed Emmie's posts, which made me feel a little more positive too about a project I generally feel a mix of ugh and curiosity about. It certainly is interesting, the very varied reactions this project is provoking. I wonder if it will ever actually make it to the screen.

ETF typo that had me saying the exact opposite of what I meant. *sigh*

[ edited by catherine on 2010-11-25 14:56 ]
Wouldn't it be hilarious after all the outbursts and madness that ensued if it just didn't happen and we just face palmed ourselves for freaking out and arguing? Couldn't we al then sit down with a nice herbal tea(I like chai) and just laugh about it all? I hope so, as much as I hope that this never comes to fruition.
And happy sham with yams day to all our American peeps!*

*thanks for the reminder Simon
What did you end up having for your tea BTW Simon ? I've been in suspense since yesterday.


Macaroni and cheese. And very nice it was too. Notice I didn't specify which date I would be having my tea ^-^.

Didnt we already get a bunch, and i mean a REAL bunch of dark horse comics without Joss so many years ago? And novels?


True, back when the show was on the air 20th Century Fox did allow publishers to create comic books and novels but the licensed tie-ins were not to affect or contradict the events of the tv show (i.e. everything at the end had to be back to normal) and Joss' approval had to be sought for them. I would imagine it's the same sort of story for IDW's Angel comic books.
Aw, Saje, I saved a copy of my post in my webmail for future reference, just in case the thread ever opened up again, so at least mine has a new home (although some might argue that it's not the original post I saved, but a clone). Seemed like the thing to do. I know it's not a farm where it can run around free and play with the other animals, but I'm sure it'll still feel right at home with my e-mails, as they're all text based entities and, well, siblings in a certain sense.

It certainly isn't interesting, the very varied reactions this project is provoking.


Hmm, catherine. I violently disagree! I think it is interesting! So, you're just, well... 'something-insulting'! :p

ETA: removed a type and added catherine's name ;).

[ edited by GVH on 2010-11-25 14:18 ]
What did you end up having for your tea BTW Simon ? I've been in suspense since yesterday.


LOL. I actually did wonder that myself.

I might be mistaken in saying this because I could never presume to know what the Joss-man thinks, but where Buffy as an icon is concerned, I would think that Joss meant for his vision, his definitive representation of Buffy to endure. And when I say 'endure', I mean endure in people's imaginations, dreams, fantasies, nostalgic recollections, memories, everyday life, fanfic even, and whatever else, and not so much in a revamped movie version and any forthcoming ones. Oh, and angry mob? Don't pelt me with your fruits and vegetables and hybrid fruit-vegetables.

All that said, I am mildly curious to see how this goes, despite my feeling that the timing is poor. And I agree with GVH, it really is interesting to see the various responses from members outside of the regular posters. Disagreements aside, we're obviously very passionate about this.
Hmm, catherine. I violently disagree! I think it is interesting! So, you're just, well... 'something-insulting'! :p


Oh, I meant it certainly IS interesting, that was another typo from too-fast typing! Going to go edit, but it turns out you violently agree with me GVH ;).
Notice I didn't specify which date I would be having my tea ^-^.

Crafty ;).

Also enjoyed Emmie's posts, which made me feel a little more positive...

Yeah, though I don't agree with all of Emmie's points she makes them very articulately and it certainly gives me pause for thought.

I think for many people it's different to Holmes or Bond though partly because, as has been noted, the original creator is still alive (and more to the point, still telling Buffy's story) and partly because of time i.e. we're just used to those characters being reinvented. It's certainly different to The Doctor though because unlike with nuBuffy, when he continues in another form it actually IS him i.e. he's changed to some extent (because he's swapped bodies) but he's still basically the same man, with the same personal history, within the same (battered, patched, inconsistent ;) continuity. There's no question of which is the "real" Doctor because there's only actually one (even though there're 11 ;). But true, it happens all the time in comics and part of my personal wrestle with this reboot is that i'm well used to that, used to juggling in and out of continuity stories all over the place and yet I still have an issue with this situation.

And I think it might boil down to this (for me): part of what makes Buffy so appealing as a character is precisely that she isn't an icon (although she is) or an archetype (although hopefully she'll become one), she's a human being, actual and whole (just fictional). Treating her as just one instance of the type "Buffy Summers, Vampire Slayer" feels like it's disrespecting that. It's basically a concrete reminder of what we all know to be true in our heart of hearts but would rather wasn't (and KingOfCretins has been saying from quite early on) i.e. creative works, even those we hold most dear, are, at the end of the day, properties that can be traded like any other.

(even though there's nothing legally or ethically wrong with it and everything people say about the TV series still being there regardless is perfectly true and I don't feel like this ruins any chances of a Whedon Buffy movie because to me those chances were vanishingly slight anyway and so on)

I wonder if it will ever actually make it to the screen.

Must admit, however I might feel about the project, it'd be bloody hilarious if, after all this sturming und dranging, that's the last we ever hear of it ;).

(and yes, Birdy McPostenstein - he has quite the family tree - was merely stunned and got up to fly away to a magical wonderland of teeny worm-sized cats and pre-fabricated centrally heated nests ;)
Two things I think that need to be mentioned which I don't think have been pointed out so far.

1) How long did it take for people to come round to the idea that another actor could play James T. Kirk?

2) The producers of the Stargate movie keep threatening to make a direct sequel but have never done so because presumably the TV franchise brand is so strong in people's minds.
They also said at one point that they'd try not to directly contradict the TV series so that you could (if so inclined) slot them in around each other.

And re: Kirk, I think if they were continuing the story then people wouldn't have stood for it at all (inasmuch as any of us have a choice) and that also applies to a reboot which is contemporary to the last seen original timeline i.e. if the reboot had been about Kirk at - more or less - Bill Shatner's age then people would've been similarly pissed off and asking "Why not get Bill Shatner to do it ?".

Success plays a part too of course 'The Hulk' wasn't that successful or that well met so didn't become, to some extent, the definitive Hulk which made the reboot easier. Luckily for Mark Ruffalo, that one also didn't become the definitive version. And after the debacle that was 'Batman and Robin' even George Clooney was probably crying out for a reboot, nevermind the fans (he famously and facetiously used to mention in interviews how he was the man that killed the Batman franchise).
I don't know why the legal position gets mentioned again and again - it's never been disputed by anyone that this is perfectly legal. And it would be better if people didn't pretend to a) know what Joss thinks, beyond what he's actually said and b) have been a fly on the wall during certain moments, just to support their arguments.

Agreed, Saje regarding Kirk and the Hulk. I think with Star Trek enough time had passed that people, in general, were ready for a reboot.

[ edited by NotaViking on 2010-11-25 15:28 ]
I thought about the Sherlock Holmes thing, since I saw the one with Robert Downey and thought it was loathsome, not related to the actual Holmes that SCD wrote a century ago. This may have nothing to do with the issue at hand, but boy, as a reboot that was just horrid. As to Star Trek, if they had made Kirk an adult but not used Shatner, I think there would be much more blowback.
You should check out the recent BBC one Dana5140 (if you haven't already), it's exactly how to do an update/reboot IMO, clearly crafted by people who absolutely love SACD's Holmes stories but with an awareness of what needs changing or just hanging a lantern on in order to set it in the 21st century (e.g. two grown, single men sharing "rooms" together) and confidence in themselves to do it.
she's a human being, actual and whole (just fictional). Treating her as just one instance of the type "Buffy Summers, Vampire Slayer" feels like it's disrespecting that.


Ah, yes, Saje. I think you've just got to the core of one of my problems with this idea as well. Kudos.

As for these other reboots like The Hulk or Batman: in these cases I never saw those movie franchises as the versions of those characters. They were adaptations from the comic book (not that there is a 'the' comic book, but let's ignore that for now ;)). And rebooting the adaptation is much less of a problem.

While I was typing the previous paragraph, however, I suddenly realised that I was slightly miffed when they decided to reboot Spider-Man, so it's obviously not as clear-cut, feelings-wise, as I'm pretending. With Spider-Man I guess the big difference is that it was succesfull, I really liked what they did with the movie and the character and I liked Toby Maguire's interpretation, which made it something worth 'preserving'. Although my reaction to that reboot is nowhere near as strong: I'm still going to see the new interpretation.

Oh, I meant it certainly IS interesting, that was another typo from too-fast typing! Going to go edit, but it turns out you violently agree with me GVH ;).


I figured as much when I wrote my previous post, yeah, catherine ;). That one sentence did not make much sense in the context of the rest of your message, after all :p. Plus: I always (well, nearly always) violently agree with you. That's why I always try to keep small children and furry animals away in case I hurt them accidentally, when I see one of your posts pop up ;)

[ edited by GVH on 2010-11-25 16:19 ]
Yeah, the thing about 'Spider-man' (aside from it just seeming daft to me to reboot something that started 8 years ago and had its last installment 3 years ago) is that Sam Raimi did an excellent job on the first 2, really seeming to understand the character and his world and by many accounts most of what was wrong with the 3rd one actually wasn't his fault so it seems really unfair to just get rid of him at the first sign of trouble. That and it feels mainly business driven - get a younger, lesser known cast who're cheaper and appeal to a younger demo - rather than about producing the best film possible.

Added to that, even if they only wanted to make 3, it just would've been nice for them to go out on a high, they earned it it after 'Spider-man 2' IMO which isn't too far short of a perfect Spider-man movie for my money.
"From this above example, I'm okay with a Buffy movie because she'll just be B3. She'll be incapable of destroying the others: B2 (my favorite Buffy, of the show and comics - who, if I may add and has been mentioned before, IS AN ALTERNATE HERSELF) and she also can't ruin B1 which is one of the few good things in the movie as I see it. She'll just be another interpretation of another character. It's nothing the universe hasn't seen before."

Interesting way of looking at it. I would though say that Buffy the ReBoot would actually be B4. B3 being the comic Buffy. She isn't the same as B2 Buffy to me.
I don't know if it's partially my age that makes me not so upset about this or solely the disconnect I've already experienced because of the comic.
I mean I had such loyalty to Star Trek the original that I never watched a single episode of Next Generation. It bothered me greatly that they made it. However, I mellowed over the years and I enjoyed the latest re-boot. But I do still see it as something different. That's not the crew I love, and it doesn't replace or change what happened in the actual series, but I did enjoy it.
I looked at the IMBD poll but couldn't vote, as none of the choices fit me.
Saje- I did and you're right. It's excellent.
Currently struggling with a similar problem with Nikita, Luckily the RealNikita rest safely on my DVD shelf together with RealBuffy to be revisited reglarly. The FakeNikitas or FakeBuffies being churned out from the Hollywood factories does not impact my enjoyment of those DVDs at all.

Since my understanding is that remakes and reboots are the main products coming out of Hollywood these days my expectations are appropriately low, all I hope for is some competence in execution and no "Buffy 13 : The Walletsucker 3D".
My plans to not drop back into this thread lasted nearly twelve hours. My willpower is growing!

Thanks for the cheering words GVH, catherine, and Saje. I dare say my positivism is hardwon when posting in the black. Cheers. :)

True, back when the show was on the air 20th Century Fox did allow publishers to create comic books and novels but the licensed tie-ins were not to affect or contradict the events of the tv show (i.e. everything at the end had to be back to normal) and Joss' approval had to be sought for them. I would imagine it's the same sort of story for IDW's Angel comic books.


I really doubt it, Simon. For a long stretch there, the silence between the two rival companies echoed so loudly it became a roar (ahem, Willingham's tantrum outburst). Just as 20th Century went on their merry way in making the Season 8 motion comics (against Joss' wishes and I am morally outraged by this appropriation of another's work that's cheaply repackaged and sold as Joss' when he had no oversight /rants), I also don't think we can easily assume Joss' vision is being executed by IDW nor that he approves of it even if The Office of Joss Whedon "approves". And Joss actively works with 20th Century because of the BtVS and AtS licensing deals.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-11-25 19:38 ]
At some stage though, Joss personally must sign off on IDW's Angelverse titles. And maybe David Greenwalt as well, but we never hear about that do we? Curious. But I digress, the fan understanding which is never wrong, states that Joss can veto stuff with 20th Century Fox. Hence the lack of Firefly novels.

Did Joss not want the Season 8 motion comics? He's been tactfully silent on the matter but I don't remember seeing anything in print.
I adore new "Sherlock" - but that is, as we say, a horse of a different color.

Alrighty, I've been reading all these different threads - like individual strands of one big rope - for so many days now I don't rememember who said what in which. So I'll just post my long but hopefully final summation in here. It is tinged w/ a bit of (generalized but mild) moral indignation, so look away or cover you eyes or don't read it if that'll bother you.

It may well be that my outraged sense of fairness stems from that basic existential problem of life's unfairness. And it may come from my "sloppy sentimentalism" - well, tant pis if it does.

I've never been one to accept life's iniquities and hop on the position that seems to embrace or exacerbate life's unfairness. Legal and business questions aside - because, Team Whedonesque, I don't care - that's not where I'm coming from.

(Though I will agree w/ Saje that an unexamined gut reaction isn't always the best guide - we have deeply embedded programming that we perceive of as gut, and we need to be sure of where we're actually coming from when we say we have a "gut" reaction. By the same token, though, if I'd stopped to think and analyze in a number of situations, I probably wouldn't have 1) intervened in that beating, 2) put out that fire, or 3) confronted my attacker. Sometimes the gut's a real weinie, you know? But I digress..)

All this is in aid of saying: my brain takes in that Joss is not happy to see his Buffy in the hands of others, and my gut says, "that's enough for me. I'm not for it."

As I've said elsewhere, this film could be written by Jane Austen, edited by Charles Dickens, and sprinkled by the Buddha with Magic Nirvana Dust, and it still wouldn't change the fact that it feels unfair to me, and on the side of unfairness is not where I hang.

No one needs to agree, no one needs to join me, no one needs to be mad at that excited fan who's writing the script.

And if that means I've drunk the Kool-Aid, well... I don't care about that either. I'll stand off to the side with all of Joss' writers and actors and sip from my strawberry-flavored cup.

It feels like a bandwagon driving off without Joss - and I'm not on it.

Now, I hafta go make the stuffing. I'm thankful for you all... on this site called WHEDONesque.
Bravo QuoterGal. It is significant to me that his writers and actors are all against this project if he is not involved. As fans, many of us are indignant on his behalf but what do we know?
His friends do know and I am glad to stand with them.
I'm gonna put my hands up and say I like the new Nikita(I love martial arts violence done properly by women who don't always need stunt doubles, it's exciting!). But it's not exactly awash in good direction, scripting, acting, storylines or anything else really, but mindless fun. While I was a fan of the original it was never Buffy to me so it never bothered me, but if Buffy turns into FakeNikita then there will be unhappiness.

Buffy is more than stunts(and SMG is a brown or black belt in judo or something right?!) so ms. Anderson has her work cut out for her. And now I wanna make an Agent Smith Neo joke with the Ms. Anderson bit...
I'm genuinely not quite sure which 'Nikita' we're calling the original in this instance, is it the original film or the US remake or 'La Femme Nikita', the series with Peta Wilson ?

That said, I may be having a slow day in general cos believe it or not, it was actually only about 4 hours ago that I realised where all the Yanks had gone (isn't Friday just a more sensible day to have it ? Did you choose Thanksgiving with your gut ? ;-).

Anyway, happy Thanksgiving you lot and remember, eat responsibly (i.e. save enough room for drink ;).

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-26 01:11 ]
What quotergal said (as usual). Also reiterating that this movie has a very slim chance of actually, you know, getting made or ever being seen on any type of screen. Can't wait for the new furor when the script (purposefully) leaks.
1) How long did it take for people to come round to the idea that another actor could play James T. Kirk?

As far as I'm concerned, never. :)

I hated that movie.
What quotergal said.

The comparison with Sherlock Holmes is invalid for another reason beside 'Sherlock Holmes has been around for decades'. Creators don't always have an emotional connection with what they create quite as strong as what Joss has with Buffy. Even in his lifetime, Sir Conan Doyle grew tired of his character and tried to kill him off. I believe something similar happened with Ian Fleming / James Bond. James Cameron was done with Terminator after T2 and simply walked away (which is why I had no problems with the sequels and the TV show being made). It's clearly not the case with Buffy.

When Joss decides that he is done with Buffy, then I might be able to accept Joss-less reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels and re-imaginings, but not a second sooner.

[ edited by Effulgent on 2010-11-26 07:28 ]
I didn't know about the icon post. Thanks BlueSkies. Miss a day, and miss some context.

******

To sum up my thoughts on the "important" points of the thread(s):

1. The Buffy reboot idea sucks and feels unfair to me--for whatever ultimate reason. :-)

2. Saje, I think, articulated quite well a bit of something key that I was unable to grasp for myself: Buffy does indeed feel like a real person to me. A version by anyone else feels like an erasure or a dismissal of her world and all her hard fought experiences. Not logical... but there you go.

3. The Sherlock reboot is indeed FABULOUS. I also liked Robert Downey Jr.'s version, and Jeremy Brett, some of the old movies, and the five Sherlock Holmes games I've played. In fact, there can never be too much Sherlock Holmes--unless he's "young."

4. The Spiderman reboot I'm on the fence about. They pretty much nailed it with the trilogy. It seems a little soon.

5. The Star Trek reboot was fun and adventure-y and took nothing away from →my← experience of the original series.

6. GVH channeled my brain, albeit in a much clearer, tidier, and articulate fashion. It was spooky.

ETF: grammar

[ edited by BreathesStory on 2010-11-26 03:44 ]
I've spent way too much time - and stayed up too late to do so - reading all these threads compulsively. Someone on one of the other threads remarked that those who weren't interested in the movie weren't posting - or words to that effect - but that's not always the case.

I'm not interested in the movie - or seeing it - for a number of reasons, the foremost being because Joss isn't involved and further isn't happy that it's being made. I have great respect for creative people and their rights - and for Joss in particular. I will watch/read/listen to anything with his name attached because so far I have not been disappointed - no, not even with Dollhouse, a show that I still miss.

Though I came to Buffy in a backwards way - Firefly, Angel, then BtVS - it resonated - and still resonates - with me in way that is hard to describe. Buffy, as created and written by Joss and his exceptional writers - and portrayed by Sarah Michelle Gellar - reached into my soul and lodged there and if Joss were doing a Buffy movie, I would be first in line to see it. But he's not and no matter how much of a fan Whitney Anderson is - or how great a writer - she is not Joss.

On top of that, for me one of the things that makes Buffy the series so great is the group of friends that surround her and support her: Giles, Willow, Xander, Oz, Tara, Dawn, Anya, Spike, Angel and even Cordelia. And none of them can or will be in the movie.

The other thing that makes this unpalatable for me is that Joss is still creating stories about Buffy. Yes, they are comics and not the TV show or a movie, but he is still working in the universe. How can anyone - fan or otherwise - feel that it is right to take over a character that the creator is still working with. My analogy would be if Michelangelo were working on his David, which didn't belong to him because he had been hired to sculpt it, but while he was working on it, the buyer came over and said he'd found another sculptor who was going to take over and make some changes.

If they want to make a vampire movie to cash in on the current craze, then that's fine - do so. It could even star a young blond woman who has been chosen to slay vampires. (That would seem to be a ripoff if they didn't have the rights, as Warner Bros. does.) But it would not be Buffy and since I don't care for vampires, I wouldn't be going to see it anyway.

The bottom line for me is, it's not Joss's movie, so it's not Buffy. Or what QuoterGal said very well above. :)
I'm never going to catch up on reading these threads.
To play with SAMATWITCH's metaphor, I see this more as if Michelangelo were carving his David and midway through another artist starting working on a second David statue. It's clearly drawn from the same source material, but both will turn out differently and are being designed to accomplish different things.

I'd hate hate hate to see a Joss-less Buffy movie if that movie tried to be SMG's version of Buffy. I'm all for seeing a Joss-less Buffy movie if it attempts to be its own creation, albeit coming from the basic Buffy Mythos.

Though, at the end of the day, Joss or no Joss, I'm only going to go see the movie if it actually looks like something worth watching (and does actually get made). Though I love Joss and his work to no end, he's not the only storyteller out there. Plenty of good movies and stories have come from other people and I'm very willing to go watch one of those.
Oh, I get it- the other thread is closed so we are continuing the discussion here! :-)

The Holmes analogy won't work; there are tons of adaptations and new Holmes stories for readers to obtain. Interesting, all of them attempt to be true to the ACD vision of Holmes, so they tend to work for me. Star Trek did not, not even close, since it brought in new actors to act like the old ones; what was the point, then. The Rob Downey version of Holmes was not Holmes is way that Holmes was Holmes, except in name. That's my worry with this Buffy reboot, that it will be Buffy only in name. Imagine that you have never read HOlmes, and your first exposure is the Downey version- which is nothing but a special effects action movie. Would you ever wish to read more? That's the worry with Buffy.
And if that means I've drunk the Kool-Aid, well... I don't care about that either. I'll stand off to the side with all of Joss' writers and actors and sip from my strawberry-flavored cup.

I'm sorry to hear that, QuoterGal, especially since if there is one thing that being a partaker (viewer) of the Whedon Experience has taught me over the years it is that you should never ever drink the Kool-Aid - no matter who seems to be offering it.

ETA: Also 'all' seems a somewhat ingenuous word to use considering the headline of this here discussion thread...

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-26 06:09 ]
brinderwalt, for some reason, it didn't even occur to me to include Kirsty Swanson into the mental list of Joss's actors. Yes, she played his iconic character, but in a movie that was -- correct me if I'm wrong -- cast and directed by other people. Maybe I would feel differently if I liked the movie more than I do.

But then, would you also consider Donald Sutherland as one of Joss' actors?

[ edited by Effulgent on 2010-11-26 08:36 ]
Me neither, Effulgent - the movie's notsomuch on my radar. (Although anytime PeeWee Herman wants to be in my Big Fake Movie That I'm Not Really Making, he is more than welcome. And I've always thought Rutger Hauer was seriously dreamy in "Ladyhawke".)

Thanks, me whedony-y dears, for sayin' - those of you that liked my last post and felt it said something to you. Much of what you'all have written over the years has done the same for me, up to and including stuff in this here thread.

And ha! I realized after re-reading my comment that I switched "brain" and "guts" in one instance and sorta munged one of my points, but eh... let it lie or switch it in your brains (or guts ; > ) or forget about it.

Tonight there was turkey and there were yams, and I raise a glass of Kool-Aid in all y'alls (and Joss') honor, and also give thanks for Thanksgiving and the Puritanians and the Indigenous Peoples.

And for pie.

(Saje: I think Thanksgiving being on a Thursday was decided by Abraham Lincoln on advice from the Big Guy himself ; >... so changing it to something rational is prolly not on the cards. ; >
OK. I've been silent on this issue up to now but I just can't sit here with it right there and no one willing to speak out... No 'Community' last night because of Thanksgiving ??! What are you, thanks obsessed ? It was hundreds of years ago ferchrissakes, jeez, priorities people, pri-o-ri-ties ! Bloody Lincoln. Linc-off more like ! Yeah, I said it.

I do like turkey though, particularly with Cranberry sauce.

(another reason for Friday see. I don't mind if 'Smallville' skips a week)
Yeah, but by having Thanksgiving on Thursday we can take off from work on Friday as well (at least some of us).

That's good enough logic for me :)

[ edited by JossIzBoss on 2010-11-26 11:19 ]
"(another reason for Friday see. I don't mind if 'Smallville' skips a week)"

Agreed, if for no other reason than it would mean the end of the constant moaning about why there has been no new episode of Vampire Diaries for two weeks, coming from the general direction of a certain girlfriend-of-mine type person, who shall remain nameless.

Now that I would be thankful for!

Last comment regarding the general thread topic. I'm still in the 'wait and see what happens' category, mostly for two reasons. The first being that I have a gut feeling that TamaraC is correct and we are discussing a subject that will almost certainly come to nothing (in which case, there has been a lot of wasted outrage going on round these parts this last few days). Secondly, if it does happen, and it probably won't but if it does, then I'm going to judge it based on what I see on the screen, rather than what I presume are the motivations, good or bad, of the people involved.

Regardless of who was eventually put in control of creating the movie, whether it had been Joss, Whit or Ricky Gervais, the money people behind the scenes would have been doing it for one reason. The money. That would always have been true. As such, whoever it is making said money means very little to me in the grand scheme of things. They were never going to have any consideration for what is creatively and ethically right and just. That should be a given. So for me it comes down to the actions, intentions and ability of those involved in actually creating the movie. The cast and crew. If Whit and the actors involved show that they truly care about this project and are respectful of Joss and all that came before, then I'll keep an open mind until I see whatever ends up on screen. Again, if anything ever does.

Okay, think that's enough time spent discussing something I doubt will ever happen in the first place. Give me a shout when they officially cast Buffy! Should be ready for my next barrage of presumed outrage by then! ;)
Unless it's Morgan Freeman of course, with which casting no-one can take issue.

That's good enough logic for me :)

That logic is both sane and ... unhappenstance (?) but I personally would fully support you guys having the Thursday before the Friday off too (and with my personal support how could it possibly fail ? Particularly when you consider my complete lack of influence in the matter). And it'd surely make it easier to do the pre-thanksgiving shopping right ? I'm only thinking of you. And me. Mainly me actually. Pretty much exclusively me in fact.
I'd planned to comment but Quoter Gal beat me to basically everything I was going to say, so thanks QG, for saving me the typing. :_)

But especially this, which I suspect will continue to pop up as a point of contention and so it can't be emphasized enough, re.the bogus argument that Joss "passed on" any kind of meaningful involvement ....

I feel positively compelled to say something on the whole "Joss passed on this so what the hell can he have to say about it" notion I've seen bruited about hither and yon......
Unless I'm missing something, which is possible, we don't know what the hell it was that Joss "passed" on. All we know is that the Kuzuis approached Joss through his agent - after they'd made their announcement last year about their Buffy re-boot idea. This seems to be confirmed by both Joss and the Kuzuis.

What's the proper way to approach him? With the Great Director's Chalice of Parlayed Sequels filled with the finest meats and cheeses raised high over head, and only before expressing any public interest in doing the project? Pardon the sarcasm, but at what point is any expectation by fans in Joss' favor allowed to be called unreasonable?

Unless they are golfing buddies, Joss and the Kuzuis, going through agents is the accepted standard. It's why agents exist. The timing, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant. Approaching him at all can only mean one of two things --

1. They always wanted him to do the movie and were just trying to game him into feeling public pressure to do it. Considering how many ways and times posts in these two threads have made reverse psychology arguments that Joss should make his own movie, I hardly think it's unfair that the Kuzuis would try using the visibility of already saying the movie is a go.
2. They didn't want him to do it, but they saw the reaction of the potential audience and scrambled to pay homage. In other words, exactly the one single outcome that angry fans could have been trying to get out of them.

In which of those only possibilities are the Kuzuis not doing exactly what this audience wanted by contacting Joss through the appropriate channels?

A point about Sherlock Holmes -- many of those books are in the public domain anyway. And, despite occasional revisions to US copyright law*, that's eventually Buffy's destiny as well.

*Every now and then, a member of Congress, usually from California, i.e. Sonny Bono, proposes a revision to the copyright law that extends the protection to a now almost ridiculous 95 years. It's always suspiciously close to when a certain big-eared icon is close to entering the public domain. Expect another extension somewhere near 2020, as Superman gets close to entering the public domain.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-11-26 13:38 ]
Everyone knows that Turkey Day is really about the sides. And pie. Pumpkin pie makes a particularly nice breakfast. (It was yummy, thanks.)

You are missing the point, Saje. Thanksgiving has to be on Thursday so that everyone can:

1. Thumb their nose at work and logically take a four day! weekend. (Pbffft! How much work can possibly happen on Friday?)
2. Stock up on energy to last through the whole of Black Friday as it's the very most ultra important kick off to that holiest of Seasons: Christmas Consumerism. (Those lines are Looong.)
3. Give the economic prognosticators some stats on the number of new t.v.s sold so that they have something to chew the fat over. It keeps them busy and hopefully out of the way for a while with their constant yammering.

Oh and uh, I guess this was supposed to be a "casting" thread... Casting... casting... Casting has something to do with those people who like to play "Pretend", right? Have they cast the director yet? Or has their pretending not gotten that far? I think I want to play pretend too. I'll even put up with Bobby Ewing in the shower to do it.
"It's always suspiciously close to when a certain big-eared icon is close to entering the public domain."

Gary Lineker?
That's Gary Lineker™, © to you sunshine !

("interesting" factoid: i've bought oranges off his dad)

BreathesStory, your points are sensible and well made but let me provide as solid a counter-argument as I can, to wit: where the hell is my episode of 'Community' ?!

M'lud, I rest my case.


ETF: 'Gary Linker' ? The lesser known sausage commentator. Sure it's a small pond but the guy's a big fish in it, respect.

[ edited by Saje on 2010-11-26 13:56 ]
Also, BreathesStory, I'd like to see you attempt to make that argument stick, solid as it may be, against my girlfriend's "I want my Damon Salvatore fix now!" counterpoint.

It's a battle of words that you would not be prepared for, trust me!
Highlander, I can see that you are lashing out at all and sundry due to the fear inducing frenzy you've had to deal with. Denial is just so sad. I guess I probably shouldn't be reminding you then, that it was the tenner you slipped the programmers in hopes of more quality time that was the cause for all the reruns. So sorry to hear it backfired. I promise not to let the rest of the American and British public know it was you.

OH. Oops. Sorry, my bad. Should I have whispered that? *runs for the metaphorical hills*
Hehe, you wouldn't joke about it if you had any idea how close to the truth you are! ;)

To be fair to my better half, I'm a Vampire Diaries fan too, although not quite so much because of the weekly dose of 'Damony goodness', as it's become known around these parts. Not that I'm adverse to some quality Nina Dobrev time, it has to be said.
I've been doing some more thinking about this, and have come to the conclusion that I feel the same way about it as I do the Battlestar Galactica movie that, hopefully, will still someday see the light of day (and that will be based exclusively and entirely on Glen A. Larsen's original Battlestar Galactica concepts, as opposed to Ronald D. Moore's much more successful and more widely known 're-imaginining' of BSG). I never watched the original BSG, but would very much like to see the concepts that Larsen created updated by someone with his blessing and involvement. I know that this isn't going to happen with this Buffy project, but I do feel that there's more than enough room in the world for the two projects (Buffy the TV show and this new Buffy movie project) to co-exist, particularly since it plays into the idea - as established by the mythos of Buffy the TV series - of multiple dimensions and realities.

On the topic of Swanson wanting to be involved in this new Buffy project, I actually wouldn't mind it, although about the only role I can really see her playing would be Buffy's mother.

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