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

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"You know, next to you, I am downright linear."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 01 October 2014




Tweet







November 29 2010

We need more vampire slayers - just not more Buffy. io9.com's Charlie Jane Anders looks at the bigger picture.

Wow, this is really nice.
Great article and I agree 100% with her sentiments. Even though there are some good post-Buffy "heroes" that she failed to mention (but I see she did acknowledge in the comments section) it focuses one recurring question I myself have asked many times as I flick through the t.v. channels looking for something to watch:

"Where's the next Buffy?"
VERY good article. And thinking about it, that probably is at least part of my dislike of the reboot idea. Buffy's story isn't just about the much-discussed journey from helplessness to power, but also from carrying all that by herself to sharing it... and now, 15 years later, you're just going to rewind and undo that story again? Even if it's done to tell the same story over again, why not pick up where it left off?
Veronica Mars was the next Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Until she wasn't. And then she was again in the last scenes of the series.
Great article, and I completely agree about Veronica Mars.
That was a great article! Agree about VMars!
I liked the article too, and right there with the author re. the Hunger Games movie and the kick-ass-ness of Katniss. But if the movie sucks, the book is still awesome, so there's that. Still, it would be great to see her come to the screen in all her glory, and she's certainly a worthy new heroine, as opposed to more Buffy that wouldn't be really Buffy ;).
Excellent article.

And you know what? I've decided I've had enough of the contemporary sentiment that continuations and alternate takes on previously told stories are somehow artistically inferior to so-called original tales - by default. Yes, such ventures tend to get started for sleazy money-making purposes, but in the end all it takes for a story to be good is for its creative parties to have something interesting to say - whether that takes place in a familiar setting or not shouldn't make a difference... if that makes any sense.

Suddenly slips off of soap-box.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-11-30 04:24 ]
Yes. THIS. Though I wish they did mention Angel, which has a lot of characters that made the same painful choice to do what was right, unlike the Buffy universe which was mostly (though not entirely) just Buffy making those decisions. On Angel we saw that kind of sacrifice from Angel, Wesley, Gunn, Cordelia and more. I can understand the writer not mentioning the show since it was part of the same universe, but I would have liked to see a mention.
This is an inspiring and accurate article.

I, too, concur about the Veronica Mars sentiments. Classy show all around cut down way before it's time. But luckily it didn't turn into that first-year-FBI agent mess that was previewed at the end of the third season DVD.
I thought the FBI "presentation" trailer thingy was great, would definitely have watched it. And at the time I remember a lot of us saying 'Veronica Mars', while great, wasn't the next Buffy. I still feel that way personally though she was definitely in the Buffy mold, particularly as this article presents it (cost of heroism etc.).

Not a bad article. I don't agree with the comments on Whit Anderson and if we're honest that's true of most of us since as I recall there weren't many folk here saying "It doesn't sound like she gets it", in fact it was more "Well, at least the writer's a fan". How many times does it need to be pointed out that quotes in newspaper articles are often wrong or misinterpreted and very rarely complete (not to mention missing context) ? More, apparently.

And i'm glad she finally got to it because after "Can you name any other popular story of the past decade that's dealt with the cost..." I was like, "The Dark Knight" straightaway. And i'd add "Spider-man 2" to that and if it weren't 7:35 a.m. I could probably think of more ;).

The main gist is very true though and well said - whether we need more Buffy herself is up for debate (and boy have we) but we definitely need more heroes like Buffy.
Great article, and glad he mentioned Supernatural as a successor to the exploration of heroism found in Buffy. But on a personal note, I have to disagree with him on the RED mention. Helen Mirren was way cooler than Bruce Willis, she just had less screen time. ;)
Btw, Charlie Jane Anders is a she not a he.
Great post. I admit I have been disappointed by Warner Brothers decision to bring Buffy back without Joss.Maybe it could work if presented in a way that didn't invite comparisons with the original. Maybe this is why they didn't seek Joss out to work on the project.My disappointment is rooted in my own desire to see our Buffy again with Sarah and all our favorite characters. I have missed them for years and the comics haven't helped. My heart dropped when I heard the news because I knew that I will not be getting what I have been patiently waiting and hoping against hope for.
I submitted a comment to i09 (I liked very much the judiciousness of the author's take), the essence of which was:

1) Jane would have consulted Joss before taking that job, if she even would take it, and we would not have been nearly as affronted, had she.

2) Remarked about Anderson's comments in the L.A. times but following rules here, won't repeat.

3) If there is another fearless vampire killer, I just don't want her name to be Buffy.

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