At the end of the day, the speed of Internet news does not help with this issue at all (the response will never be as strong as the original message).

And If I was part of WB PR team working on this project, I don't see how to do this differently, after the project was almost completely bashed around for over a week. Don't know how I feel by this banking on a Barnun-ish strategy of even bad buzz is well buzz, will work for the project, worse trying to spin it by trying to make Joss sound like the one who didn't joined in.

Personally, I'm a tiny bit surprised (but it might be a strategic move, it would be an option for sure) that 20th Century Fox PR team has been mum during this process.

I'm curious how this PR battle will play out, but I still stand on the "WB robbing fans wallets would be easier" side of the fence, for now. Until the next part of this story develops...

Numfar PTB | December 01, 12:34 CET

The Buffy reboot seems to be facing the same problem that Dollhouse did before it premiered. What goes on behind the scenes is proving to be more interesting than the product itself. And that's not a situation a studio or network want to be in.

Simon | December 01, 12:38 CET

The idiots writing these articles have no clue what the hell they are talking about! It's amazing! And the naive people on Twitter are just making it worse! The whole thing is rather annoying! I wish the interview Joss did last year about the movie (I'm sure most of you know which one I'm talking about ) would be posted on every site that has been posting these stories. Ok, I feel a little better... slightly.

SlayerOfTheVampire's | December 01, 12:41 CET

I agree with Numfar PTB & Simon! Numfar, do the dance of frustration!

SlayerOfTheVampire's | December 01, 12:44 CET

I'm not a violent person but if WB tries to rob me i'll have no choice but to bleed at them just as hard as I can. Fair warning.

Difficult to judge how much of this is studio instigated and how much is just 'The Hollywood Reporter' trying to manufacture a spin that'll get more eyeballs (I suspect a lot of the latter personally). They have this thing about "insiders" too, last time they used the nebulous, unaccountable "insider" when in fact they were quoting Charles Roven, who'd been quite open about his statements to the LA Times (presumably THR do it to generate an air of mystery or of leaked, illicit information that "our intrepid reporter" has had to dig out rather than just have handed to them but to me it's dishonest and needlessly sensationalist).

If the studio have actually contacted THR and given them this though then it's a bad idea compounded by bad PR management cos yeah, way to get us onside - attack the aggrieved party.

Saje | December 01, 12:53 CET

Remember when this started kicking off, and I didn't say much about it other than it was going to be a PR car crash? It's a PR car crash.

Normally most of the backroom stuff ends up being noise which doesn't effect to product (who is going to remember the story about The Avengers having money quibbles when they're in theatres watching it?) -- however in this case Warner Bros have a very active fan base on their hands, many of which actively dislike what is happening.

This is going to risk being the story of the movie. Each movie or TV show should have a positive publicity story. Yes, that's right - you tell a yarn about why the movie/show got made. With Serenity, Universal spun the fan angle - fans made it happen, they did the impossible. That was positive PR, and almost every newspaper article and review reflected it. With "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", unless WB sort this one out, it's going to be about how the fans didn't want the movie. When press have that angle before they mention the actual product (i.e. the movie), that's an issue.

Also, the writer of the new Buffy movie - Whit - I have spoken to on the interwebs. She's cool beans. I wish her luck.

gossi | December 01, 12:55 CET

I'm really really worried and sorry for Whit, she's a fan. She's an aspiring screenwriter and also a fan.
Drew Goddard was a fan before Marti found him and hired him to be part of the writing staff and amazing stuff did come from him.

I'm sorry for all the blame and bad-mouthing she must be getting, I'm sorry if (or when) this simply burns and crashes (yes, gossi, this IS a PR car crash.) if she is used by PR-spinners as part of some elaborate scape goat.

The saddest part is the buzz this thing is getting, it'll definitely stick out in her cv. I wish best of luck for her.

Numfar PTB | December 01, 13:10 CET

Really glad we've moved away from the "Whit Anderson is an inexperienced backstabber who's betrayed Joss" angle of the early days of this breaking, that was bang out of order.

Remember when this started kicking off, and I didn't say much about it other than it was going to be a PR car crash? It's a PR car crash.

Err, not so much gossi, no.

Is this a good narrative for the movie production ? Absolutely not. It's also pretty early days though - assuming this even gets made it'll be a year to a year and a half before it hits cinemas and (non fan) people's memories are short. But if they keep compounding the problem (again, assuming this is even the studio which I personally doubt) then it's not going to fade away.

Saje | December 01, 13:15 CET

I think what makes me most angry, is the sudden "OMG-ness" of the press. Not only are they having to resort to a two-year-old interview to get this *le gasp!* "Latest Headline" regarding a Buffy Reboot, but (to me), they are completely dismissing the most recent interview that Joss gave.

I really just want to ask if they were hung over/absent on the day they covered ethics in their journalism class.

Avarice | December 01, 13:20 CET

LOL@ SlayerOfTheVampire's I agree with Numfar PTB & Simon! Numfar, do the dance of frustration!

What these people don't realise is that he probably turned it down for one of three reasons that I can think of (and prolz a few I cannot.

1) It's just too soon for a reboot for a show that ended in 2003 after such a successful run.

2) He wants to do other projects.

3) He didn't want what happened the first time with Kuzui to happen again, (either a studio or someone who was smart enough to buy the rights during the first film) and watch yet another Buffy project go down the drain and reach the point where he inevitably walks off the set (again) because he has lost control of the project. I don't know the ins and outs of the legalities, but I expect since the Kuzuis managed to get themselves as exec producers on both Buffy and Angel without doing any work (according to a bitter Tony Head), they would still have enough control of the franchise to call the shots.


So we, the Buffy fans, are only left to guess how much control Joss would have actually had. But the fact that he has to ask permission to use his own characters and franchise means that they do not have to do things by his rule. They get to chose how much to use or not use.


So they probably did come to him and ask him to pen the script. If I were Joss, I reckon I'd have turned them down for those reasons (along with a few others). But as a studio, they aren't really willing to see that the Joss following is sometimes bigger than the show. It's not just Buffy fans who are getting angry about this, it's the Browncoats - and even though we're often the same, quite often we're not. I have a few friends who (are insane and) don't really like Buffy much. But they're mad Browncoats. And they're foaming at the mouth at this almost as much as we are - the idea of a sans Joss Joss project is making us all upset.

But they don't realise that if are the types of viewers who would go to the cinema to see Buffy, chances are we're fans of the original and fans of Joss. I don't know one person who is a fan of Buffy but really not keen on Joss.

They can't have it both ways - they can't make a Buffy film that people are going to love without Joss. They already tried it. It didn't work. They came to HIM to do the TV show and that's why we fell in love with Buffy.

I don't blame Whit - she's simply the hand of the tool that's decided to do this. But she's going to get a lot of blame for it. The studio really needs to step back though and figure out what to do about all of this. I for one will never see a(nother) Buffy film done without Joss's full involvement and approval. I know too many other people who will do as well.

So the studio really needs to figure out if it's worth it - if we don't go see that movie, who will? Can they really afford to have so many of us pissed off enough to refuse to see it? I'm hoping as many Joss fans (Browncoats, Scoobies, Dolls and Team Angel (who never had a cool name)) refuse to see it so that the project will tank.

maddy | December 01, 13:31 CET

I really just want to ask if they were hung over/absent on the day they covered ethics in their journalism class.

Or if they've ever taken a journalism class in the first place. Yeah, this is a non-story to me, a fairly cynical attempt to harvest ad hits.

Everybody, avoid the adverts ! Clap Look away if you believe in Joss !

[ edited by Saje on 2010-12-01 13:34 ]

Saje | December 01, 13:33 CET

Oddness abounds. I can see nothing to be gained by leaking non-information that anyone with 5 seconds and a computer link to the web could have found out easily and thus obviated the need to even post the story. When I first read the link, my thought was "tell me something I don't know." Joss had been clear that it had been offered and he said no- and we can easily surmise why he said no, given for example the fact that he could not even use the full gamut of characters he created. Thus, this is likely the result of a combination of reaction, bad planning and an overly zealous reporter thinking he or she found something to make a story about. Long-term, this was just dumb. It irritates fans who already are irritated and is not the kind of negative publicity that will drive sales, because it brings the main problem with the new movie back front and center: no Joss. Jeez.

Dana5140 | December 01, 13:50 CET

I have at least one friend who's posting that Joss turned it down, so tough. He seems to have missed the context.

Sad thing is, Ms. Anderson may be good and so might the film. Then again, she may be good and so might the script, but that's happened before with dubious results.

My, my, but 'news' travels quickly on the interwebs.

redeem147 | December 01, 13:52 CET

This film has straight to DVD written all over it.

faneater | December 01, 13:55 CET

Saje, your comments on this subject are ever a delight. Keep on keepin' on with restoring my faith in humanity.

No pressure! Just know that it's all riding on you now!

Emmie | December 01, 14:03 CET

No problem Emmie but what should I do with the rest of my lunch break (fix the middle east maybe ?) ?

;-)

This film has straight to DVD written all over it.

They should totally try to remove that cos a cinema release would be better. I recommend Vanish, that stuff is like magic (i've also had success with club soda).

[ edited by Saje on 2010-12-01 14:05 ]

Saje | December 01, 14:03 CET

This film has straight to DVD written all over it.

faneater, you summed up my thoughts on the matter so succinctly! Thanks.

WhoIsOmega? | December 01, 14:08 CET

Team Angel should call ourselves Fang Gang or something like that LOL

I still think he should have tried to be as involved as he could and maybe it would have been different than the last time.

GilesQueen | December 01, 14:10 CET

Sure, do that. Or turn your desk into a time desk. Whatevs.

Emmie | December 01, 14:11 CET

He was contractually obligated to other projects at the time. Dollhouse for example.

Simon | December 01, 14:12 CET

I'm sure that EW is happy to be called "Studio Insiders". Gives them some street cred.
Saje, Club Soda works but only if you put salt on it and pat gently with paper towels first, I find.

Lioness | December 01, 14:14 CET

This whole thing makes me think of 'Over the Rainbow'. (When the gang goes to Pylea to rescue Cordy & get into a fight) Wesley yells, "I think we're winning!!!" The next thing you know, they are all tied up in a row on their knees. In this case, Warner Bros. is Wesley!

SlayerOfTheVampire's | December 01, 14:15 CET

Maybe I'm crazy but I thought I heard something to the effect that the movie idea from a year ago was supposed to be a Buffy spin-off that wasn't going to actually feature Buffy. Did I get that wrong? Does anybody else remember hearing anything like that?

Immortus45 | December 01, 14:19 CET

Agreed. Terrible terrible timing. And if this was like 2020 and not 2010, I bet it wouldn't be such a PR mess.
I'm not against a Joss-less Buffy (even Joss is not against a Joss-less Buffy), just not now, barely 7 years after the show ended. 15 or 20 or more years later, it be better.

Buffy is and should be like Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman, an Icon. Bob Kane created Batman, but Chris Nolan is behind The Dark Knight.

Entertainment Industry has their own set of rules. For the same reason Comic book super hero adaptation for the big screen started to be fast tracked after Bryan Singer's X-Men and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man did really well, Vampires are in the public interest, are once again in the Agenda Setting of this current cycle. Buffy in this sense is an unavoidable hot property.

A friend of mine was ranting the other day, about the amazing number of sequels, remake-sequels, and remake are being pushed to screen, that makes one wonder if original ideas don't exist anymore. My argument in that conversation was: they do, but it's a matter if studios are willing to invest on them or not, and they tend to be a lot more prone to invest on rehashed but successful ideas, instead of untried experimental ones .

And then I'm reminded of Daniel Alfredson, the director of Sweden adaptation of the Millenium Trilogy novels ranting about why Hollywood needed to create it's own adaptation when there they did a very good and recent one already out there. There is the issue of US audiences being a very against subtitle type of audience, and there's the much more simple answer: this is how the hollywood entertainment industry works. As much as we wished this was treated as art, it is an industry (a business) first. If it'll bring profit by as low investment as possible that's a win.

And I'm not even mentioning that TV is still seen as a way lesser medium compared to big screen features.

It's annoying that literal greed is outshining everything else.

Numfar PTB | December 01, 14:21 CET

Bob Kane created Batman...

"Bob Kane and Bill Finger created Batman". There fixed that for ya Numfar PTB ;).

(pet peeve of mine - the guy sold the right to have his name attached fair enough but huge props are still due. Check out just what Batman would've been like without Finger's contribution)

Saje | December 01, 14:31 CET

WSS (What Saje Said) - haven't written this in a while.

Thanks Saje!!!

Numfar PTB | December 01, 14:35 CET

Oooh we're talking about Batman now. <3

*clicks link*

[eta] Okay, now I'm morally outraged on Bill Finger's behalf. Thank god he laid down such great character construction for Batman. Props.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-12-01 14:39 ]

Emmie | December 01, 14:35 CET

Actively frustrating. I posted the EW link at THR as soon as I saw it. This whole thing reminds me of the "Spaced" debacle when McG tried to do a US version of the show without the imput from Wright & Pegg. They too were creators approached as an afterthought. Hopefully, this project goes the same way.

buffywrestling | December 01, 15:01 CET

Although IIRC it was actually slightly worse in the case of 'Spaced' because early publicity for the remake claimed they were 100% behind it when in fact they hadn't even been approached at that point (fairly sure that's what Wright/Pegg/Hynes were most pissed off about - them not being 100% behind it probably didn't help either).

Okay, now I'm morally outraged on Bill Finger's behalf.

Yeah, it's a sad story. For years i've mentally added "and Bill Finger" whenever I see "Batman created by Bob Kane" (it's in pretty much every comic as well as the films etc.).

Saje | December 01, 15:18 CET

This is what really bothers me. The supposed "fans" that have helped blow this way out of proportion. Read what this chick had to say. (Like most, doesn't know his reasons) http://geekygirlslovescifi.blogspot.com/2010/12/buffy-reboot-latest-whedon-turned-it.html

SlayerOfTheVampire's | December 01, 15:31 CET

The writer of this article (and the writer of this one http://blastr.com/2010/11/joss-whedon-turned-down-t.php) are just badly informed. But its nice to see some fans put things right in the comments, like QuoterGal on the Blastr article. :)

a stranger in my place | December 01, 15:42 CET

Stuff like that is always a bit depressing, not least because as fans shouldn't we at least read the articles carefully ? Apart from leaving out the (crucially important) context of Joss' past dealings with the Kazuis, even the Hollywood Reporter article doesn't actually say they asked him to write it, it says they asked him to be involved (which could mean anything from a basically meaningless producer credit all the way up to writing/directing). Just because it then says that after he refused they went looking for a writer doesn't mean there's a causal relationship there.

I'd put that degree of reading comprehension at around the 12-13 year old level personally.

Saje | December 01, 15:47 CET

Watching for purple.

filops | December 01, 16:24 CET

Yeah, that's sort of like offering to let you be involved with your child's upbringing. Um, thanks? Now get away from my kid?

Heh. Ah well. If nothing else, the movie will provide fodder for the fanverse to talk about. And if it's ever released... that'll be an interesting day round these parts, I'll reckon.

dispatch | December 01, 16:38 CET

... they can't make a Buffy film that people are going to love without Joss.

Of course they can. Almost every film that has ever been made was made without Joss, and some of them were very successful indeed! Put another way, Joss' involvement is not a prerequisite for a successful film.

Remember that most of the cinema going public have never heard of Joss Whedon. It is they who will determine the success or otherwise of the new film, not the fans. Sad but true.

linux | December 01, 16:42 CET

And another article, with a slightly better perspective? Although it does act as though it was a given that Joss would be asked to write the script...

http://www.examiner.com/fanboys-in-national/joss-whedon-passed-on-buffy

I wish, oh I wish, he would write and direct "Fray"....

ebeep99 | December 01, 16:45 CET

You're right linux, almost every film that I like was made without Joss (shocking, I know). But THEY can't make a decent movie without Joss. Heck, they can make a terrible movie WITH Joss! ;)

a stranger in my place | December 01, 16:49 CET

Just to be clear, the Kazuis are (as far as we know) NOT involved with this new iteration at all. They optioned the rights to the current producers, one of whom was a producer on 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight' (so, y'know, somewhat capable of making a decent movie ;).

Saje | December 01, 17:03 CET

This article again? Joss fanning the flames with his email to Dos Santos. Sheesh. I don't think he could have been more gracious in his response about all of this rearing its head again. You know, if anything makes a case against this film happening, it's the thought process on display in the very first comment under the article: ...2nd-rate Buffy is better than no Buffy at all.

I'm glad Joss opted out. There is no way in my mind, at this or any juncture with this set of circumstances, I would want to see it happen with him involved.

Tonya J | December 01, 17:27 CET

I completely agree with maddy here on all points. And for some reason a beginner screen writer who never wrote anything noteworthy but who is willing to jump-start her career off Joss (who is still-not-quite-dead and who is not happy about other people touching Buffyverse while he is still actively penning the comics) does not generate warm and fuzzy feelings in me, being fellow female and all.

[ edited by dorotea on 2010-12-01 17:55 ]

dorotea | December 01, 17:55 CET

And here I thought fandom had moved on from those sort of comments.

menomegirl | December 01, 17:59 CET

You can't blame a beginning screenwriter for taking any job they can get. Remember that whole writer's strike thing, when we learned about how hard it is to make a living as a writer? Hell, I would write it if I got the chance.

dispatch | December 01, 18:15 CET

Comments dismissing the writer as a tool are leaving me just as cold as comments heaping blame on her. She is neither without agency nor one of the people who started all this without Joss's involvement. What does being a fellow female have to do with it?

Sunfire | December 01, 18:17 CET

I don't really blame the PR people for this, since the project absolutely needs Buffy fans to be successful, and we're already (at best) cold toward the idea. I don't have anything against the screenwriter, except that it's an established property with a complicated history and could probably use a more experienced writer. But that has to do with the producer, not the writer (who I know next to nothing about).

At this point, I expect the fan reaction will cause some consternation with the money people. I'd rather them make no movie than a lousy one (since a lousy one will make it more difficult to get a *decent* Buffy reboot made in the future), but it doesn't look like that's in the cards.

ern | December 01, 18:34 CET

I just want to point out that I do not either blame her or dismiss her - I just do not want to go and watch that movie because she does not inspire me as potential consumer of her product. Personal opinion of mine and yes, it is all about PR. So shoot me - I still am not warming to the idea, but I do not want to flame her either.

dorotea | December 01, 18:36 CET

"Whit Anderson is an inexperienced backstabber who's betrayed Joss"

Since somebody is quoting that in the context of me making the remark - lets just be clear about something. I never said that, in either text or subtext. If you read that between the lines, you read me wrong. I'm not even sure how a writer could backstab Joss through the form of writing.

I did say Whit Anderson is inexperienced as a movie writer - because she is. I question the logic of putting her on a project like this and announcing it the way Warner Bros have. It seems ridiculous as a whole, and it will totally backfire on the studio in my opinion. That doesn't mean I have any axe to grind with Whitney. Actually, I quite like her, and she's the best publicity aspect this project has - if they platform her right. They didn't. She ended up being unveiled in an article entitled "Joss who?".

[ edited by gossi on 2010-12-01 18:45 ]

gossi | December 01, 18:43 CET

I don't see how there now being a record of the creator being offered the movie and passing is bad PR... for the movie. Outside the friendly confines of forums, particularly those where said creator and his creative colleagues interact with fans, I actually think it plays worse for Joss. The "Buffy" fan on the street, if you will, who may have bought the DVD sets and watched the show but has never bothered to participate online (and how many times have we pointed out that distinction with regard to comic sales) is only going to know that... Joss didn't want to make a "Buffy" movie and he had the chance? Didn't have to beat the door down? Not saying he doesn't have the right to turn it down or that his reasons aren't valid, but they won't convince the entire "Buffy" audience.

Barring a wholesale, nothing-better-to-do campaign of destruction, I don't think there's anything resembling enough bad PR to stop the movie getting made or hurting it. All that will hurt it is what would have hurt it with Joss and all the original cast -- a bad script, bad direction, bad performance, low budget, or bad marketing.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-12-01 19:00 ]

KingofCretins | December 01, 18:54 CET

Since somebody is quoting that in the context of me making the remark - lets just be clear about something. I never said that, in either text or subtext. If you read that between the lines, you read me wrong. I'm not even sure how a writer could backstab Joss through the form of writing.

It wasn't "somebody" gossi, it was me, nobody ;).

Except it wasn't since that wasn't a direct quote of you (or anyone else), it was a summary of a position and vibe on here that several people contributed to (you brought the inexperienced bit and were in early with singling the writer out for comment though with no particular malice that I could see, others brought the rest). FWIW, I put it above my direct response to you deliberately to keep it separate.

...is only going to know that... Joss didn't want to make a "Buffy" movie and he had the chance?

Not to split hairs... oh go on then ;)... but they won't know anything of the kind, they may believe it but that's different (no less damaging, granted).

Saje | December 01, 19:12 CET

I wish the article had provided enough context for readers to understand how odd it would be for Joss to participate in a project that (1) reboots a character that he's not finished creating stories for in her existing incarnation and (2) doesn't have the legal rights to use any of the other characters he created in the TV series. Rather than say that "Whedon decided he'd rather work on other projects," it would have been more informative to say that he was and is working on Buffy season 8 and has plans for Buffy season 9.

Pointy | December 01, 19:20 CET

I am of the firm belief that Joss needs to be a consultant in this film. A consultant like JK Rowling was a consultant in HP (although she had so much more involvement in the movies than most book writers do). He needs to be there to go "Whoa, that's completely wrong and ridiculous," and "Hey, here's something about the character I never said but always wished I had."

I understand that he's a busy guy and all, but I think he could take the time to review bits and pieces and provide an opinion. That's what I'm asking at this point. And I just have a hard time believing he would turn THAT down.

Yea, I think we need another statement from Joss.

VeryVeryCrowded | December 01, 19:23 CET

I seriously doubt Joss will have anything further to say on this issue since that would only provide further fire to Warner Brothers PR wet dream. Maybe if we ignore all this hard enough, it will go away. I think that'll be my plan. Outraged Buffy fans are giving this movie way more impetus and credibility than any other cultish project would be given. I say, "don't feed the trolls."

IrrationaliTV | December 01, 19:28 CET

Hear hear.

Saje | December 01, 19:30 CET

We really don't need another statement from Joss. He's not involved, he wishes them well. It was a classy no people are just refusing to hear. They only offered him whatever level of creative involvement they offered him after there was such backlash from the initial announcement. His first experience with creative disagreement regarding Buffy on the big screen was not exactly pleasant. Why on earth would he become involved with a reboot that had already started without him?

Sunfire | December 01, 19:33 CET

Also not the brightest move by Warner Bros to start spinning against Joss (if that's their game plan to deflect criticism).

Simon | December 01, 19:43 CET

Can I ask a question which sounds disrespectful but is sincerely not intended to be?

Why does any of this matter?

People who love Joss are going to get to see him strut his stuff in a massive action thriller. And people who can't stomach the idea of a Buffy movie being made without his involvement can simply not go see it. It's hard to understand how a project which, assuming it ever gets made to begin with, may very well end up a direct-to-DVD release generate so much outrage and consternation?

BrewBunny | December 01, 19:46 CET

Many fans have been hoping for years to see the Buffy characters from the tv series in a movie. A reboot capitalizes on the name recognition of the series and current vampire popularity without delivering what many fans have hoped to see. It has a certain sting to it, even before you get into the part where it's being made without Joss's input.

Sunfire | December 01, 19:51 CET

>>It's hard to understand how a project which, assuming it ever gets made to begin with, may very well end up a direct-to-DVD release generate so much outrage and consternation?

Mainly because the hope for 'real' Buffy movie with Joss and the original cast was not quite dead some time ago. There were wistful comments about remaking S8 into a movie even, etc. Well, the idea is dead now, obviously, but many were still entertaining dreams.

dorotea | December 01, 19:51 CET

Many fans have been hoping for years to see the Buffy characters from the tv series in a movie. A reboot capitalizes on the name recognition of the series and current vampire popularity without delivering what many fans have hoped to see. It has a certain sting to it, even before you get into the part where it's being made without Joss's input.

And not only that but it's being made by Warner Brothers. You know, the ones who let Buffy go to another network. Who cancelled Angel.

It's a bit more than a sting. It's like rubbing salt into an open wound.

menomegirl | December 01, 20:01 CET

menomegirl, the people who run the movie studio have nothing at all to do with the people that used to run the WB. They probably don't even know each other. They are completely different companies.

IrrationaliTV | December 01, 20:15 CET

that's sort of like offering to let you be involved with your child's upbringing. Um, thanks? Now get away from my kid?

That just made me laugh.

I can't imagine why Joss would want to be involved in a Buffy reboot without his cast. He's been clear about that before, hasn't he? That he'd totally make a movie, if he could get the whole gang involved. But some other Buffy? Why would he want in on that (ignoring the whole "other commitments" thing)? My jaw would be on the floor if he was involved in a reboot without the cast.

I'm not feeling the outrage on the movie so much, more a little eye-rolling and a bit of curiosity, but I do get it, the more I read here.

catherine | December 01, 20:33 CET

VeryVeryCrowded: I am of the firm belief that Joss needs to be a consultant in this film.

I'm not.
Joss has shown many times that he can focus on the crucial story element, while others are "not seeing the forest for the trees". Now put him in a position where he is powerless to stop people from making the wrong decision, and he will still get blame for it. ("Paris Hilton as Buffy! She fights on another planet with shirtless WB male model/actors dressed as blue aliens, against sparkly 20 ft robots! It will make millions!")

It's like what gossi mentioned earlier. They have an attractive writer who has been assigned to a project that she is passionate about, but that underdog/success story is being drowned in the fear that this movie will be more movie studio produced-by-committee bilge water.

[ edited by OneTeV on 2010-12-01 20:38 ]

OneTeV | December 01, 20:34 CET

They only offered him whatever level of creative involvement they offered him after there was such backlash from the initial announcement.

I guess I just want to hear more about that. Did that happen? Is that what happened? What level of creative involvement did they offer him? Was it only because of the backlash? Or was it actually offered before that, and it only seems like a cause and effect thing.

I think it matters because if they honestly offered him a part to play and he went 'Nah, I'm busy, I can't do it.' I will have a different opinion than I do right now.

Not to mention. It seems completely and utterly common sense to go to the creative mind behind the past incarnations of this character to help with a future one. AND anyone should be aware that this backlash would happen.

I admit that the Star Trek movie kindasorta did this thing, but it did have the decency to admit there was an entire collective world that it was changing in order to make the movie, and it also managed to incorporate a part of it in there (Nimoy).

I guess, in the end, I want someone (even if it isn't Joss) to just tell us what the hell happened with that 'going to Joss' bit and why Joss/agents said no.

VeryVeryCrowded | December 01, 20:39 CET

put him in a position where he is powerless to stop people from making the wrong decision

Well, when I say 'consultant' I mean someone who is not powerless and who actually has a voice that is considered.

Which may be what's going on here, of course. They approached his agents to tell them he could have a look at the script, but not really do anything about it, and I understand why that would have been turned down.

VeryVeryCrowded | December 01, 20:44 CET

I doubt he was as casual as "Nah, I'm busy, I can't do it" - but I'd be surprised if he thought he might want to be involved in a New And Different Buffy (especially when he's still involved in writing his Old Buffy). What on earth could there be in it for him, in such a project?

catherine | December 01, 20:49 CET

So what if it was offered after the backlash? Was that not the point of the backlash? Isn't that called "getting your way"? Either they opened with an offer, in which case they did what the fans would have wanted, or they tried to make it up to the fans with an offer to Joss.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-12-01 20:52 ]

KingofCretins | December 01, 20:50 CET

I have to give it up for the gang at the Space channel here in Canada. I pointed out the EW article after they posted the THR article & they added a coda. Very professional of them.

http://www.spacecast.com/article/Whedon-turned-down-stake-in-Buffy-reboot

[ edited by buffywrestling on 2010-12-01 21:40 ]

buffywrestling | December 01, 21:40 CET

I want Nuffy!

will.bueche | December 01, 21:44 CET

...if they honestly offered him a part to play and he went 'Nah, I'm busy, I can't do it.' I will have a different opinion than I do right now.

I won't. There are a lot of reasons for Joss not to go near this project (as discussed here), and I'm glad he didn't. So him saying "I'm busy" would be just polite.

It would be a completely different story if Joss had suddenly become an arrogant jerk, with his big new movie... but I don't think so. Even so, it would change my opinion on him, not this particular decision.

a stranger in my place | December 01, 21:53 CET

Irrationalitv-I know that. I just don't care. It's still the WB.

menomegirl | December 01, 21:56 CET

The reason I'm not into the Buffy reboot yet is simple: I want to see the whole gang again. I wouldn't even care if the entire cast was recast as long as the actors were competent. What I care about are the characters Joss created. Plus, I want to know what happens next, not necessarily what happens in an alternate universe where Buffy isn't Buffy because she doesn't have her friends.

For example, 'Wishverse Buffy' was not nearly as nuanced and interesting as 'our Buffy'. In that alternate timeline, she was a cold killer, not interested in anyone or anything. She was barely interested in herself.

I have this sneaking suspicion that 'Reboot Buffy' will be more like 'Wishverse Buffy'.

quantumac | December 01, 23:27 CET

All those tweets about "Joss said no" and "...WAS offered...and turned it down" on twitteresque sure are... annoying. They have all got it so wrong. Or at least just wrong enough that it's got to be at least a little damaging. :( I hate spin.

BreathesStory | December 01, 23:50 CET

Especially spin in 140 characters or less ;).

(Twitter's great at many things - I don't use it BTW, I just believe some of the people who do ;) - but nuance and detail ? Not so much)

Saje | December 02, 01:07 CET

With all due respect - and at the risk of being branded a heretic - I doubt the vast majority of the great American public who will go see this Buffy (since vampires will still be cool) will not give a fig about this 'controversy'. After all, one of his own Avenger's cast still doesn't know his name is Joss (not Josh) and I suspect many of the post-Twilight generation will be ignorant of the 'iconic' Buffy. Our lens is not their lens. That's just how it goes.

baxter | December 02, 01:18 CET

I really hope the movie is a flop. I realize that good people who are probably fans are working on this film. However, even if Joss turned it down it appears because this would be the Studio telling him what this movie would be about and not be HIS VISION. I don't care how nice the new writer or director are. This is NOT Buffy and I refuse to support it. I don't know one person that is going to go see this film. Saying Joss turned it down is a play on words. He turned down the offer to be involved in something that wasn't his creation. That is not the same thing as turning it down. I feel bad for those working on this film but a message has to be sent to WB and Vertigo.

DarenG | December 02, 01:44 CET

baxter, I partially agree with you, so brand me too, please! Except I don't think the Twi-hards are all that interested in movies that aren't Twilight, the same way Harry Potter fans are not necessarily interested in every fantasy movie that has came out in the last few years (Eragon, The Golden Compass, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising just to name a few.)

And while there is an unsavoury tendency across the internet to treat Twilight fans with contempt, few people consider the possibility that they, too, may be flocking to the movies because they are involved with the characters and the mythology of the Twilight series. If the only thing they wanted was vampires and werewolves, Underworld would have been a hit.

[ edited by Effulgent on 2010-12-02 02:45 ]

Effulgent | December 02, 01:49 CET

Effulgent, I simply meant that Twilight 'reset the clock' as it were - there was now a different iconic vampire 'verse. I didn't mean that the fans of one would follow anything else with a passing similarity on the screen. Just that resets happen and the public moves on - look at the whole New Testament thing ;-)

baxter | December 02, 01:58 CET

They did a sequel to the Old Testament?! You're ****in' kidding me!

Jobo | December 02, 02:14 CET

Sorry, baxter, I misinterpreted your words. I'm all for new iconic stuff; lots and lots and lots of new iconic stuff. It's just that instead of creating new iconic stuff studios tend to recycle old iconic stuff, and mess it up in the process.

Effulgent | December 02, 02:32 CET

IrrationaliTV: I seriously doubt Joss will have anything further to say on this issue since that would only provide further fire to Warner Brothers PR wet dream. Maybe if we ignore all this hard enough, it will go away. I think that'll be my plan. Outraged Buffy fans are giving this movie way more impetus and credibility than any other cultish project would be given. I say, "don't feed the trolls."

You know, I'm getting there. I'm almost there.

Yup... I'm there.

After trying and failing to get the Guardian and others to correct their misquotes of Joss about his so-called re-boot "fury", and after watching this latest fakey news spread across the web ("Insiders with MAGIC insider skills are able to read the bones and their magic crystal BALLS, and, oh yeah, the internet in 2009") and after posting comment corrections to a number of those fakey spotty incomplete one-year-old "HOT INSIDER TIPS ABOUT JOSS"...

And after going on at length here about how we don't know role or what amount of creative control he passed on in 2009 - though we do know that in 2009 it was 1) with the Kuzuis that screwed up his 1992 film and 2) NOT a Buffy TV continuation - I think I'm thinking that, too.

(With all due respect, K of C, the contradiction you're positing is not the point. The backlash didn't occur to get the Kuzuis to offer Joss some (unknown to us) role in a Buffy movie we didn't want made. It was both objecting to 1) a Jossless Buffy movie which was 2) set in the 1992 Buffy film world sans the World O' Buffy TV.)

So as far as we know, the Kuzuis talking to Joss' agent in May of 2009 gave the objecting fans nothing that they wanted, nor, presumably, what Joss wanted.

Unless something major happens, I don't think Joss needs to (or should) say anything to provide fodder to the 24-hour-let's-say-Joss'-name-and-pretend-we-have-news-for-the-many-hits-machine.

Again, no animus towards Whit Anderson. She sounds like a sweetie, and she may love Buffy 'til the cows come home... ; > She was never the issue for me, but I wouldn't be her for my (substantial) weight in gold right now.

In any event, I'm thinking - unless something outrageous or surprisingly-amazingly-eventful happens in the World of Jossless 1992 Filmic Reboot in 2010, it's prolly time for it to be dead to me.

QuoterGal | December 02, 02:48 CET

QuoterGal, like always, you've taken the words out of my mouth and put them in a much better order.

Effulgent | December 02, 03:33 CET

I would let the whole thing go... but in a way Joss's honor is at stake. And not just now: What do you think the promotion material will say? The same stupid things about cult TV show revived on the big screen blabla huge active fan base... because that's literally all this movie has going for it in the eye of the public (add to that maybe some good actors when the time comes). And then the media will remember this story and repeat that because it's oh-so-dramatic and sells well.

Joss will be too classy to fight this crap, but I for one will be really pissed.

a stranger in my place | December 02, 03:54 CET

No new thoughts here but:

I wonder if Joss would ever want to do a reboot? It might have nothing or little to do with the company, other people involved, not enough control or bad timing. I mean, I get why he wanted to try doing making again after the movie, because he didn't like it, but why do a reboot of something you think was a great thing (which I think is how Joss sees the show)?

It would be like if I wrote a great story. I really loved it, all the themes came across well, and I'm writing sequels to it as we speak. Then someone says "hey, wanna write it all over again?" I would say no. I think Joss might be thinking the same thing.

Skytteflickan88 | December 02, 11:03 CET

An article that I actually liked about this issue. It's not genius but... : http://www.campustimes.org/2010/12/02/%E2%80%98buffy%E2%80%99-fans-rise-from-the-dead-to-revolt-against-reboot/

SlayerOfTheVampire's | December 02, 11:13 CET

QuoterGal -- thank you for your latest post. It crystallized many of my thoughts and feelings, and I too, think I want this to stop feeding the machine (although it may prove difficult at times).

Joss will be too classy to fight this crap, but I for one will be really pissed.
a stranger in my place
I know -- I'm there with you. The only thing is that I would HATE to give them more of the attention they need and crave.

Carnelionne | December 02, 13:37 CET

You know, if they really want to tap into the zeitgeist, they'll make it Buffy The Zombie Slayer.

redeem147 | December 02, 13:57 CET

Would the idea of Buffy fighting other, non-vampire monsters be off-limits for this movie?

Jobo | December 02, 19:11 CET

Thanks, Effulgent and Carnelionne, for sayin'. And a stranger in my place, I'm right there with ya, I just wanna activate my cloaking device.

Also, thanks, redeem147, you gave me a nice laugh. ; >

Maybe the re-boot can have sparkly twinkly zombies.

QuoterGal | December 02, 20:09 CET