Ok woah, makes one wonder what must have really have happen to get David to actually come out and say something like that. Ouch, even I could feel the slap in the face.

RavenU | December 18, 16:06 CET

David Boreanaz is usually so hesitant to talk about Buffy/Sarah in interviews, I'm surprised he wants her to appear in the series finale of Angel. Personally, I don't think she should. We all know Scooby Doo 3 would be infinitely more important to her.

prufrock | December 18, 16:24 CET

woooohooooooo go david!

aapac | December 18, 16:52 CET

between this and JW referring to her as "the actress" in that last interview...

jeebs | December 18, 17:45 CET

Makes me wonder just how much truth there was to the rumors of Gellar's nickname being "The Duchess" on the set.

Ocular | December 18, 17:49 CET

grain of salt people... TV Guide is hardly the paragon of journalism

gingeriffic | December 18, 18:08 CET

...on the other hand (yes I'm schizophrenic) one can argue that *we* the fans also have a responsibility to the creators (I'm including actors in this group) of these shows.

IMHO, to say that we don't, that there is no give and take, is to reduce the show and our involvement with it to the same level as the rest of TV-a consumer product only that we as consumers can decide to buy or not, nothing more than an amusement for us to take as we wish.

So, I think we have a responsibility as well. How we measure that responsibility, I'm not sure. One could argue that we've helped make them rich by supporting their shows so their's is the greater responsibility. But I also feel that they've enriched our lives as well-these two shows have given me more than just entertainment, that's for sure-they've inspired me, taught me, and given me a viable sense of community with other like-minded fans.

Most of the time, I do tend to follow the trend and cast SMG as a prissy bratty bitch when I ponder the more gossipy aspects of the 'verse. And maybe she is-I don't think most of us will ever really know what these people are really like and how they really feel about each other and the shows. But even if she is as bad as her worst detractors think, it's undeniable that for seven years, she gave us something rich and memorable. I'm not saying every moment on screen was stellar but on the balance, her portrayal of Buffy was, IMHO, nothing short of amazing, above and beyond the also wonderful writing and production.

Depending on the storyline, I'd be delighted to see her on Angel, as much I dread the inevitable B/S/A "tri-angst-le." But if she decided for whatever reason, be it Scooby Doo or to stay at home and gestate FPIII, I think she's more than earned the right to do so. So, personally, I have to say, as a fan, I don't feel she owes me anything more.

jeebs | December 18, 18:15 CET

Well said Jeebs. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and obvioulsy there is a lot going on behind the scenes here that just isn't known. I think though it seems like it is more between SMG and Joss Whedon and David is acting out of disappointment. I do hope they can come to some sort of compromise here. I'd love to see Buffy again. But if she doesn't want to do it, I'm not going to let it ruin how much I enjoyed her as Buffy. Also David said something about she should do it "as long as it's still fun". Well, what if it wasn't still fun for her.

The thing that concerned me more was David's comments about it possibly being the final year. Does he know something we don't?

Firefly Flanatic | December 18, 18:31 CET

The budget for AtS was reduced this year. Could this be a disagreement over money?

SMG may feel, not entirely wrongly, that a Buffy appearance on Angel is worth more than what Joss can afford right now.

Speculationally speaking, of course.

Vamp_Insurance | December 18, 18:47 CET

From what I can remember, the budget stayed the same but the casts' wages increased. Mutant Enemy and the WB probably budgeted quite a fair bit for Sarah's appearance in season 5. If this money is now freed up we could see Stephanie Romanov and Julie Benz making guest appearances.

Simon | December 18, 18:53 CET

I was surprised to hear David react the way he did. He's always politically correct in his comments. The comment about being on "her" show for the end made me feel that he is very diappointed about SMG not coming on "his" show. It was great to hear him appreciate the fans of the show and to know that if it wasn't for the fans, Angel wouldn't still be on the air. Unfortunately in Hollywood a lot of actors forget that fact and develop a superiority complex. I just hope that hasn't happened to SMG. I'd rather leave those things behind the scenes and just enjoy watching BTVS on dvd and hopefully a six season of Angel.

lala | December 18, 18:56 CET

I've written before that I don't blame SMG for not coming on the show, that I don't think that Angel is in trouble or anything, and that I feel that an appearance by her next year would fit better story-wise. But to see the acrimony of these comments -- it sounds like the next spinoff in the Buffyverse should be a reality show with the behind-the-scenes cattiness of the show.

This is some good stuff -- as long as they just keep making good TV, though, and stay on track for some spinoff mid-season replacement next year, I'll just sit back and enjoy all this foolishness from people who have loads of money, fame and the adulation of loyal fans.

brother_grady | December 18, 18:56 CET

I could care less about what goes on behind the scenes, all the characters on BtVS have become very real people to me but I don't know the actual actors and what they are like at all. Buffy is a person to me but Sarah is just an actress. I would love to see Buffy on Angel but just hearing about what all the gang from Sunnydale are doing be fantastic.

Linda | December 18, 19:24 CET

Ungh, regardless of WHY SMG decided not to do Angel this year, articles like this aren't likely to speed to process along any.

ringworm | December 18, 19:29 CET

My thoughts exactly, ringworm.

Scott | December 18, 19:36 CET

I must agree that a Buffy appearance would better fit in next season. Story-wise, it's too early for her to come in. After all, she's just been freed from being the One; she's ready to pursue a life now and be just another girl...to grow and change and "find herself". That's what the whole cookie dough speech was all about. And it's just not the right time for her to come to LA to check in and stir up trouble.

It works out better for SMG this way, too. She can priss about and be a huge prima donna and hold out for more money and make it ALL about her and remind everybody that SHE'S BUFFY and the sun rises and sets on her command. (Did I just type all that nastiness? Sorry, I must've been channeling.)

It would be nice to see her in the series finale, but that shouldn't be happening any time soon (God willing).

And who knows what the future may hold...her film carrer may tank, thereby leading to her return to television roles and guest appearances at comic book conventions.

I think I'm done rambling now.

meredith | December 18, 19:38 CET

I have to go against what many people are saying...I agreed with blwessels in other posts regarding SMG and her moving on. BUT I have to say that I always thought that there would be a closing to the Angel/Spike/Buffy relationship. I know, I know...I'm sorry but I really would like it to end with Angel and Buffy...I've been waiting for that ending for 7 years now!!! I will be very dissappointed if it doesn't happen...that she doesn't appear. I have given SMG the benefit of the doubt for years now with all the "bitch" talk...and okay she may be a major, uber bitch...but I was still hoping that that uber bitch would close out the "star-crossed love affair" with Angel...I'm rambling here...but I think you get my meaning...lol...I hope!!! Oh and one more thing...please, please let there be a season 6!!!

Coll | December 18, 19:51 CET

I read a year or two ago that SMG wanted eventually to leave Buffy to pursue more serious roles, something to that effect.

I was very worried when I read that. Still am.

Chris inVirginia | December 18, 20:03 CET

that david, he's got some major class (re: the fans and whatnot)

rsfayez | December 18, 20:12 CET

Brother Grady, while I agree that storywise a Buffy appearance would be far better next season, ratings-wise, the show isn't doing so well that it wouldn't benefit from a 2-ep arc with SMG. DB's quite justified to feel the way he does -- his appearances on the last 2 eps were ratings stunts and they worked, even though the show didn't need it at that point.

AtS, OTOH, can use all the help it can get. It's doing fine, but doing better is the only way to insure a 6th season, which is, by no means, in the bag. A SMG appearance is the biggest card ME could've played, if it were within their power to do so. Sad to say, but great storytelling is no guarantee of decent or better ratings. Ats S4 was firing on all cylinders and they lost viewers steadily over the course of the season anyway.

I'm still hoping for the best, but losing SMG is a bitch.

punkinpuss | December 18, 21:05 CET

Wow David is pissed. He always gives the usual 'she's great, he's great' everyone's great' that you can expect from professional actors. (Well except for Freddie Prinze....)

For him to say this (technically still polite but you could feel the dissappointment!) means he feels really let down my SMG. And I doubt he's the only one. She practically promised she would and now it's bye bye with a cheap excuse like 'Oh not the right time....'.

And he's simply acknowledging that this could very well be Angel's last season. It's very possible the suits are not satisfied with the current results and everyone working on the show undoubtedly remembers they got throught by the skin of their noses last time and that only recently the entire season was ok'd. (even though they all thought it already had been)

And like I said before, David showed up for HER season ending but she won't return the favor. Because even though it's quite posible Angel will be renewed again, she COULD of course err on the side of caution and do a guest shot now, for Joss and ME that made her great, for her coworkers on Angel whom she worked with for years and for the fans without whom she'd be nowhere. But no. She can't be bothered and she doesn't even pretend she has scheduling conflicts. (one of her movies even fell through apparently)
And it looks like that's how David feels about it and who could blame him.

And yeah, great bit of him about the fans. At least guys like David and James Marsters seem to be aware of the fans and what their support has meant to the shows over the years.

More than I can say for *ahem*, someone else.

EdDantes | December 18, 21:08 CET

Again, only if Angel is definitely cancelled and SMG refuses to come back for the final two eps would it count as her not returning the favor. The specific favor being to appear in the last two episodes ever of the series. That can't be just yet because of the pesky detail of the show still being undead for the moment.

If she says no then (which I hope will be moot, since I don't believe this is Angel's last season), I will call her names myself on this forum.

brother_grady | December 18, 21:15 CET

They should have some back story where Buffy has been turned into a rat again. Then bring the rat on. It'd be a lot cheaper!

Yorky | December 18, 21:45 CET

Coll - I wasn't saying I wouldn't care if she never came back, I too have always hoped there would be some closure to the Angel/Buffy/Spike storyline. I will be horribly disappointed if it doesn't happen. I hope they can all resolve whatever is going on behind the scenes because it is obvious that there is something going on between SMG and Joss Whedon. As we haven't heard her side or even more of his side it's really hard to judge. If it does come out for sure that she thinks she is "too good" to do Buffy I agree with brother_grady that I'd most likely call her names too. But lets wait until everything plays out before we judge.

It would just be too bad if all this is about hard feelings between Joss and Sarah. David seemed really disappointed about this and I know he's had nothing but nice things to say about Sarah in the past.

Firefly Flanatic | December 18, 21:59 CET

They should have some back story where Buffy has been turned into a rat again. Then bring the rat on. It'd be a lot cheaper!

LOL! And think of the metaphors and the metanarrative!

As for the show being renewed or cancelled, if the WB continues true to form, it won't be decided until after shooting finishes on the current season. That's happened for the last 2 seasons (actually it's happened after the season finale aired, so there's no chance of time to do reshoots or edits either). And considering the slight of hand they pulled this season -- not officially or contractually picking up the full season until several episodes had aired with ratings to their satisfaction AND they had another deal on which AtS was piggybacked -- there's no reason to trust the WB at all.

It's not just a matter of appearing on a series finale. In the past, both SMG and DB made the effort to do crossovers while shooting a regular schedule on their own shows, no easy task. It helped both shows in the ratings. That's why it's important. It's not merely a goodwill gesture -- it's for ratings and survival.

Frankly, I'm surprised that ME haven't played the WB card. Scooby-Do is a Warner Bros. film. You'd think they'd want to take advantage of some nice cross-market synergy here.

punkinpuss | December 18, 22:25 CET

Brother grady, again, she could err on the side of niceness and do a guest shot now since it COULD be the last season. And if it's not all the better, and I doubt doing a guest shot would kill her.

And I have never called her names.

And no we haven't heard from Sarah herself. Which in itself is telling. People like James Marsters have spoken directly to the fans via the internet on several occasions with announcements and expressions of appreciation. She could have done that. A little announcement saying "I'm really sorry, I know you guys were really hoping for it but it's not in the cards right now." or something.

It wouldn't change what she's doing but it would have gone a long way to at least be nice and considerate about it to many people. But she hasn't and frankly she's never done anything like that to my knowledge.
It's just a difference in attitude to the work and the fans that I've often seen in her. Just makes me a widdle sad.

EdDantes | December 18, 22:28 CET

right on yorky!

rsfayez | December 18, 23:10 CET

Every single time I've seen SMG in public doing publicity for Buffy she has ALWAYS thanked the fans. Every single time she says how important the fans were to her and the show. To say that she doesn't appreciate the fans simply because she doesn't do convention appearances or because she's trying to avoid being typecast at this point in her career (which is definately a danger for her) is a little ungrateful for all the hard work she's done in the past.

I'm not a giant SMG fan, but I do recognize her hard work, and I certainly acknowledge that maybe putting a little distance between herself and Buffy may be a wise career move.

ringworm | December 18, 23:16 CET

Wow, not use to David like this in interviews. Interesting. Well, SMG decided not to return. Her reasons she gave was that it wasn't the right time. I'm soo with her on that. I seriously don't want to see a freaking Angel/Buffy/Spike love triangle where nothing gets resolved. She's a smart cookie. I'm pretty sure she'll make an appearance on Angel when it comes to an end.

nychick | December 19, 00:52 CET

When it comes to an end? I think most are upset because an appearance by SMG could stave off the end for AtS! Don't fool yourselves children, Angel's numbers are not stellar...And unless some more positive comments come from WB executives my money is (with great regret and sadness)on this being Angel's final season...Oh course it is too early to tell but unless something boosts the ratings (i.e. an appearance by SMG)I'll continue to worry .

And maybe David is upset because he knows how fragile things are with AtS...Perhaps he sees the writing-on the-wall and is really pissed that SMG could have helped and has opted not to do so.

[ edited by Simpleba on 2003-12-18 23:54 ]

Simpleba | December 19, 01:50 CET

I think there's a whole bunch of overreacting here as far as what effect SMG's decision will have on the future of Angel. Let's face it: Even if she did make a 2 episode appearance and boosted ratings up a notch, do you honestly think that temporary gain would change the minds of cancellation happy WB execs (assuming they even are cancellation happy at this point)? Not at all, unless her appearance suddenly gave Angel CSI-like ratings, and we all know that's about as likely as the Emmy Awards doing something right. SMG appearing on Angel would have absolutely no effect on the future of the show, one way or the other.

That being said, I was disappointed to hear she won't be returning, and the behind the scenes drama that has been hinted at is certainly intriguing. But none of us know the whole story, so I don't think any of the fans have a right to judge SMG or her decision.

MindPieces | December 19, 02:42 CET

MindPieces - Very well said on all of your points. No need for everyone to be crying "The world is ending!!"

Firefly Flanatic | December 19, 03:21 CET

Not judgy - I am so not being judgy ..... however, with that said I am about to piss off some people and are quite well aware of that fact. So no pelting me with anything - ok - ok then - hey....watch it ..... I saw that.

Anyway onto my point, why should we care if SMG does not want to portray Buffy anymore. Does she have the exclusive rights to the character, I think not. She is an actor doing a job, what do you do when someone in a company quits, you find someone to take their place. I think that time is now for Buffy to also move on and to be portrayed by another actor.

I hear those Boos out there ...... but keep it down a bit and hear me out, please.

Buffy is a character created by Joss Whedon, of which part of the portrayal was based upon SMG performance but not all of it. There were the writer’s words, the director’s actions, the lighting, the stunt people, the wardrobe people, and the make-up people that all went into creating the character we have come to know and love over the years. Just because SMG was the face that marked the character for most of us (but remember once there was another Buffy, no I am not comparing the two - I am simply pointing out that someone had played the character type before) does that mean we should bar all other actors from taking over the role.

I know in the beginning there will be the mandatory screaming and cursing on all sides that this cannot be done but it is not as if this is a new or foreign concept. This is how it has always been done in soap operas, plays, and movies, as well as TV. I mean how many actors have played James Bond, Superman, Batman, Dr. Who, or even Wonder Woman. If Buffy is to be considered an iconic character that will last the test of time why should she be limited by one actor interpretation of it. I think it would add dimension to the character if they can pull it off and find an actor who perhaps could make it a better Buffy. It would require skill on all parts that is for sure and balls of steel for the actor to take over but I think this is an action that can and should be taken.

Yes, I know this has the potential to be a great disaster or an epic moment in TV history, either way it would be a risk. Joss and ME have taken risk before when they moved Buffy from the WB to UPN no to mention killing off main characters and then bringing them back – so why not take another risk now, especially one that has so much explosive potential. If it works great, if it does not at least they tried and will be remembered for it.

If anything, the controversy alone over doing something like this may bring more viewers to Angel – because people love controversy. Even if they are tuning into to see what the fuss is about, or tuning in to rip the portrayal to shreds, it will be ratings and news worth TV. Not to mention making the network take note that any Whedon series will always go over the cutting edge to be noticed and the upside potential new viewers who may not have watched the show previously.

Ok done adding my 2 cents x 100. :)

RavenU | December 19, 04:50 CET

Very interesting RavenU...The more I think about your concept the more it seems reasonable...

Simpleba | December 19, 05:11 CET

Agreed. And you may borrow my umbrella to protect yourself from the flying tomatoes. Now run like hell!!

meredith | December 19, 05:36 CET

Well it's certainly a valid idea RavenU, but I have to say I'd rather not see Buffy at all than see someone else portray her.

It would give me a 'soap' feeling you know? "The part of Dr Drake Ramoray will now be played by...." I think it would look cheap and possibly even a little desperate.

Theoretically it should be possible, but I promise you basically no one would go for it, and then the guest shot would just become a negative. And any controversy this would generate would just seem like the show's slipping, I fear. I could be wrong, but.....

And as much as I get the vibe more and more lately that Sarah is just glad to be rid of the whole Buffy thing, I really wouldn't want anyone but her to do it because she's been brilliant for 7 years straight.

Oh and blwessels and mindpieces, I for one never said Angel would get canceled without a Buffy guest shot or anything about 'the world ending' and neither was anyone else.
I was referring to the courtesy in the gesture of doing a guest shot. Of course a single boost in ratings won't turn the tide if the suits plan on axing Angel.

But it wouldn't hurt. And it would be nice. To her coworkers and the company that made her great. And to us.

And I am getting more and more optimistic about Angel S6, even though I hardly dare to say it out loud, just not to jinx anything!

EdDantes | December 19, 05:37 CET

Well good news or bad depending on your point of view the WB announced it has picked up the Gilmore Girls for another season - even though the show took a hit in the ratings department. So it looks like Danny Strong may still have a PT gig next year. :)

From THR ... The WB Network has given an early pickup to the Warner Bros. TV drama series for 2004-05, which will mark its fifth season on the air. ... has become a signature series for the WB, though it has suffered a ratings drop so far this season. ... WB co-CEO Jordan Levin praised "Gilmore Girls" creator/executive producer Amy Sherman-Palladino as "a gifted writer with one of the most unique voices on television, not to mention a truly frightening collection of silly hats." ... Warner Bros. Television president Peter Roth credited the "craftsmanship, talent and terrific work" done by the show's cast and crew since its premiere in 2000.

Now if the will only do the same for Angel so we can enjoy the rest of the season with peace of mind. :)

Also some news regarding TNT in the basic cable ratings race ... TNT ended Lifetime's two-year reign atop the cable networks this year in the primetime ratings among households, 18-49, 25-54 and total viewers, where it averaged 2.3 million total viewers. ... up 47% season-to-date. "We continue to be amazed by its performance," Wakshlag said. ... Cable also is projected to beat the broadcasters in the fourth quarter for the first time ever, marking three consecutive quarterly victories this year. ... "The losses the broadcast networks have experienced and the gains some ad-supported cable networks have made make this race different," Turner chief research officer Jack Wakshlag said at a news conference. .... Wakshlag emphasized that broadcasters were hit hardest in younger demos, with the Big Four dropping 11% in men 18-34 year-to-date compared with a flat tally among cable networks. A relatively smaller loss also was registered in women 18-34.

If it was me I'd attribute the 47% increase to Angel but TNT is saying it's basketball and L&O, but you know they have always showed those. So I'm still going with Angel. :)

[ edited by RavenU on 2003-12-19 04:36 ]

RavenU | December 19, 06:35 CET

EDdantes - Others have posted their feelings that without a Buffy guest stint the show could end. I didn't single you out at all and you must admit that a lot of people have freaked out at the news that SMG doesn't want to guest this season. I do agree with you that it would be great if she did agree to do it and it would be a nice gesture as well.

RavenU, you're just commenting on the possible solutions if SMG decides she never wants to guest. It could be an option that they could select another actress if it is majorly important for the storyline that Buffy returns. But I really think most of the fans would freak out about that even if SMG came out and annouced to the world she wants nothing to do with Buffy ever again. Everyone sees her as Buffy and even though there was another actress that played the part, everyone still considers SMG the one and only true Buffy. I have to admit I even contemplated the idea that what if they decided to hire someone else? But I don't think Joss Whedon would do it because he's always said he would never replace SMG as Buffy. I think he'd kill of the character for real before he'd do that. I for one don't think I could accept anyone else in the role either and any actress who would take on the part would have to fill such big shoes that I doubt anyone would want to risk that kind of scrutiny and comparison especially if it was a major disaster.

Firefly Flanatic | December 19, 07:44 CET

SMG playing Buffy again will be a moot point in 10 years when they remake the tv show into a movie, with an entire new cast. Not like we are not seeing that happen as we speak anyhow to other TV shows, heck it may be only 5 years away.

I just want to give the character of Buffy a chance to live and grow and not be tied down by the whims of an actor - who in the grand scheme of things has little to do with the characters creation and development, anyhow. Buffy is a better character and deserves more respect than that, and who knows a new Buffy might be better than SMG ever was then the debate would be why they hired her in the first place.

All I am asking or reminding you is that SMG and Buffy are seperate enities and should not be compared or contrasted but accepted and not destroyed because of devotion to one portrayal, but allow it the chance to do something that has never been given the chance to exsist. Yes SMG did a fine job as Buffy but what if there is someone out there who can do it better. The only thing the two have in common is that they look alike, but that is were it ends - the words coming out of Buffy's mouth are not Sarah's. The physical battles that Buffy encounters are not always the ones waged by SMG but instead by another person with a similar appearance. The emotions Buffy expresses are only an excerise in ability for SMG they are not real - they are as fake as they are fictional - it is what we ourselves add to the meaning behind it all that makes Buffy come alive to us for the most part. We become Buffy by surplanting ourselves with what we believe the character is feeling - so why is it so hard to surplant Buffy into another form that is not SMG.

Ask yourself would Shakesphere's work have survived as long as it has if only one actor had played Hamlet, Romeo, or Othello in the begining and nobody could accept anyone else in the roles. I AM IN NO MEANS COMPARING WHEDON TO SHAKESPHERE - BTW. I am simply stating that a powerful character can only survive if someone is willing to continue the portrayal of it adding to the character part of themselves along the way. Each actor who has ever watched any performance of Shakesphere's works and then has went on to perfom those same works will take what he has learned but add to the character to make it his own, why can we not be allowed the same for Buffy, because she was a character created for TV and not for the stage - how hopelessly shallow as a society we will have become if that is the case. Yes the invention of TV has altered that fact some but not many characters on TV are actually worth building a Legacy for. If you like Buffy, if you believe in Buffy how could not want more for the character than the sum of SMG abilities when you know for a fact that SMG is but a small fraction of what the character of Buffy truely is.

Ok I think I'm done with my 2 cents x 1000 now. :)

RavenU | December 19, 09:05 CET

If they do a new show or a new movie 10 years (or even 5) down the road maybe people could accept a new Buffy. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just feel that a lot of people would have a real hard time accepting someone else as Buffy, as would I, especially this soon. And Joss Whedon has been quoted time after time saying he wouldn't replace Sarah. He seems like someone who sticks to his word.

All your points are great and make a lot of sense but sometimes people don't care if something makes sense. If Joss Whedon has an ultimate plan for the character of Buffy being integral to what happens on Angel but doesn't go through with it because SMG refuses to return to the role it would be a shame not to know what was supposed to happen. He has said that he wanted Amber Benson back as Tara but the actress didn't want to do the role again because of how the character was going to be portrayed, so instead we got Kennedy as Willow's new love interest and to many fans was a major plot disappointment. Wouldn't it have been great to know what he intended to do with "Tara"? In the interview I saw with him he seemed disappointed by her decision and it was obvious that the storyline was changed quite a bit because of it.

The one thing I will argue with you about is the statement that "SMG is but a small fraction of what the character of Buffy truely is". I saw an interview with Joss Whedon where he said that the actors bring a lot of themselves to the role and he said that Alyson is a lot like Willow and that Sarah is a lot like Buffy. I don't remember the actual quote but the gest is, each actor brings something else to the role that someone else wouldn't be able to duplicate. Now, I don't know if any of you ever saw the unaired pilot. I saw it and the person cast as Willow was just so wrong for the part that I couldn't even imagine her being in any of the episodes that Alyson Hannigan did so well in. That is not to say that someone else cast as Buffy couldn't bring something different, yet just as special to the role. I just think it would be way to soon to recast the part so they could have Buffy on Angel if SMG won't come back.

Firefly Flanatic | December 19, 09:58 CET

After 5-7 years of doing a job - any job - it does become part of you and you become part of it, and it just doesn't happen to actors it happens to everyone. That does not stop someone else from coming in and doing your job for better or worse at some point. One wonders now however, being almost a year away from the character if Joss or SMG would feel the same way, as they did while they were working on the series day to day. As for Amber's part she was more than willing to come back just not as an evil Tara that is the First, I agree with her descission. Also I am not saying cast a new Buffy this season but I'm saying just cast a new Buffy if there is a next season and SMG refuses to return. Also have we all not learned that Joss's actions and words sometime contradict themselves. Personally I could care less if Buffy comes back at all to Angel but if Joss has stories to tell I don't appreciate the fact that we will not find out what they are because of short-sightedness of people not willing to take a chance or a risk on someone new breathing life into a character people claim to care about.

RavenU | December 19, 10:18 CET

Not sure if it's the same thing you're thinking of but I do know that on one of the DVD special features (not sure which one) Joss said that Buffy became a 'more thoughtful' character because that is the way SMG is.

forcorreo | December 19, 10:21 CET

Joss won't go for another Buffy no matter how bad things would possibly get between him and Sarah. And I doubt we'll hear Sarah say 'never Buffy again', unless she becomes the new Julia Roberts in the upcoming year.
(Which is probably not going to happen. No matter how good she is or how big she may be in the TV world, to Hollywood, she's probably another Katie Holmes or something. And few actresses are blessed with a 'Pretty Woman' stroke of luck)

So, I'm sure she won't burn those bridges completely unless she's really sure of her career.

And yes, 10-15 years down the line, if they make a Buffy movie with a new cast, I would go. I would watch it and be the old grouch, complaining it's not as good as 'classic' Buffy.
And the teenagers from that day will find me annoying and wonder who the hell 'Sarah Michel' or 'David Borrynas' are. And one will say "'James Marsten? Wasn't he in X-Men?"

And I'll throw a fit! LOL

EdDantes | December 19, 12:10 CET

Hee hee, I'd be the old lady complaining along next to you!

Firefly Flanatic | December 19, 17:49 CET

LOL. Funny EdDantes. :)

forcorreo | December 19, 18:06 CET

Joss has said on more than one occasion that he wanted Buffy the Vampire Slayer to achieve pop icon status, and that he feels that the show achieved that. Another show that I think is similar in its status is Star Trek -- its characters reached iconic status.

Now, with Buffy having permeated our cultural consciousness, what do you have to be smoking to believe that anyone would accept having new actors portray these characters? Remember the fact that Buffy AND Angel are in perpetual syndication, there are DVDs that can and are watched by fans around the world, so there is the in-your-face comparison that would occur if new actors and actresses were cast.

The only way that there could be different actors is if they were in a different dimension, or if they were playing the actors at a drastically different age -- say, childhood or middle to old age -- where one could accept that they simply looked different because of it.

To bring it all home, think for a moment if a Star Trek fan would accept a different actor portraying James Tiberius Kirk, no matter what the reason was? Or Scotty, or Bones, or Spock? It wouldn't happen and we wouldn't accept it. I mean, even on the ONE example that was used, the soap opera argument, there are fans who say, "I liked it back when they had the REAL Scorpio," etc. And on Star Trek there was something like 20 YEARS between the end of the series and the movie.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is in fact mirroring Buffy Summers in the 'Verse right now -- she is trying to find out if it possible to be defined as something beyond only a Slayer, and to find out if others can accept her as such. I want her to be on Angel, and I know that it will happen, likely in subsequent seasons, because this is NOT the last season of Angel.

[ edited by brother_grady on 2003-12-19 18:32 ]

brother_grady | December 19, 20:31 CET

Yeah good examples Brother grady. Star Trek has gone on, but no one ever portrayed Kirk who wasn't Will Shatner. I think Buffy, like Star Trek, if it indeed goes on in time, will most likely be in other 'next generations' form.
There's plenty of Slayers to choose from now, hehe. And Whedon went there already with Fray.

And I applaud your optimism on Angel and it's renewal. I wish I could share it totally but U have become more hopeful lately.

EdDantes | December 19, 21:38 CET

I'm seriously wondering about the timing of all these bitter statements by Joss and David. Considering that we only heard of SMG's commitment to The Grudge on December 15th and the Angel 100 party was about December 11th, I wonder if all these spiteful statements are made at the party. At the time SMG would only appear to Whedon and company as an unemployed actress wishing to snub their show in favour of more time off. The press being the gossip mongers that they are, are just playing it up for the sake of showing descention in the ranks. Questions of this nature, about SMG not appearing, would definitely appear to rain on Angel's 100th Birthday bash hence the bitter tones coming from Joss and David.

Let's face it, contract negotiations involving actors and televisions shows aren't done face to face. They are done between lawyers, agents, and Fox production executives. It is doubtful under these circumstances that any of the parties involved have actually talked to each other in weeks. So neither party knows what is going on behind the scenes. Joss just knows his actress is not appearing. SMG really has no time to appear. The average movie takes three to four months to shoot and she probably will have to do a month of promo for SD2. For what it is worth, SMG has been battling the flu for the last week and was forced to cancel her Graham Norton appearance. The press is just playing the drama up for the audience. Each side looks petty and the audience just eats up the gossip. The TVGuide Online counter just went up a couple of hundred thousand readers.

Anne 5_by_5 | December 19, 21:57 CET

Honestly, I don't even think if they were middle aged they could get different actors because I still don't think people could accept. Maybe childhood but Buffy wasn't called until she was a teenager. The next best thing would be another slayer maybe ten years into the future or the Fray series.

Now, I'm sure a lot of you are too young to remember or weren't around when Bewitched was on but she had a daughter named Tabitha and they tried to do a show about Tabitha as an adult and people just didn't go for it. Maybe it would've been more appealing if they'd gotten the original actress to play the role. The point is, people have long memories and it would be hard to recast any of the characters and have the fans go along with it. If there was a new actress playing Buffy I'd always be comparing her to SMG and I honestly think that SMG did such a fantastic job that no one could replace her. Also brother_grady, before I had come on here to read the latest postings, I too had thought of Star Trek and the fact that there was no way they could've tried doing a new version of the show with new actors playing the same characters.

And has anyone seen the many versions of "It's a Wonderful Life" and just feel they can't live up to the original?

Firefly Flanatic | December 19, 22:02 CET

Kay, not a huge Trekkie but did Will Shatner ever pull a "gee, I want to be MORE than Captain Kirk"? Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means.
And yes, there's loads of other Slayers, but what would be the point? "Hi, you don't know me but I'm a Slayer and make me part of your team." Won't wash. Faith? Maybe. Random chick? Not.
Bottom line here is: Is it necessary to have Buffy come onto Angel? If so, is now the time?
Forget Sarah's personal feelings about portraying Buffy for the rest of her life; forget the (probable) ratings boost; this is strictly a story/plot decision.
It's not entirely necessary RIGHT NOW for Buffy to appear and stir the pot.
It WILL need to be resolved in some way/shape/form for the series finale but I'm feeling pretty optimistic about Angel continuing into next season, although it may not be on WB.
Give her some time (excellent point about Sarah mirroring Buffy, brother_grady) and a little cash and see what happens in the future.
And ya'll are probably right about another actress playing Buffy, although I'd be game. However, Joss would probably kill Buffy off entirely before hiring a new one.
And EdDantes, think happy thoughts...we need all the positive energy we can get here (and a couple of letters to sponsors and network guys may help too).

meredith | December 19, 22:15 CET

I think that both William Shatner and Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek: The Next Generation) attempted to establish careers outside of the Trek family, to varying success. I think in the end both know that they will always be identified with the characters they helped create, but also do other things to maintain a sense of self. Shatner played Sergeant T.J. Hooker for 4 years on TV, and appeared as a character in Airplane 2 that I really liked. He also wrote a surprisingly quality series of novels that began with TekWar and even became a short-lived but not too bad television show that he played a role (not the title character) in.

Stewart, obviously, has had much better luck at moving on, in part because he is more of a character actor and in part because Capt. Picard is not the icon that Kirk is. Stewart has done Moby Dick, The King of Texas, and most notably is Charles Xavier, leader of the X-Men in the X-Men movies.

But, none of them had to deal with trying to do this when they were as young as Sarah Michelle Gellar is. I don't know anyone else who has done a show for 7 seasons at her age as the title character that created such an icon. Even for those who don't like the show or who have never seen it can identify Buffy.

brother_grady | December 20, 00:14 CET

But Patrick Stewart has been doing theater and movies for over 25 years now...His work on stage is amazing and you can go back to movies such as Excalibur to see some of his earlier movie roles...

Simpleba | December 20, 00:33 CET

I just wanted to add the thought that... Buffy ended its WB run after five seasons. So keep in mind, even if the WB doesn't want to pick Angel up for another season, it's possible that it can still air on another network.

I just know I'm keeping my fingers crossed for another season, regardless of where it will be.

Greyflowers | December 20, 01:17 CET

Eh forget SMG/Buffy, who needs her anymore.

To me it would be much more realistic and interesting to see Alyson/Willow back for a multi-episode visit since she has been a guest on Angel more times than any other character (so she "fits" rather than "sticking out"). Fred flirting with her was really cute idea too! I bet Alyson is not so unobtainable.

TaraLivesOn | December 20, 01:27 CET

Anne 5_by_5 thank you for voicing that wonderful posting. I've said all along that we shouldn't be judging anyone without no way knowing what was going on behind the scenes. I didn't have all the information that you had but what you said was very well stated and should make people think before getting ready to rip someone apart.

As for William Shatner and Sarah Michelle Gellar, well I think there is no comparison on who is the better actor. I enjoyed William Shatner as Captain Kirk but he wasn't the greatest actor, and he's been known to poke fun at himself from time to time. Patrick Stewart is a very good actor and has been in many other things besides Star Trek but they are more theatrical type things that a lot of sci fi fans may not be interested in. SMG has established herself as a fine actress from a very young age and continues to stun me with her acting abilities. I hope to see her in more substantial roles other than Scooby Doo types (and I did like Scooby Doo - just think she can also do better).

And as for another show about a Slayer, I think that could do well in the future, not something for now though. I haven't read the Fray series yet (I have it but it's under the tree right now waiting for my daughter to open it for X-mas) but I've heard many great things about it and with Joss Whedon's talents I could see that as a possible movie idea if SMG doesn't want to do a Buffy movie.

And I'm sure the press takes liberties with quotes to make them more juicy than actualy stated. Without actually seeing an actor be interviewed we can only assume what is being printed is what is actually what was said.

Firefly Flanatic | December 20, 01:50 CET

Does not the genre in which Buffy resides, by it's very nature only survive because it is re-told by other actors over time. The Horror genre is the most re-made genre of any other, so what makes Buffy the character or show that different from the other iconic characters or shows in that genre.

Dark Shadows, which the WB is bringing back next season, is a similar premise show, yet it has been re-made a few times over the years with different actors portraying the main Collins Role. Let's not forget the classic characters of the horror genre that still exsist and have be re-made by different actors over the years, Frankenstien, Wolfman, Mummy, and lest we forget Dracula. Oddly enough all of which has shown them selves in the Buffyverse in one way or another. So what makes SMG's hold on this part so important as to not let another actor take a chance at it.

7 years of playing the same character is impressive but she does not hold the trademark on the character but by people only seeing her in that role she will never succeed in breaking free of it and everything she does outside of Buffy will be tainted by it. We have already seen it in SD - her character is suppose to be more Cordellia-ish but instead they ended up making the character more Buffy-ish - and thus completely going against the original cartoon version of Daphene- signs like that do not bode well for SMG as an actress - unless she disappears to the stage for the next 5-10 years then she may have a chance at not being type-cast or having characters altered toward a more Buffyesque slant.

RavenU | December 20, 09:20 CET

Dark Shadows...hmmm. Angel IS Barnabas, isn't he? A tortured vampire who desperately wants to be good, cured, whatever. They never touched on the "soul" thing (on DS) if I remember correctly, but there are definite analogies to be made!

Willowy | December 20, 18:46 CET

I watched Darkshadow and can hardly wait to see it return. Time is esenital for remakes if the appearance and character of the actor playing a part truly makes it theirs. I can't imagion anyone else as Spock or Kirk and It is the same for Buffy, or Willow.

Linda | December 20, 20:34 CET