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
"Angel's lame! His hair goes straight up, and he's bloody stupid!"
11944 members | you are not logged in | 19 September 2014




Tweet







February 01 2011

Marti Noxon on the Buffy reboot and her two new movies. 'I Am Number Four' and 'Fright Night' seem to be coming along nicely.

I totally get that there is a fan base that wants more, and if he can't do it, somebody ought to.
Not so much in the loop on where the fanbase stands on all this, there.
I think (I hope) she meant "Joss's fans want more Joss-penned 'Buffy'." Although I can't reinterpret the last part of that sentence.
Context: the 'question' was
"Back in July you said that the idea of a Buffy reboot without Joss was ridiculous"

Marti, after 'wishing them luck': ".... but I still think it's ridiculous, I stand by that quote ....I hope that I'm proven wrong, but the show was so much a product of Joss's voice .... it's hard to imagine anyone else capturing what is suprememly him.
I totally get that there's a fan base out there that wants more, and if [Joss] can't do it, somebody ought to. But it's hard to imagine someone else trying to capture that
"

What I hear in all that is an effort to be more diplomatic than her original response, but not any real change of heart.
Yes, a politic response which still suggests it is a bad idea- with the added caveat that for those in the trenches, it really makes no sense. That, I completely get.
Y'know... not wishing anybody any bad luck, and it makes me sad to think we may never see these characters on-screen again, BUT: If the only option to see them on-screen is someone else's pastiche, then I'll still pass. I've had enough of "reboots" that share little more than the name. People can euphemize it as "re-imagining" all they want, but it still sucks.

[ edited by Rowan Hawthorn on 2011-02-01 14:29 ]
I'd much rather have JOss involved, but I do also think it's only fair to wait and pass judgement after we see what we're dealing with. No one knows if it'll suck until clips actually start surfacing, really.
If the Jossless Buffy Reboot ever makes it to the big or little screen, it won't include "these characters." It can only include a young woman named Buffy who slays vampires. Sunnydale, Giles, the Scoobies & her vampire boyfriends all came from the TV show. The Reboot only has the rights to Movie Buffy.

(Preaching to the choir, I know. But I just wanted to re-emphasize the facts for anybody who might be lurking.)
I love Fright Night for Roddy McDowell - so not going for her remake of that either.
Normally I'd be right with you on that, redeem147, but David Tennant is going to be in the role that Roddy McDowell once held, so I at least have to give it a look. ;)
Good point, deepgirl. :( There goes my stoic determination.
GilesQueen: See not_Bridget's post. No matter how the script turns out, it won't have anything to do with the series. That's a whole lot of suckitude, right there.
It strikes me as a bit ironic that many of the people complaining about a Buffy movie without Joss are the same people complaining about everything Joss did in Buffy's season 8

That said, 'm not too keen on the idea of a Buffy movie without Joss, but I like to keep an open mind. Sometimes life surprises you and the whole Twilight thing in season 8 proves that even Joss himself-as remarkably talented and brilliant as he is-can mess up doing Buffy
Arkham258, some people complain about everything.:) I love Season 8 and think that overall it was a great and entertaining read. I also think a Buffy movie without Joss is a bad idea creatively, ethically, and fiscally. But then, the twihard crowd could show up in droves and Warner Brothers could be churning out subpar Buffy movies for many years to come. Either way, it won't affect my life and isn't worth the effort of wailing and bemoaning it.
Not so much in the loop on where the fanbase stands on all this, there.


Oh, I'm sure she's correct. It's not like there's any reason to think that Whedonesque and other fan forums online represent anything resembling a cross-section of the potential marketplace for a "Buffy" reboot. If such folk were a representative sample of the potential audience that would find the idea behind most Joss Whedon IPs and any derivative works appealing, I think we'd have already had a "Serenity" sequel and would be talking about Season 3 of "Dollhouse".

And, what's more, I honestly think that the percentage of interested, name recognition viewers with only a casual interest in the show that will watch it without ever really asking if the guy who made the show is making the movie is about the same as the percentage of those who watch any given movie based on a Stan Lee character wonder if Stan Lee wrote or approved of the script/cast.

It's just not as big a deal to the lay viewer in the target demographic as it is to the internet fandom. There's just no way. Realistically, unless they go out of their way to make it terrible, a Warner Bros motion picture reboot of "Buffy", particularly if it's going to have Christopher Nolan's name on it as a producer (didn't I read that somewhere?) is probably going to be the most commercially successful venture to use the name.
The fanbase stands slightly off to the side, watching the whole thing with a mixture of morbid fascination and distaste. If by fanbase we mean me, and isn't that the standard usage? Marti Noxon writing movies on the other hand makes me pretty happy.
Not so much in the loop on where the fanbase stands on all this, there.


I think the (casual) fanbase may wonder "didn't this show just end?" or "why isn't Sarah Michelle Gellar in it?".
Charles Roven is the producer of the Buffy reboot,not Chris Nolan.Roven is a producer on all three of the Nolan Batman films and the upcoming Superman film.He also was a producer on the Get Smart film with Steve Carell and the Scooby Doo films that SMG did.

[ edited by Buffyfantic on 2011-02-01 21:58 ]
The Dark Knight or Scooby Doo

Awesome good shit or pure dog shit? Thats a pretty wide spectrum on the Awesomemeter.
Well, I didn't say the producer, I said "a" producer, and for all I know, he may end up getting a credit on it. Which, I assume, pretty much just takes him asking for one for all the clout he probably has at Warner Bros after three films making like $1.2 billion or something like that. At least two of the articles about the reboot made a point of name-checking him that I can remember, so it's certainly a connection Warner wants people making. It's also why I think "... if it even gets made" is just wishful thinking for people who really don't like the idea. It's on like donkey kong.

The only movie coming out soon that I think might be a weather vane for a "Buffy" movie that could make Warner hesitate will be if "Sucker Punch" is a complete bomb.
Ahh, Marti is still peaches to me, she can do no wrong.
Sunfire speaks sooth.
WB's proposed Buffy movie is playing out very much like their Dukes of Hazzard remake. When the studio made it clear they weren't interested in contacting Guy Waldren or any of the folks involved with the series, it was immediately looked upon as an inferior adaption thrown out to make a quick buck, and proved to be just that.

I hope for Whit Anderson's sake that the Buffy movie isn't as awful. Unfortunately for her, Warner Brothers seems to have a habit of cheapening almost everything they touch these days.
I did wonder early if fans want a rebooted West Wing movie with a different actor playing Bartlett and none of the other TV characters appearing.
See, I think WB would take the deal if it was going to turn out like "Dukes of Hazzard", which according to boxofficemojo made $30 million opening weekend, $80 million domestic, $111 worldwide, against a production budget of $50 million.
I'm not sure that Warnes Bros would also want the 7 Golden Raspberry nominations and the 13% rating on Rotten Tomatoes that Dukes of Hazzard got.
I did wonder early if fans want a rebooted West Wing movie with a different actor playing Bartlett and none of the other TV characters appearing.
Simon | February 02, 09:55 CET


A world of *no* :_)

And you're really missing the point(s) here, KingofCretins. Joss isn't just "the guy who made the show", he crated the character and seven (TV) years of mythology, plus all the other TV characters who can't be used in the movie because unlike the rights to the name "Buffy the Vampire slayer", Mutant Enemy owns the rights to those characters.

And as for Nolan, he will not "end up getting a credit", because he has, (so far as I know), nothing to do with this proposed film. It's not like he and Charles Roven come as a package on every film either of them works on.
I tend to agree with King that the WB will be happy if the movie makes money and the more money it makes the less they'll care about poor reviews and golden raspberry nominations.
I'm not sure that Warnes Bros would also want the 7 Golden Raspberry nominations and the 13% rating on Rotten Tomatoes that Dukes of Hazzard got.


Honestly, I think that if there was a high correlation between a #1 open and total box office doubling production budget and winning lots of razzies, studios would display razzies in their lobby.

Shey, it's all well and good that Joss created the character and built 7 years of mythology. Doesn't change the fact that, unless you were *so* into "Buffy" that you didn't only watch the show, but take time out of your day to talk about it on the internet (a small minority for any show, right off the bat), let alone wait out a chance to register at the fairly exclusive blog named in his honor and has intermittent direction correspondence from him... he's probably mostly just "the guy who made the show". That, to me, is the point. Buffy had between 2 and 5 million people watching it, yes? of the 9000+ Whedonesque writers, I'm one of I think a solid eight who is perfectly fine with a reboot that doesn't include Joss? I'm more apt to believe in leprechauns than that that ratio translates out to actual viewership, and would guess the reverse is more likely true when you get out to the "people who've probably heard of 'Buffy' and think a hot chick fighting vampires sounds worth a movie ticket" target audience.

The Nolan thing is academic; it really doesn't matter if they could, should, or will actually credit him. I know I've read him getting name-checked in the articles, and odds are they'd probably name-check him in trailers the way that studios name-check directors of popular films who just have arm's length relationship with a movie ("from the writer whose cousin catered Edgar Wright's wedding!").

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2011-02-02 12:36 ]

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2011-02-02 12:37 ]
I didn't realise Marti Noxon was writing for either of those films, eagerly looking forward to them now :). I Am Number Four sounds awesome, and as much as I know my parents will slap me for admitting this, having been bought up on the campy awesomeness that is Fright Night with Roddy McDowell, I am so very looking forward to the remake... I've seen a picture of David Tennant all costumed-up... Oh yeah, that's a $20 I'll happily donate to a remake. LoL.
As much as I'm so not interested in this "reboot", KoC is probably right. I mean, let's face it - between:
the people who will pay to see any movie with any sort of vampire connection, the people who will pay to see any movie with any sort of "horror" theme, the people who will pay to see any movie with lots of special effects (and you know it will, nowadays, whether it needs them or not), the people who will pay to see it just out of curiosity, the people who will pay to see darn near any movie that's released no matter what the genre or subject matter, because, well, that's what they do, and the "spite" audience who will pay to see it just 'cause they hate Joss/SMG/the series/the comic/yadayada,
(*catches breath*)
I doubt that Warner gives a rat's ass about whether they draw any part of the existing Buffyverse fandom.
See, I'm all of those things, Rowan -- I will see about... 3/5 vampire movies on general principle, I will see about 20% of any horror movie on general principle, I will see about 75% of any action/special effects movie on general principle. AND I'm going to see it because I want to know someone else's take on the "Buffy" concepts. AND, y'know, yeah, I do kinda want to see it because of the haters, because I'm still sorta pissed off about the embarrassing reaction to Whit Anderson the very first time her name was attached to this.

And, absolutely -- Warner could not possibly care less how much if any of the internet-participating Buffy fandom shows up. I don't even think it's a factor. They do these things on trends, demographics, and market testing; the interest of and the approval of a niche fanbase for a prior work under the same IP is completely incidental on their end.

As a side note -- I'm not surprised Marti had to take a slightly more conciliatory approach to the reboot than other people have. "Fright Night" is exactly the sort of movie people hear about getting remade and reflexively go "awww, what was wrong with the original?"
And see, I fall into none of those categories, so I'm not part of the target demographic to start with. Frankly, if the series hadn't existed, I wouldn't care one way or the other, 'cause IMO the original movie lost a lot in the translation from script to screen.

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