"What I mean, I'm fifteen. So this queen thing's illegal."
February 28
2012
Let the Slayer live again: why we should reboot Buffy.
A reasoned approach to the reboot debate.
Rambaldi
| BtVS
| 15:32 CET
|
27 comments total
| tags: reboot
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to
log in to be able to post comments.
About
membership.
« Older
Nathan Fillion talks Green Lantern...
|
Zac Efron talks about Firefly.
Newer »
© 2002 - 2017 - WHEDONesque.com
(
e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.
I realize the author's point is not so much about specific versions of the Arthur story, and more about Buffy's capacity to become a mythical figure greater than any one telling of her story. However, his use of these particular stories as an example undermines his argument somewhat. There's also the fact that the Arthur and Robin Hood stories have no definitive author/creator. So, interesting idea ... but IMO the analogies are not well chosen. At all.
Furthermore, the real question is not "why reboot Buffy," but rather "why reboot Buffy now. And this essay fails to answer that question at all.
*Also, in most versions of the legend, Mordred was the son of Arthur's sister Margaise, not his sister Morgan le Fay. The two sisters weren't conflated until the twentieth century--and remain separate characters in White's version.
[ edited by erendis on 2012-02-29 01:29 ]
erendis | February 28, 15:55 CET
Hey, Simon, can you remove the shrink-size here since I did not code it and do not know how to remove the tiny text? Thanks!
[ edited by Dana5140 on 2012-02-29 01:11 ]
Dana5140 | February 28, 16:11 CET
Let the reboot come I say. It'll come eventually whether we like it or not. I say we just learn to embrace it, and hope that it'll turn out to be something new and awesome. After all, the show itself was a semi-reboot of the movie, and that turned out pretty good.
[ edited by SpikeBad on 2012-02-29 01:15 ]
SpikeBad | February 28, 16:14 CET
Also, I just can't imagine someone besides James Masters playing Spike.
wasabiseventeen | February 28, 16:21 CET
erendis | February 28, 16:31 CET
This bothers me a bit:
I'm not sure why wanting to enjoy some of the pleasures of being female is considered unfeminist and that the way to controvert it is to make her more badass. Too be fair, he didn't actually say that, but I felt like it was implied. The reason Buffy is such a feminist icon is because she never accepted that she couldn't be both. (The Buffy from "The Wish" would never be icon material.)
BreathesStory | February 28, 16:47 CET
@theonetruebix | February 28, 16:51 CET
I'm also okay with the idea of a Buffy reboot somewhere down the road--but like bix said, now is not the time.
erendis | February 28, 17:38 CET
Except Buffy isn't about just 'the story' or 'the mythology'. A lot of writers can manage the humour, come up with a great plot, etc. The deep understanding of human nature is what makes Buffy Buffy; and that it's wrapped in a unique mixture of hilarious and unsettling. This is a much rarer combination of skill required to come anywhere close to doing Buffy justice.
It will be rebooted, of course, probably sooner rather than later, but seeing is Hollywood couldn't properly reboot a (far less complex) Charlie's Angels, what chance does Buffy have?
[ edited by Effulgent on 2012-02-29 02:51 ]
Effulgent | February 28, 17:47 CET
Bottom line is there's no rational reason to oppose a reboot. It will either be good or great or terrible or mediocre, etc.... but it will never take away from what has come before. In fact, good or bad, it can introduce more people to the idea, likely getting many more to watch/read, and enjoy, what came before.
The likelihood of it being worth standing on it's own is probably pretty low, in which case it is certainly just profiting from a name, which is lame, but business people will be business people, Joss show is still great, and more will go be inclined to watch it.
If it happens to be good or great or stupendous, etc... all the better for everyone involved. Regardless, no one who doesn't want to see it will be forced to.
bobw1o | February 28, 18:06 CET
impalergeneral | February 28, 18:09 CET
lottalettuce | February 28, 19:32 CET
lisatwingomez | February 28, 21:27 CET
Or write more stories about brand new positive female characters?
Simon | February 28, 22:50 CET
Chris Oz | February 28, 23:34 CET
Yes, this.
And of course, since I'm a member of the Beating a Dead Horse Quote Club:
"I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, AFTER." - Joss, November, 2010
As many have said, while the creator is still actually writing the character is too soon.
QuoterGal | February 29, 00:15 CET
Hytok | February 29, 00:18 CET
Thank you Simon.
Buffy wasn't always an icon. She wasn't an icon when Fox took Joss's brilliant script and turned it into a mediocre movie. It wasn't an icon when the networks wanted a Power Ranger type of show. It's an icon now only because that's what Joss Whedon and the team he put together made it.
Hollywood is drowning in remakes, reboots and sequels as it is. 'We' don't need a reboot of anything at all. What we need is someone with courage, talent, imagination and strength of conviction to create new icons.
Effulgent | February 29, 01:15 CET
After the dark day of his passing then, obviously it can go to whomever has the best idea. I wouldn't mind Buffy becoming a Batman-like character that gets rebooted every decade or so. It isn't like Bob Kane and Bill Finger have the capacity to consult on the Chris Nolan Batman movies (because they're both dead) but the movies still have been amazing, as were the first two movies in the 90's.
E-Rawk | February 29, 01:30 CET
I really hope the reboot comes around.
Buffy is more relevant than its author.
wonderbruno | February 29, 02:25 CET
I didn't have a problem with a new Buffy movie (well, not much anyway) but to not make use of the character/concept's creator when he's right there struck me as a bad sign.
Brutus | February 29, 06:05 CET
AlanD | February 29, 07:40 CET
Frankly, I'd rather get excited about other strong women (like a Fray live-action film) than see Buffy's story retold by people who don't understand her/her world.
Tonya J | February 29, 08:04 CET
It's only relevant because of its author. Because he made a show 100 people need to see, rather than a show that 1000 people want to see. The next director and writer for hire who come along will almost inevitably dilute Buffy for mass appeal, thus diminishing its relevance.
As a writer, I'm stunned to see how little people understand of what a work of writing owes to its author or what makes a work of writing, well, work. Yes, a lot of people could probably make a decent Buffy flick; but unless you think that Buffy is about a girl who kicks ass and nothing more, then Buffy it won't be. Probably 80,000 painters in the world could copy Munch's Scream, why can't they sell it for 80M at Sotheby's?
On paper, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Sabrina the Teenage Witch sound like the same show. Why one is culturally and creatively relevant and the other isn't? I'm sure a lot of talented, funny people were writing Sabrina. Do you know their names? Do you flock to their next projects and their fansites? That's the difference great writing makes.
[ edited by Effulgent on 2012-02-29 22:12 ]
Effulgent | February 29, 12:07 CET
"Because we can" is a pretty shitty rationale for a reboot/remake/reimagining/whatever-the-current-buzzword-may-be.
Rowan Hawthorn | February 29, 12:38 CET
kmb99 | February 29, 18:59 CET
redeem147 | March 01, 05:09 CET