Oh thanks, now I know for sure SMG isn't in this ep.

ringworm | May 03, 20:14 CET

Was there ever any doubt? Admittedly there's a contingent of the fan base who would be up in arms if anyone other than SMG played Buffy, but those people are just gonna have to get over themselves.

I still think the M.E. writers should explain away that while in Europe something happened causing Buffy's mind to be switched into a different body, or some mystical thing changes her appearance, or maybe she gets into an accident and though she heals up nicely the plastic surgery didn't save her characteristic nose or other features, just to remove the worry of having to work around SMGs schedule, or other 'concerns' about playing the role. There's easily a hundred girls in Hollywood who would jump at the chance to play Buffy. She could be the next Doctor Who.

But I guess a hair & body double will have to suffice for now.

[ edited by ZachsMind on 2004-05-03 18:20 ]

ZachsMind | May 03, 20:20 CET

My point is it's pretty spoilery. I was completely spoiler free for this episode, now I'm not.

ringworm | May 03, 20:22 CET

Hardly a spoiler. It has been said a 100 times over that Sarah couldn't guest star.

And Zachsmind, they could have done what you said, but why would anyone want that? It would feel like some girl pretending to be Buffy, not to mention the fact that if they did that, in any future projects, Sarah could never be Buffy again. And IF they get a (TV)movie off the ground I think most people would prefer Sarah in the role.

Maybe years from now a new actress will be accepted as Buffy as with Dr Who, or Bond, or Dracula etc. But I think now is a bit too soon.

EdDantes | May 03, 20:32 CET

I agree Ringworm that this was more than a little spoilery as it gave the whole plot of the episode away. I too was spoiler free until this. I was interested in reading about more movie news and there wasn't anything at all new in this article.

So my advice to Radosh is to hit the "Spoiler" selection and don't comment on whether you think it is a minor spoiler because what you think is minor may not be someone elses idea.

Firefly Flanatic | May 03, 20:38 CET

Oh, and I agree with EdDantes on the replacing SMG issue. I wouldn't buy it and I'd be upset about it. I'd rather just see the back of "Buffy" than have a new actress play the role.

Firefly Flanatic | May 03, 20:40 CET

i agree, coming up with something that stupid just to get another actress to play buffy, it wouldnt work for me either. id rather see only hair than that as well.

norman | May 03, 20:43 CET

Put a spoiler tag on, please.

chickenbird | May 03, 20:44 CET

The famous " get over" phrase, that became so frequent since
third season of AtS and sixth season of BTVS.Still don't understand why anybody would think he/she has a right to tell it to
anybody else.

ilanit | May 03, 20:47 CET

Radosh... 1. no spoiler tag. 2. full spoiler in description. That's posting without any concern for our readers. Next time please think before you post a spoiler, and think about how to post it. I'm taking away your posting rights until you send us an e-mail to tell us you understand what you did wrong. And perhaps you can apologise to the people in this thread that you spoiled.

Caroline | May 03, 20:58 CET

Buffy is a character. SMG is an actress. Being upset that someone aside from SMG could play Buffy would be like being upset that Tom Baker isn't Dr. Who anymore, or saying no one should be able to step into the role of Superman so long as Christopher Reeve lives. Yes Baker & Reeve gave wonderful performances, but they don't own the characters. They just took on the role for a time.

There was a time long ago when some believed Richard Burton owned Shakespeare's Petruchio and no one else should ever play that role again aside from Burton. Thank goodness those people didn't get their way. I would love to see what another actress would do with the part of Buffy. And I don't want to have to wait twenty years before certain people think enough time has passed. Maybe even better: just hire a new actress to play Buffy, and not even explain away why she looks different. No hokie excuse of magicks or plastic surgery. Same Buffy. Different actress playing her. The show must go on, be it movie form or a new series a few years from now or whatever.

Okay. So you think the 'get over it' line was too harsh? How about this? Sarah Michelle Gellar wants to move on. LET HER. That should NOT mean we cannot see Buffy anymore just because the second actress to portray her chooses to move on. Egad what if people had felt this way about Swanson? Where would we be now?

[ edited by ZachsMind on 2004-05-03 19:55 ]

ZachsMind | May 03, 21:25 CET

she couldnt do this episode, but was available for finale. how is that moving on? sure she wants to do other things, however it appears she still wouldnt mind visiting the role some more, thats why if another actress would play buffy i would laugh my A** off. if she was done totally, then maybe (however i would still be a bit weirded by this)

oh well,

norman | May 03, 22:17 CET

Oh yeah, let's just bring in another little blonde actress with sass to pull on Buffy's leathers, because, well, *anyone* can. And hey, lots of people wanted Willow to come back, let's just get another redhead, she'll do fine. And if that tele-movie comes to pass and James Marsters isn't available, any bleached-blonde who can pull a decent accent will do. You know, the characters have nothing to do with the actors portraying them...

Yes, many characters have had many actors to portray them, like Superman, James Bond, etc. However, these characters are icons, symbols even that have been around for years upon years and could stand alone with or without a certain actor. On the other hand, Buffy is very different, she's not a character by herself. Few saw the Buffy movie and fell in love with Kristy Swanson. It was not a audience drawing movie and many fans didn't see the movie before they saw the show. SMG portrayed Buffy for 7 years, as opposed to Kristy's showmaking for about 90 minutes. I think that's a pretty vast difference. Buffy has taken on SMG's mannerisms, her smiles, her laugh, her nose, the writers have taken the actors looks and personalities and squished them inside the characters that have developed. Placing some other petite blonde in SMG's shoes just because she can fit into them is not the answer. In fact, it would be such an insult to the fans and to the character. It would simply be ripping the heart out of her. Joss has said himself that Sarah made Buffy. He may have written it, but she made Buffy.

This is not to say that I don't think that everyone should stop griping about SMG's lack of appearance and let her move on. I honestly wish everyone would. She gave several years of her life to the character, she wants to grow as an actress and I simply wish her the very best.

[ edited by syd on 2004-05-03 20:21 ]

syd | May 03, 22:19 CET

A replacement WILLOW??

My stomach turns at the very thought!

**Hands over ears, saying LA LA LA**

Willowy | May 03, 22:27 CET

Well said Syd. If SMGs doesn't want to play the role again that's fine. But, she was willing to come and do it for Angel but the timing was bad and if she was willing for Angel, then there's a chance she wouldn't mind picking up the stake again, hence her "never say never" comment.

But if she doesn't ever play the role again I still have the dvds to watch and enjoy. Joss Whedon most likely wouldn't even comprehend making a Buffy movie without her as he has many times commented that SMG was the other half of Buffy (meaning he was half too). He has said he'd never do a movie without her so if he, the creator, only associates SMG in the role why shouldn't the rest of us feel the same way.

Superman, James Bond, Shakespeares' Petruchio etc, were all around long before some actor portrayed them. And the actors who portrayed them took on a character and didn't really make the character. The characters personalities and traits were already well established. Kristi Swanson played a movie role but Buffy in the movie was far different from Buffy on TV. SMG and the rest of the cast put so much of their own personalities into the characters and Joss has stated that during his commentaries for the dvd sets.

Willowy, did you ever see the unaired pilot of Buffy with a different Willow? Thankfully, they didn't stick with that actress and went with AH instead.

Firefly Flanatic | May 03, 22:33 CET

ZachsMind, you do realise that one of the people you're telling to 'get over it' is Joss, don't you? Was about to say more, but now that I've read syd's comment, he's said everything I wanted to say.

weatherby | May 03, 22:38 CET

Yes I did blwessels, and you are right! Thank goodness for whoever noticed that little glitch.

I'm sure that Robin whats-her-name is capable of great things, but being our Willow is strictly AH's domain.

Willowy | May 03, 22:40 CET

i remember watching that pilot, i was like, OMG is that willow :)

AH is such a better fit.........

norman | May 03, 23:00 CET

er.. maybe it was Regan?...or somesuch.

Willowy | May 03, 23:44 CET

Whoa whoa whoa... I never heard/read Sarah say that she's over Buffy and wants to move on and not look back. I think everyone's getting a little too final about Sarah's personal choice whether or not to revisit the character. Hell, I bet no one ever thought Harrison Ford would be willing to hop back into Indiana Jones again, but he's practically itching to.

I know I, for one, couldnt deal with a new actress as Buffy. I actually was upset about Sarah taking Kristie Swanson's place, and didnt hop onto the show for a long time because of it. I was proven wrong on that one, and call me inflexible, but I think casting for the show was perfect. If they're gonna mess with it, I'd rather no continuation at all.

Cole Searr | May 03, 23:51 CET

Yes, Weatherby. I do.

I'm not saying just any old Hollywood starlet would do, but there's easily hundreds of women out there right now who'd want to step into those shoes, and I'd guess at least one who could pull it off. The role is greater than any one actress. SMG certainly made Buffy what she is today, but we as fans shouldn't have to stop visiting the potential wealth of stories still available from this franchise just because we can't see anyone else in the role.

They shouldn't have to write around the actress playing Buffy is my point. If the story requires Buffy they should be able to bring the character in regardless of whether or not SMG happens to be available and in the right mood at the time. I guess we'll all learn this Wednesday what happens when we're forced to work around SMGs schedule. We'll find out then whether or not this approach to appease the majority of fans actually works.

Personally I'd be satisfied with a tv series spinoff that focused on how the Scoobies handled all the new slayers, and kept both Buffy and Faith as far away from the camera as possible. I've always been more interested in the people around Buffy than in Buffy herself, but that's just me.

[ edited by ZachsMind on 2004-05-03 21:57 ]

ZachsMind | May 03, 23:53 CET

A role is more than the words on a page. If you replace an actress, it will change the character. It is impossible to mimic the portrayal done by another actress. You have to accept that it will be different and work around it. Of course, that would work, here. The last time we saw Buffy, her entire life was changing. That would make her change. I, personally, wish they had recast her with someone knew and included the line, "Look, boys, I'm not the same girl you knew in Sunnydale." If JW found a way to work her 'absence' into a good story, then I have no complaints. If it seems forced, I'll wish that he had gone another way. He rarely disappoints me, so I'll keep my hopes up for now.

jgsugden | May 04, 00:00 CET

and I'd guess at least one who could pull it of

Heh, the question isn't *could*, it's *should* and that would be an emphatic "no".

So again, in this frame of mind that no matter what, the movie/tv series should go on, no matter the actors. So, let's say again that that tele-movie comes out, and only one of the original actors is available, therefore Joss should not have to "write around" all these other actors because they are otherwise occupied and making us poor fans suffer. Therefore, other actors who simply *can* portray these roles should be brought in. It doesn't matter if the entire movie, entire chemistry, entire cast is only a shadow of it once was, as long as the show goes on. Uh-huh.

It's a slippery slope, don't ya think? Because this argument has to apply to all the other actors as well and not just centered on SMG and quite obviously, it could not work this way. For me, this show is much too lovely, much to beloved to be hacked like that.

[ edited by syd on 2004-05-03 22:17 ]

syd | May 04, 00:10 CET

Oh ye of little faith! If there's not another actress out there who could do Buffy as much justice as SMG did, then Adam West shoulda been the last man to wear the cape and cowl! I can't believe I'm even having to have this argument!

You would start with a series of 'cattle calls' with however many hundreds or thousands of actresses who show up, weed out all the interested actresses who didn't fit the bill through one or two callbacks. The quickest way to narrow down the field after going for a similar weight and build and acting talent, is experience in stuntwork and fighting choreography. That'd narrow you down to a couple hundred ladies nationwide at the most. Possibly less. From there, bring the number down to a manageable range of somewhere between three and twenty girls who survive the interviews with the casting director and Joss himself. Then you have the girls do screen tests with one or more principal actors who have signed up for the new BuffyVerse Whedonesque project. Get input from the other principals as to who they'd get along with and who they think can't cut it. Make sure the new Buffy fits in with the chemistry of the ensemble. Run the final three through the wringer with Joss as the final arbitor, and see who comes out smelling like a Buffy rose.

I'm not saying you pull any bottle blonde in off the street and throw a stake in her hand. This would not be a simple decision, but at the same time, this really is not rocket science. There are literally tens of thousands of talented women all across the country with viable experience in acting. Any one of them could be the next Buffy. They can't ALL be Buffy, but I HAVE FAITH that there's at least one woman out there besides SMG who could do it and do it well. Some of y'all wouldn't even give her a chance though, and more's the pity.

ZachsMind | May 04, 00:51 CET

I'm even having to have this argument!

Oh, darling, no one's forcing you, believe me.

Adam West shoulda been the last man to wear the cape and cowl

And once again, Batman was independent of Adam West before he portrayed it. Buffy is of a very different flavor, if you have not noticed.

who could do it and do it well.

And once again, it's not a matter of "could", it's a matter of "should". And all my other comment in response, as this is the SAME block we went around a couple of scrolls up, are in that very post.

Round and round we go... *eg*

[ edited by syd on 2004-05-03 23:09 ]

syd | May 04, 01:03 CET

I always thought the beauty of the slayerverse was that there were lots of 'em. You don't need to do the whole Bondian transition thing, because you can always say you're talking about another slayer entirely, either in the past, or now one of the recently 'chosen'. Avoids the whole fan resentment thing entirely.

giles (yes, it is my real name) | May 04, 01:09 CET

...beauty of the slayerverse...

Aside from Alyson Hannigan, of course. *sigh*

giles (yes, it is my real name) | May 04, 01:12 CET

SORRY ALL! I really thought this was common knowledge. I'll be much more conservative about spoilers in the future, I promise.

radosh | May 04, 01:14 CET

I think this whole "separation of actor and character" thing has different interpretations depending on the situation. In BtVS, changing an actor of ONE role can be a jarring experience simply beacuse we're not just used to how an actor plays a role, but how the ENSEMBLE of actors/characters interact.

So, much like theater casts, changing actors on ensembe-driven shows is more effective if the WHOLE ensemble is switched. This creates the interest of having new takes on characters without the oddness of having new faces intermingled with old.

Just my take on the subject.

protector | May 04, 01:37 CET

Okay, if Joss feels replacing the actress would ruin the integrity of the show (or a movie, should that be the case), why are you acting like those of us who feel the same way are being stubborn? They're his characters, after all. Buffy was not created to bring another medium to life, like a play or comic book, as with Batman or Shakespeare. Buffy came to life in a movie first, which had few fans. There was no demand for a television show based on that movie before it existed, as there have been demands for Superman movies or Batman movies.

Batman's actor also changed years later when Adam West doing it would have been utterly ridiculous, not two years afterwards with the rest of the cast entirely the same. It also wasn't even the same story. The Batman movies were not picking up where the show left off the way a Buffy movie would. Eartha Kitt was not playing Catwoman. Replacing SMG would be slightly akin to replacing Darren Stevens.

weatherby | May 04, 01:42 CET

ZachsMind, if you want to see another sctress play Buffy, watch the movie. (Or "Killed by Death" or "Who Are You?")

If Buffy was suddenly recast, that would be as horrible as if they suddenly decided to make Wesley a hunchback. And if they said "oh, she smashed her face and needed plastic surgery" to explain the recasting, then that would just be annoying as all hell. I don't want that.

I want either SMG or no appearance. This week's occurence is okay, since you never see her face. I hope it is done well, so that it doesn't feel forced in either direction.

Invisible Green | May 04, 01:51 CET

I think, they should change the actress with this "she smashed
her face and needed plastic surgery" storyline.And then she
could be in a coma and have a baby while in a coma. And
after she'll wake up, we'll find out that she's not Buffy, but
actually her evil twin.

ilanit | May 04, 02:40 CET

Well, I agree with ZachsMind--although I don't think it is appropriate for this particular situation, I think it is way too soon for another actor to step in.

SMG was amazing as Buffy. She did a fabulous job. I've been watching third season again and I'm so impressed really. Her performance is so subtle it is easy to underrate. I do not think she is the only person who could ever do justice to the character however. Nor do I think that someone else's interpretation of the character should involve mimicking SMG's interpretation.

I also think it's unfair to accuse him of saying that "*anyone* could" do it or that he "wanted to see another actress play Buffy". There are many characters who have been played brilliantly by different actors. Personally I think that Buffy is an exceptionally well-conceived character more akin to Shakespeare than to Darren Stevens.

For now I think that giles (yes, it is my real name) has the right idea about focusing on a different slayer until more of the dust settles.

marmoset | May 04, 02:45 CET

For now I think that giles (yes, it is my real name) has the right idea about focusing on a different slayer until more of the dust settles.

Am I the only one who wants to see more of Dana, psycho slayer? Maybe she's regained all her senses and falls in love with Spike! Yes, Spana is my dream for now.....

Rogue Slayer | May 04, 02:51 CET

playing a role for 8 years and doing a movie is definately a different thing. hey, maybe the should re-cast the actors of friends for the finale, since they cost too much (LOL)

no, but all kidding aside, i see what his point is, however i just think SMG brought the character to life, shes done it for 8 years and changing that now (or for the future) is stupid. the actor would either be mimicking SMG (which would really annoy me) or would just change the character around and make her totally different (which would really annoy me, and make me think "hey thats not the buffy im use too")

norman | May 04, 03:20 CET

Speaking of mimicking, EdDantes and I recently got Chaos Bleeds. The gal who did the voice of Buffy is SO noticeable!! Willow too. Even in things like voiceovers, I can't accept substitutes!!

Rogue Slayer | May 04, 03:43 CET

"A secret, I found a secret" , got on my nerves when Willow kept saying that in the game.

Simon | May 04, 03:47 CET

Willow in the Chaos Bleeds game sounded like Willow on valium. The girl who did Buffy also did the voice in the first game and Anya in Chaos Bleeds. Her interpertation of Anya was horrible. But she sounded pretty good in the first game.

I also would love to see Dana the psycho vampire slayer again! I really think that would be the route to go, a different slayer with a whole different personality. Look how great having Faith introduced worked out.

[ edited by blwessels on 2004-05-04 02:19 ]

Firefly Flanatic | May 04, 04:17 CET

I agree, re: other Slayers. If in three years they wanted to do another Jossverse movie, they could easily revolve it around a new Slayer or Faith if SMG didn't want to do it.

weatherby | May 04, 04:59 CET

What's so funny about all this speculation about casting another actress as Buffy instead of SMG is how she wasn't the first Buffy. It just goes to show how much Sarah has claimed the role from Kristy Swanson. Kristy who?

Keith | May 04, 05:24 CET

like was mentioned above, KW played buffy for what, 90 minutes...........SMG played her 8 eights.

norman | May 04, 05:36 CET

Well, kinda yeah, "Kristy Who?" I'm sorry, but the amount of character development she put into that role was...well, let's just say it was not even comparable to what SMG has done with Buffy. And really, nor should it be. She had one movie, SMG had 7 years. So again, the comparison is not exactly working outside of the similar name and occupation.

[ edited by syd on 2004-05-04 05:12 ]

syd | May 04, 05:41 CET

"What's so funny about all this speculation about casting another actress as Buffy instead of SMG is how she wasn't the first Buffy."

The movie and the show have separate continuities, and do not take place in the same 'verse. The show wasn't based on the movie, it was based on Joss Whedon's original script for the movie.

Recasting Buffy would be like suddenly making Giles a drag queen, or Xander a leper.


I was really upset when K.D. Auburn replaced April Weedon-Washington as Nikki Wood, and the latter actress only played that role for a few minutes.

Invisible Green | May 04, 08:02 CET

Invisible - I read that the first Nikki was a stunt-woman, but when they brought the character back they gave it lines so they needed an actress.

jenguin | May 04, 08:19 CET

April Weedon-Washington was working as a stunt woman when she was cast in "Fool for Love," but throughout her career, she has also worked as an actress and a casting director. Also, even though she didn't have any lines, her acting in the episode was fabulous. She really got into her character.

K.D. Auburn didn't completely suck as Nikki Wood, but she was IMHO one of the least talented actresses hired by ME.

Invisible Green | May 04, 08:35 CET

I'm not sure I felt K.D. Auburn was horrible, but I didn't actually pay much attention to her acting abilities. I was too busy being jarred by the fact that she wasn't the original Nikki, alas.

weatherby | May 04, 13:30 CET

According to the official Buffy Magazine the reason Wheedon Washington didn't come back was that the casting directors felt she had "a certain maturity" about her

Apocalypse | May 04, 21:24 CET