I can't say I'm surprised.

Oddjob | July 27, 04:56 CET

Is anybody surprised??? She was desperate to move on. The only way she looks back is if her movie career tanks. It's amazing how fast an actor/actress can change their minds if they get desperate enough. I don't see SMG ever becoming a superstar in film so there is always a chance.

DarenG | July 27, 05:01 CET

That's it then. There's nothing that Freddie doesn't know.

cmbackshane | July 27, 05:02 CET

What else is new?

eddy | July 27, 05:07 CET

Well except she herself has said defferently. She has said if she liked the script and if it was the right thing to do at the time. Now is not the time. Duh! He says he has never heard anything of it coming back, but we all know SMG has been asked many times and always replied the same.

Also Freddie since the last season of Buffy has not been a fan of the show,Joss or their supposed treatment of her,lashing out at Joss and others. So I tend to think these are his views not hers. They did not make Joss Whedon's Buffy on screen yet. The first movie and if there were to be another would be nothing alike except to have the Buffy name. This one would not fail, nor would I say something that lead to this very successful franchise, can ever be desribed as failed.

I Don't see Smg failing in her career. Nor does she need to to revisit Buffy. She has never had anything bad to say after Buffy, so I don't see her being too big and forgetting anything. If this were to happen, I am sure they will approach her. But Freddie is deffinatly not the final say in what Sarah, herself wants to do.

Can I say. , though when trying to promote his new show and find out about it, why you would ask about you wife's Buffy career. To me that seems out of place. And what does someone calling her Buffy in a place they visit have to do with anything? Not like I am sure it is the first time or the last. Smg is always very gracious with her fans.JMO.

[ edited by FalenAnjl on 2005-07-27 03:37 ]

FalenAnjl | July 27, 05:09 CET

*gasp* THUD

.
.

That was me acting surprised. Did I get the part?

killinj | July 27, 05:25 CET

What Buffy movie? The 'verse is dead.

KBP | July 27, 05:26 CET

The whole "husband speaking for his wife" thing rubs me the wrong way no matter who is doing it. It seems to me that if a husband or a wife is asked "what would your spouse do" if such-and-such, the right way to answer is, "you'll have to ask her (or him)." Or at least qualify your answer a smidge, to acknowledge the fact that your spouse's decision-making is ultimately his or her own, and you'll be supportive.

It's such a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure I'm not being objective. But this article makes me wince.

Definitely agree that Freddie isn't the final say - the wince comes from this (perhaps false) impression I have, that he doesn't really realize that.

sari | July 27, 05:28 CET

It sounds like the first question is asking about Tv. Which she has deffiantly said "No" to.

But the second answer really makes no sense. This not the first time he has spoken for her. Nor is it the first time he as proven wrong, as she came out and did damage control. I agree, that bugs me too. Especailly when Smg has no reason to lie to her fans or has shown she is not sincere when she says something, as Wanda tries to imply here. She does not need to keep her "buffy" fans, her fans have shown they will follow her Buffy or not

I agree as of now,except in print, the universe is not dead but moving into a different medium. Which is good so Joss can do the movies he wants the way he wants. What is the countdown clock for Serinity?

[ edited by FalenAnjl on 2005-07-27 03:38 ]

FalenAnjl | July 27, 05:31 CET

He is a little too blunt. Has anyone heard his interview on Howard Stern? I felt bad for her. He doesn't respect her privacy very much. She wants to keep her Buffy fans that's why she says "if the script is right" but he just made it sound like she's detached from it completely. He doesn't know how to say things in a way that appeases the fans.

charisma | July 27, 05:31 CET

I agree with Sari, SMG can speak for herself, she doesn't need her husband to "break news". If a movie is somewhere in the future, she will decide at the time based on her feelings...as she should!

Calledon | July 27, 05:33 CET

[ edited by nakedandarticulate on 2005-07-27 14:34 ]

nakedandarticulate | July 27, 05:40 CET

Little confused at SMG being to full of herself statement. She has every right to make a living and to after one role is done to move on make another. She does NOT owe any fans or fandom anything. She has always had very nice things to saya nd given Buffy all her dues. These are his words NOT hers. He may be married to her, but his opinions are not hers.

I may not be a fan of Freddie, but I think that comment is out of line.

FalenAnjl | July 27, 05:46 CET

Naked... I don't really think David has that outlook considering he's on tv. Bones and all. Plus, I do think ur verging on the actor bashing which I don't think is allowed here.

Anywho, as much as I would hope that SMG would one day reprise her Buffy role on the big screen, if her husband is correct in saying what he states, then I don't begrudge her one bit. I can see where she is coming from in wanting to move on and away from the character of Buffy. I personally would love if the verse were to be continued on big screen with all new actors in the roles.

And while I agree that SMG can speak for herself, Kristen or whomever did ask Freddie the Buffy question and he answered. He's her husband after all and of anyone close to her, he would have the best insight to how she feels I assume.

[ edited by nychick on 2005-07-27 03:52 ]

nychick | July 27, 05:47 CET

Fray baby! Bring it on!

FalenAnjl | July 27, 05:49 CET

Ya know, I think it's time I came around to picking up that comic. How many issues are in it?

nychick | July 27, 05:54 CET

Now if only Steve Himber could learn some PR lessons from Freddie. ;0) I'm joking by the way.

lynnie | July 27, 05:56 CET

Good one lynnie! LOL!

killinj | July 27, 06:00 CET

nychick, Although I in no way want to associate myself with nakedandartculate's post, he was talking about David Caruso not Boreanez.

...and imo actors should be allowed to move on in whatever way they wish and have spouses that embarass them, just like everybdy else. ;-)

newcj | July 27, 06:53 CET

So Freddie thinks a Buffy movie wouldn't work because it failed once already...but that was before JOss got it the way he wanted. If he DID make a Buffy movie, maybe ten years after the show began, he'd get it right. But everyone is busy and moving on. Still, how about a movie set ten years after they graduate from high school?

impalergeneral | July 27, 06:54 CET

We don't need Buffy to continue the slayerverse, or the Jossverse, or whatever. As long as Joss is attached to the project, I'm happy. Spike. Illyria. Faith. Willow. Fray. Another slayer altogether. Bringing back FIREFLY!!!

There's a whole lot more out there that can be done sans Buffy.

Nebula1400 | July 27, 07:21 CET

Yea, a Fray movie would be sweet!

nixygirl | July 27, 07:22 CET

nakedandarticulate - How articulate of you.

impalergeneral - No, I believe Sarah has stated in an interview or two that the Buffyverse if film version was attempted and failed...etc. the concept worked best as a tv series. It was something along those lines. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong. I think, he's basically reiterating what she has said in the past. Of course, if it were me, I would have probably dismissed Kirsten (who shouldn't have asked him those questions in the first place) by saying "you'd have to ask her"...It's the most diplomatic form of action.

[ edited by Kyotoyoshi on 2005-07-27 05:35 ]

Kyotoyoshi | July 27, 07:33 CET

I agree Kyotoyoshi. I think Freddie should have graciously side stepped the question because, frankly, he really doesn't know what SMG may decide to do if the opportunity arose. Yes, I'm sure they have discussed it but if she is like most women, we tend to easily change our minds if we like the sound of something. I think SMG has left the door open, if only just a little, that she would consider returning to the role if the script was something she liked. But if she never does I will always cherish her portrayal of Buffy.

That said, there are many, many things Joss could do with this verse if he wants to return to it and he is the only real person we would need to return. He can take it anywhere he wants to with any of the existing characters or introducing new characters. I'd love to see the verse returned to someday but I'm also equally, if not more excited about Serenity and what will happen in that verse. And I'm looking forward to all of JWs future projects. Who knows, maybe we'll see he and SMG working together again someday and it may have nothing to do with the Buffyverse. I'd love to see that.

Firefly Flanatic | July 27, 07:43 CET

Even if she downright said, "I refuse to do anything related to Buffy." I still would be a fan just because she was Buffy and played one of my role models growing up.

It's a smart choice to not stay with the same role forever.

Rogue | July 27, 08:29 CET

Sarah's letting Freddie talk again?? Nothing good can come of that...

Repeat after me, FPGJR, "Sometimes I shouldn't say words..."

Rogue Slayer | July 27, 08:39 CET

Well, even if Joss decides to do the completely unlikely and do a Buffy/Angel movie after all, I'm sure Nathan Fillion would be willing to step in. Maybe SMG could do a cameo as a reincarnated Caleb. But I'm not looking forward to the kissing scenes.

bobster | July 27, 08:49 CET

Well, even if Joss decides to do the completely unlikely and do a Buffy movie after all, I'm sure Nathan Fillion would be willing to step in. Maybe SMG could do a cameo as a reincarnated Caleb. But I'm not looking forward to inevitable kissing scene with Angel and/or Spike.

bobster | July 27, 08:50 CET

Mmmmm....Nathan!Buffy kissing Spike.....slashy goodness!

Rogue Slayer | July 27, 08:58 CET

nakedandarticulate: that comment was way out of line. Please tone down your remarks, or don't post. Thanks.

SoddingNancyTribe | July 27, 09:35 CET

FPjr's cluelessness regarding PR and fan relations makes you wonder how he's survived this long in Hollywood.
Kyotoyoshi is right the smart answer was to deflect the question with "you'd have to ask her", after all he was there to talk about his show not hers but Freddie seems to have a talent for not saying the smart thing, a pity.

jpr | July 27, 11:25 CET

i get a really bad vibe from freddie there, plus the movie wasnt a failure! it spawned the greatest show ever! i think with joss writing and directing a new buffy movie could be superb!

[ edited by BD on 2005-07-27 09:42 ]

BD | July 27, 11:41 CET

We all know the original BUFFY movie is not what Joss wanted. Therefore, it's failure as movie is irrelevent as to whether or not to do a BUFFY movie. It seems to me that SMG's attitude is "I want to move on and have the most fulfilling acting career I can have. But never say never to reprising the role of Buffy." Quotes are mine not hers.

I'm all for a TV movie or a theatrical film set in the Buffyverse with a slew of new characters. If Joss wants to revisit the 'verse 'cause he's thought of a story he can't resist, he will. If not, fine.

batmarlowe | July 27, 12:22 CET

I think maybe that this is all easy for SMG to deny any more Buffy at this point. There's nothing in the works.

I wonder, if a year or so from now, something became viable and they decided to recast.

Wonder what she'd say if someone else was really going to play Buffy, especially on the big screen. Just a gut feeling, but all actors have egos and something tells me that she might harbor a fondness for the role that would preclude recasting. Especially if it came down to a choice between working with Joss, or doing Scooby Doo 18. Hmmm.

Willowy | July 27, 13:14 CET

As has already been mentioned in some of the messages posted here, I don't think Freddie Prinze Jr has said anything that hasn't already been said in the past. I don't identify anything contentious in what he says, or in the way that he has chosen to express himself - not that I particularly find myself caring all that much, one way or the other. It is well known that SMG has never expressed any great desire to be involved in a 'Buffy' film, which seems fair enough to me.

As to her ego, I suspect she would survive the battering were the role to be recast, not that I personally consider the chances of a 'Buffy' film being made in the foreseeable future to be very likely. In fact, I am not aware that there has ever been any genuine suggestion that a film would be made, SMG or no SMG.

Turning to Scooby Doo 18, does that mean I've got SD3-17 to look forward to?! Seriously, though, were the Scooby Doo films really that bad? I've seen a lot worse.

alien lanes | July 27, 14:46 CET

Besides the fact that I'd totally give my husband hell for speaking on my behalf like that, I'd be rather angry that he was asked a question like that, anyway. He was probably cranky about being asked about what his wife would be doing about Buffy (a project apparently over) for the 3975296 time, and just got blunt about it so people would quit asking. It's a bad situation all around.

But, I'm actually offended by everyone's views of "failing." If the movie failed so much, why do I adore it so much? It didnt make millions of dollars in the box office, so it obviously must be a huge failure and a waste of time. Nevermind that it might mean the world to some fans.

I guess it just saddens me that everything is really about the money... how many people you can get to see a movie in a short amount of time. Basically, they wont attempt a movie unless they can bring in a gaggle of new fans... nevermind the hordes they already have.

numbereleven | July 27, 15:45 CET

A lot of people judge the movie as failing as Joss didn't like it mostly.

gossi | July 27, 15:57 CET

In line with what others (Kyotoyoshi and dashboardprophet to name two) have said, I don't really understand why anyone would be surprised or offended by what Freddie has said here. He hasn't said anything that Sarah or Joss haven't said themselves on the subject. He practically quoted Sarah's usual response to the question word for word. She leaves the door open slightly (as any sane person would) by saying that if there was an amazing script etc then of course she'd check it out. But she always says that she thinks the idea worked best in the format of a show, that there's already been a movie and it failed (in part she thinks because 2 hours isn't enough to deal with all of the character stuff and mythology that the Buffyverse requires). Then Joss has also said that he's focusing on other things in the immediate future. Freddie was asked a question and answered appropriately IMO. I certainly wouldn't give my husband hell for answering a question that he was asked about me in the way that he did. He certainly didn't reveal anything new or that she would have told him in confidence.

[ edited by Impossible on 2005-07-27 14:41 ]

Impossible | July 27, 16:31 CET

Indeed - I never thought I'd EVER type this - but I agree with Freddy here. If a new BTVS movie is made, it would have to be in the gearing of Serenity - as in, major epic motion picture event, to work. Simply having a 2 hour Buffy episode wouldn't work, IMHO.

gossi | July 27, 16:42 CET

Of course, if it were me, I would have probably dismissed Kirsten

It's not clear whether Kristen asked those questions or if she is just reporting on what was asked at the event where many other reporters were present. I do agree that the best response would have been to tell the reporter to ask his wife.

killinj | July 27, 17:21 CET

I tend to think she asked as it has not been widely reported by the media,like Aly's question. Plus In her column she says he wanted to talk frank about Buffy, which I would find weird. I doubt when there to promote his own new show he just sat down and decided to only dish about Buffy and his wife's intrest.No, I am thinking , Kristen trying to get scope, like the Aly one, made this into something alot bigger then it was(like the Aly thing).

Always ask the wife, such an easy way to get out of most of life's troubles=)

FalenAnjl | July 27, 17:33 CET

True, I just didn't make the assumption because there are other reporters at the event and some of them have asked Whedonverse related questions.

killinj | July 27, 18:20 CET

I'm not particularly upset at this news. I'm just going to give my thoughts on this matter.

Sarah Michelle Gellar has given us seven fantastic years on Buffy, as have the rest of the cast. The same goes for Angel.

I personally would love to see something set in the Buffy-verse and whilst it would be nice to see familiar characters again, I will still love whatever it is as long as Joss is at the helm. Both SMG and David Boreanaz have said that they are reluctant to return to either show on TV. SMG is focusing on more of a film career and DB said that for him to return it would have to be raising the bar.

Whilst both Buffy and Angel were fantastic, it wouldn't be satisfying for them to simply return to the same format. It would have to be very different, or much more epic such as a film. Whilst there are certain things that they gave ruled out, there are still plenty of options open that they would consider. SMG says that if the script is right she would consider it. DB's comments about raising bars implies that it would have to be a film or something. So it is still possible that either or both of them would want to do it again at some point, in some format. It seems SMG doesn't want to become typecast by returning to the role so quickly but I'm sure if she establishes herself as an actress and finds a few more roles then she won't need to worry about that.

Joss has also said that he wants to return to the 'verse at some point, but not immediately because he is focusing on films with Serenity and Wonder Woman. However, in a few years time he can do anything he wants, whether it be a new series or a miniseries or a TV movie or perhaps even a feature film. In the latter situation, SMG or DB may be interested. But he doesn't have to stick to the characters of Buffy or Angel, because there is already a strong range of characters that could be used. He could make Fray into a feature film, or even do a miniseries in a "Tales of the Slayers" format. In which case he doesn't need SMG or DB.

I don't see anything happening immediately and of course the cast and crew can't wait around, they have to get on with their lives and careers, and they are doing so successfully. However there is always the chance that any of them could return for something in the Buffy-verse, and of course there are probably dozens of stories Joss could develop.

So I'm just going to be patient. It's only a matter of time, because Joss is keen to do something and I'm sure something will materialise eventually.

Razor | July 27, 19:18 CET

Mike Ausiello did a report on the press tour including Freddie's comments on a Buffy movie as well. You can read it on his Insider column. Scroll down to about halfway down the page.

killinj | July 27, 19:25 CET

The difference is, it'd be really hard to sell a Buffy movie without Buffy there. Ditto Angel. Yes, the fans would line up to see it, but you don't need to convince the fans, you need to convince the studio execs who pony up the money.

As Razor mentioned, I think it'd be easier to shoot for a miniseries format. SciFi or HBO would eat that stuff up.

PMMJ | July 27, 19:37 CET

Reading the article that killnj provided, puts his remarks in context. And Sarah's earned her dues, if she doesn't want to a Buffy movie fair play to her. I'm not expecting her to do one.

Simon | July 27, 20:16 CET

Maybe we'll see SMG back as "Buffy aged 70", in the slayer retirement home, telling everyone about all the vamps she dusted and showing them Mr Pointy. If Sarah Jane Smith is coming back to Doctor Who after twenty eight years...

But I think she's right. If they did a TV Movie or a Christmas Special or something and it was anything less that absolutly fantastic and mind blowing then there's no point in doing it. If Joss has a great idea that he HAS to tell and will knock our socks off then do it.

zz9 | July 27, 21:22 CET

My own feeling is Sarah has zero interest in returning to the Verse and her "never say never" comments are her being gracious and aknowledging what an important part of her life playing Buffy was.

Reddygirl | July 27, 21:28 CET

I disagree with the assumption that a new BTVS feature film starring SMG would fail. I've heard Sarah say something similar. It's just a cop out. She's thinking "never again" re: Buffy but doesn't want to say "never" for fear of losing fans. How egocentric and lame. Just say it, sister... you're a liberated woman and isn't that what Buffy is all about? -mattro

Hjermsted | July 27, 21:54 CET

Okay, about this whole SMG movie choices thing: does anyone ever have the scene from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back when Matt Damon is talking to Ben Affleck about how to chose movies going through thier heads? You know the one I am talking about. Award winning movie first, THEN the stupid money maker.

Genia | July 27, 22:01 CET

Well Freddie rarely words things the same way as SMG. To the movie question, she generally says "I don't know. Not likely, but you never know. Depends on the script." He says: "No never."

And I agree that 'I speak for my spouse' is rarely a good idea in this business. And Freddie has a pretty poor track record when it comes to how he chooses to word things. Which is strikingly different from Sarah, who is always very professional.

(But hey, thanks to Freddie we know that the real reason Sarah quit Buffy is because she wasn't being 'thanked enough' so I guess we should all give him some props?)

The oddest thing to me is their argument that a future BtVS movie won't work 'because' the first one didn't work. The reasons the first one bombed have nothing to do with a possible future attempt by Joss himself. The project was completely messed up from what Joss intended. Their argument seems to be that it's now been proven that on TV, Buffy works, and on the big screen she can't. As if it's solely a matter of medium.

Now I don't have the impression Joss has any plans, I don't feel Sarah would be under any obligation, or that it would be a guaranteed success. But their reasoning just seems to be more than a little shaky.

EdDantes | July 27, 22:50 CET

Freddie's comments make more sense reading AA and looking at her earlier comments.

Here are her responses from earlier this year(mulit publications):

-Although she has some hesitation about bringing her vampire slaying Buffy character to the big screen, Sarah Michelle Gellar says she hasn't completely ruled out the idea.

-Which deters me is the fact that Buffy as a film hasn't already been working before, although I find it very good. I think Buffy works better, when the characters have more place for their own story instead of only two hours.

-If someone came to me and it looked like just the perfect two hours that I thought wouldn't disappoint then it would absolutely be something that I would consider, but I haven't seen that yet."

-I don't reject it in principle, but in present there is not even a film script.

-but who’s knows in two years someone may come up with a good script...'

So Freddie is dead on. But Smg has said she would have to have a script first to make a decision, that is not happening, so as of now the answer is no. Tv, as Buffy again has always been a NO.

I am very cool with that. I would rather her come back to something she is very excited over, then just come back because of the fans. She does not owe us. I look forward to her very exciting career especailly ST and Alice. So maybe one day, after Joss does his Serinity Trilogy and Wondy 1 & 2. He is a busy man and right now worring about the Buffverse is the least of his multiple thoughts.

I am curious at where people got the impression she was not grateful for Buffy and Joss. Or left because she was not getting thanked enough.

FalenAnjl | July 27, 23:24 CET

"They already made one and it didn't work. That's why they made the TV show. It worked so well as a tv show."

Well, I´m agree with him (not about a Buffy movie failing in the future).
I think I don´t want a movie now, with everything closed. A few years ago, maybe, but not now.
Buffy and Angel are better as a series (that´s only my opinion)

[ edited by Angel TheVampire on 2005-07-27 22:14 ]

Angel TheVampire | July 28, 00:07 CET

FalenAnjl, I believe that Freddie was quoted saying that Sarah wasn't been treated well or something. I don't really want to discuss it much, but I have heard rumours about ill feeling between cast/crew members on both Buffy and Angel, and it is quite disappointing considering how united and proud of their work they should be. I have no idea who was in the right and who was in the wrong, but through some things people have said it sounds like they didn't always get along the best. Like Alyson Hannigan said that she first found out Buffy was ending from a newspaper or something, that SMG didn't tell anyone she was quitting.

But as I said, it's better not to dwell on this stuff. Freddie seems to harbour some resentment but SMG seems to have moved past it, as I assume the rest of the team have. Whilst she isn't desperate to do a Buffy film, like she said, if it was the right script and at the right time then she would consider it.

EdDantes, I agree with you. The original film wasn't Joss's vision. Personally I didn't like it at all, which just shows how different I think the film and series were. I do agree that Buffy worked better as a series, and I'd much rather have 144 episodes than three films. But at the stage we've reached now, I don't think SMG or DB is keen to start another series, so a film would be the only suitable format, and it could work. We won't witness the same character development and ongoing plots, by the very nature of a film, but it could still be very true to the series, just as smart and funny and beautiful and exciting.

Take Serenity, for example. It would have been nice if the series wasn't cancelled, but it was. And whilst we do lose some of the more long term elements afforded to a TV series, there are benefits to having a film. A bigger budget. More special effects and stunts. But there can still be a great story behind it, even if it isn't the same as a series. And I think the same is still true of Buffy or Angel.

I didn't think the film actually did that badly, did it? Does anyone know roughly how it performed both in the box office and on video/DVD?

Razor | July 28, 00:12 CET

I think it did better in video then film. There is deffiantly a cult following for the first one. I laughed so hard in the theater. it was a good campy movie. Nothing like our Buffy now, but really not something that should be torn down as an awful film. On it's own legs, it had some great scenes.

I think a film could work . I loved X-files, but it's film was very good and I did not feel sacraficed anything. Same with some of the Star Trek :TNG films( though not this last one or the one with Shatner.) It just takes time, a love for the characters,and a great writer.

Oh and The Buffy movie grossed $16,624,456 (usa) in 1992.

[ edited by FalenAnjl on 2005-07-27 22:31 ]

FalenAnjl | July 28, 00:20 CET

Hjermsted, your "egocentric and lame" comment was totally uncalled for. Let's try to retain a degree of civility here.

And please don't sign your posts. Thanks.

SoddingNancyTribe | July 28, 00:30 CET

"Oh and The Buffy movie grossed $16,624,456 (usa) in 1992."

I bet Serenity does more than that its first weekend...maybe its opening day.

Chris inVirginia | July 28, 01:20 CET

I begrudge SMG nothing, and am behind her 100%.

That said - you're her husband, sweetie, not her publicist.

Daromaius | July 28, 01:43 CET

How does anyone know SMG objects to the comments her husband has made regarding her career? If perchance she doesn't, why should anyone else? And if she does, she's a grown woman, successful, and, I suspect, capable of handling the situation herself.

jaynelovesvera | July 28, 02:30 CET

I would hope so with inflation and all.j/k=)

I tend to think the same people who are attacking her, are likened to the same people who can not accept JM and his role choices in his life. We are the fans, they are the actors, and as much as well love them, these are nothing but characters. We need to respect them and if we can not we need to walk away.

[ edited by FalenAnjl on 2005-07-28 02:15 ]

FalenAnjl | July 28, 02:31 CET

to the same peole who can not except JM

My apologies to the mods, my fellow board members, and to FalenAnjl, but this has been bugging me. I'm sure misspelling the word "people" was just a typo, no big deal, however the word is "accept" not except. They mean totally different things. And, while I'm on the topic its Serenity, not Serinity. Also, Illyria, not Illyara. We all make mistakes, but could we at least make an effort to spell Whedon's own creations correctly. Again, I apologize. I'll put the nag back in her cage.

[ edited by killinj on 2005-07-28 04:15 ]

killinj | July 28, 03:29 CET

No need for apologies, killinj. In fact, thank you for pointing it out.

SoddingNancyTribe | July 28, 08:15 CET

Charisma, the Howard Stern interview you mentioned... I'm curious. Were you saying FPJ talked Buffy there? If so, do you have a link for it? It seems like it would be an interesting read.

bravegal | July 28, 19:21 CET

This thread seems dead, but just in case, people asked where people get the idea that SMG wasn't grateful, well: FPJ said that himself on a talkshow. He said Sarah had to put up with a lot of nonsense on Buffy, that she didn't have to do the show, that she should be thanked for doing it at all, that she wasn't, and that that was the 'real' reason for her not coming back. Not making this up and it's not being pulled out of context either.

This has nothing to do with 'not accepting SMG's choices' or 'not supporting her'. This is just commenting on her husbands inability to discern what to say and what not to say in public.

[ edited by EdDantes on 2005-07-28 18:10 ]

EdDantes | July 28, 20:08 CET

EdDantes - But, he never directly said that she wasn't grateful. Just because a person had to deal with many headaches and nonsense doesn't mean they weren't grateful for an experience. Even if after a while she didn't want to get up to go to work every day, she still did it for a reason. If her job had held absolutely no emotional attachment for her...then she wouldn't have gone back no matter how much money she was getting.

I hate my current job to the nth degree but the people who I work with (i.e. not people who run the business/program/whatever) and the children who I work with make it bearable. My friends also can't stand it and the only reason we get up every morning and do our jobs is because of the kids we work with. Many of us quit in the middle of the job/won't be going back next month for a new session; the "real" reason I and others are leaving is in large part because of the horrible way we (and at times the children) were/are treated and how unorganised and chaotic everything was/is...but we still have fond memories associated with our jobs. No amount of money can keep me there however; it's simply too frustrating.

Anyone who has had a love-hate (or mostly hate) relationship with any job might understand his phrasing about not being appreciated enough (feeling like people no longer cared about any of your opinions). He certainly didn't phrase his words carefully and I too wished he hadn't said anything but that doesn't mean I or anyone else has the right to assume that she was not grateful for her experience. Perhaps he was tired of complaints and or whinging about job-related issues. It's difficult seeing people you love having to deal with difficult situations every single day, especially since when people have horrible days they sometimes take their anger/annoyance out on people they love.

Of course, if it were me, I would have probably dismissed Kirsten (who shouldn't have asked him those questions in the first place) by saying "you'd have to ask her"...It's the most diplomatic form of action.

I've noticed some interpreting this as a dig on FPJ, I suppose in a way it is. I do think that he is at times too honest when speaking to the media but not in this case. As I stated, he was just reiterating what Sarah stated. Although, I believe, to keep things diplomatic and to not cause any kind of resentment toward his wife or himself courtesy of the fans, he should have said otherwise.

[ edited by Kyotoyoshi on 2005-07-29 05:23 ]

Kyotoyoshi | July 29, 07:17 CET

EdDantes: Yes, and general thinking seems to be that those comments were directed at Fox... who have also been criticised by Emma Caulfield and Amber Benson (as well as possibly others, I have no idea). Nobody suggests that they weren't "grateful".

Impossible | July 29, 13:59 CET