Buffy Re-boot W/Out Joss

[The Mike]

Here comes the blasphemy. I'm looking forward to it. People said rebooting Bond would fail and I like the Craig Bonds more than any other. People said that rebooting Batman was stupid and I liked those more than the others. People even said rebooting the Hulk was a dumb move right after the Ang Lee film and I loved the Norton version more than the first. Let's not forget Star Trek which many people cried out in horror and the reboot made me a fan of a franchise I cared nothing about.

So bring on the Whedonless Buffy, I'm interested to see what they do because let's be honest, if it sucks they'll leave the Whedon Buffy alone for a while and if its a hit we get more Buffy stuff out there. It's often true that the creator isn't exactly the best person to care for a license especially after time has passed, I mean look at Lucas.

 

[binky]

Oops. Yeah. Nolan's BATMAN. Definitely a good reboot. Maybe even great (to me it'll depend on number 3). I can't believe I left it out.

IMO the Burton-Depp re-dos are a weird thing to judge, mainly because Burton has such an unusual macabre outlook, you either get it or you don't. I loved the original projects--Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, then watched the latest adaptations(Alice, Wonka) and found myself yawning. Not to say they weren't worth doing, since they're so quirky, no one else would do a film the same way. I just found them mediocre, I guess, while I know others still feel a deep connection to that child-like gothic outlook he spun into them. It probably was too personal an example on my part.

I'd generally agree the timing is pretty bad for Buffy now. Vampires are so over-saturated it looks like a money grab to revisit it right now, especially if the reboot does nothing radically different from Joss's Buffy. There's the Catch-22. To me a good reboot will do something more or even just different from the original, but if the original is good as is, why bother? OTOH I do think there are a lot of great side-stories yet to tell though, a lot of source material that can still be tapped. Some have already been told very well, without Joss.

 

[RJMacReady16]

See, it's that easy.

Can yall start oil wrestling now?

 

[BuffyGirl]

Can yall start oil wrestling now?

I will have to take a pass on that one. I will however with SMG.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the Buffy franchise seems to have little to no juice left so I doubt a reboot regardless of who does it will fly far, but yeah, the chances are best with him authoring it. Not to say he can't lay a dud (ahem, Dollhouse, and season 8 is a mixed bag I have to say) so I wouldn't sign up on faith alone but his hits are real doozies. Still, I'd give any reboot (like Season 8) a chance just because it's Buffy.

Buffy isn't a character like Batman, Superman or Spiderman that have had many excellent and varied interpretations over the years and can always be introduced to a new generation through an update.

Buffy is a one note joke and that's how the Kazui's did the first movie. They didn't get the humor or irony that was in the script and that Joss brought to the series. It's his writing and guidance that turned this one-note joke into enduring characters. Without him it's just Twilight with a little more testosterone.

But to say that a female driven romantic vampire property is irrelevant is really, really wrong. The only reason this reboot is happening is because of the success of Twilight, True Blood and that ilk.

 

[binky]

I thought the reboot was still hypothetical. If it’s already been mapped, all this is moot.

I think we're saying the same thing. Buffy is not Twilight or True Blood. The female leads in those shows are more traditional. How they use their femininity to live with their feral male vampire companions is the basis of their stories and why they are more typically in the gothic romance genre than Buffy which is, as you say, satirical. An implausible super-hero in the form of an under-sized teenaged girl. The reason Twilight and True Blood are relevant today is precisely because they are gothic romances, which Buffy is not. I really doubt their audiences are the same and to assume they are is very iffy. To tap that same audience in an adaptation of any type would mean remaking Buffy into something it is not and would likely fail horribly, as it should. What is the point of aspiring to mediocrity, which is what Twilight is?

I agree, there is no point in anyone, including Joss, re-doing Buffy as it’s a fantastic achievement as is. There is more point in someone re-booting the franchise via continuation or spin-off (hey, like the comics). Preferably Joss (but then the comics kinda sucked, often and hard, so apparently it wouldn’t be a slam dunk for him, either). The question of some kind of re-interpretation is even murkier.

 

[risingstar]

But to say that a female driven romantic vampire property is irrelevant is really, really wrong. The only reason this reboot is happening is because of the success of Twilight, True Blood and that ilk.

I agree.

Also, for whatever reason, we're hearing some women appear to claim this show as their own (for girls). I could not disagree more. To dismiss the male audience, not to mention the male perspective, seems quite ironic, when you think about it. What's also bizarre is that the perspective of some women are also being rejected. IMO, this is a great show which happens to center around a girl. Guys don't have to be the central part of a show to be enjoyed by guys (or girls, for that matter).

So when do we get to see a trailer??

 

[binky]

The only reason this reboot is happening is because of the success of Twilight, True Blood and that ilk.

Did someone actually admit to this or is it just a common-sense guess? It kind of implies that any reboot would focus on the Buffy-Angel relationship. If that's the case, I for one won't bother. The best thing that happened to Buffy was to kick Angel into his own show so they could each do their own thing. I guess that leads to...

So when do we get to see a trailer??

Is this project seriously at the trailer stage?

Also, for whatever reason, we're hearing some women appear to claim this show as their own (for girls). I could not disagree more. To dismiss the male audience, not to mention the male perspective, seems quite ironic, when you think about it. What's also bizarre is that the perspective of some women are also being rejected.

I have not heard anyone being dismissed, just some (yes, women mostly, but you're generalizing as well) expressing their own interpretation of the show, perhaps more strongly than they have in the past--specifically a result of the Willow statue, which had an intensely polarizing effect. I haven't seen anyone else's interpretation suppressed in the process. How could that even happen in this type of forum when, as BG said, everyone has the option of ignoring people they don't agree with? Does everything have to be prefaced with IMO?

IMO: I happen to agree that female empowerment is a huge part of Buffy, because the super-hero lead (and a big part of her team) is a teenaged girl, and that is very very uncommon, even today. This is one show I would love my pre-teen niece to watch and get into, just because it shatters stereotypes left and right about what a girl can and can't do because of her gender.

Buffy is also a coming of age story, a star-crossed romance, and traditional super-hero/fantasy show. But those are far more common, so I can take those aspects of the show for granted. She can watch Twilight or Batman or a hundred other things and get that stuff. Of course those stories may be what makes Buffy interesting to others so that might be what they focus on. I don't mind, as I'm sure they don't care I don't mind. Enjoy away.

I will admit that I am guilty of Twilight-bashing any opportunity I get (I've only done a little here) so to those members who watch Buffy primarily (or only) for the Buffy-Angel romance, I guess I have been unkind and overly opinionated. I'm in the middle of season 3 now, and I have to recant and say, yes, Buffy is a sort of gothic romance. Maybe because it's those parts (the Angel moping about Buffy and/or himself and Buffy moping about Angel) that I'm tempted to fast-forward through the most that I glossed over that part of the story in my last post.

 

[Kross]

Why are they rebooting the series?

 

[Chapter 2099]

Why are they rebooting the series?

I think right now the talks just involve a reboot of the movie, not the TV series...yet.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Did someone actually admit to this or is it just a common-sense guess?

More than common sense, more like "duh, obvious".

And the project is being written - not at the casting stage, and definitely not at the trailer stage.

 

[Anzik]

There is a definite 'cashing in' on the current vampire craze, which is part of what boggles my mind. The current vampire fetish portrays them, not as villains but as a misunderstood species, to which some are 'good' and some are 'bad' that happens to prey on humans, and Whedon's vamps were the evil, soulless demons.
Personally I don't understand the wishy washy cuddly vampire genre. The vampire represented the fear of the darkness and the thing that lurked beyond the tree line, but was more than just a wolf, it was a twisted incarnation of a human. Possibly a loved one that has come back as something different and evil. It seems there are some people who are uncomfortable addressing evil as evil. Similar to the soap operas who routinely have so many characters commit rape and then go on to become leading men. One of the things I love about Harry Potter is Rowling's depiction of Voldemort as pure evil with no redemption.
Thats where Whedon's version was so different. Angel wasn't misunderstood, he had to be engineered, and at the same time had was not absolved of his evil, he had to battle it in every moment. To further make his point he went so far as to make a whole episode devoted to the Anne Rice fans who were infatuated with the "lonely ones".
If the new incarnation is going to stay true to that premise, I don't see how it will float with the new audience that wants to cuddle their sparkly vampire.
Ultimately, it leads us back to the same question: Why Hollywood goes back and remakes things that were done so well. Why don't they go back and take an idea that was a good idea that was just poorly executed and make it better.

 

[binky]

I’ll wait for something more definitive then. I don’t see the point in making up your mind about something that hasn’t even happened.

And what do I know? Apparently, not how to pick a winner. Twilight was voted favorite movie in the People's Choice award. I guess I won’t be pitching any screenplays to any big-house movie studios any time soon. But who knows? Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised as a consumer if this one ever makes it past the script stage.

There is a definite 'cashing in' on the current vampire craze, which is part of what boggles my mind. The current vampire fetish portrays them, not as villains but as a misunderstood species, to which some are 'good' and some are 'bad' that happens to prey on humans, and Whedon's vamps were the evil, soulless demons.
Personally I don't understand the wishy washy cuddly vampire genre. The vampire represented the fear of the darkness and the thing that lurked beyond the tree line, but was more than just a wolf, it was a twisted incarnation of a human. Possibly a loved one that has come back as something different and evil. It seems there are some people who are uncomfortable addressing evil as evil. Similar to the soap operas who routinely have so many characters commit rape and then go on to become leading men. One of the things I love about Harry Potter is Rowling's depiction of Voldemort as pure evil with no redemption.
Thats where Whedon's version was so different. Angel wasn't misunderstood, he had to be engineered, and at the same time had was not absolved of his evil, he had to battle it in every moment. To further make his point he went so far as to make a whole episode devoted to the Anne Rice fans who were infatuated with the "lonely ones".
If the new incarnation is going to stay true to that premise, I don't see how it will float with the new audience that wants to cuddle their sparkly vampire.
Ultimately, it leads us back to the same question: Why Hollywood goes back and remakes things that were done so well. Why don't they go back and take an idea that was a good idea that was just poorly executed and make it better.

Interesting points about Angel. I do think there was some tongue-and-cheek to the anti-Rice references in the show (like the way he railed in the Lie to Me episode about the wannabe cult dressing a certain way, then one of them walks by him wearing a matching outfit). Similarly, I think Angel (with soul) was a precursor to Edward, who in both the books and the movies is basically a good person who happens to be an immortal human blood addict which has led to a brooding life of isolation to remove himself from temptation. He’s like an overly simplified Angel looked at that way.

The success of Twilight was partly because of the success of Buffy, which was partly because of the success of Anne Rice, which was partly because of the success of 50s horror films, which were based on Victorian horror novels. The next logical succession to Twilight of humanized vampires is exactly the Vampire Diaries and other cuddly vampires. I am not sure reversing course back to Buffy would be possible, much less lucrative enough for a profit-seeking company to try but again I'm horrible at judging future trends. If you’ve given up on the comics, there was a point in the current Twilight arc of Buffy (written by Joss), where before he’s unmasked, Buffy says something about her vampire coming first then Twilight saying “I know.” It’s actually kind of fascinating how it riffs over who-came-first, but in the end, neither is original, not even the Victorians when you go down the line far enough.

Actually, if you go through the vampires instead of the slayers (which not coincidentally is where Joss diverged, and is what really makes Buffy unique), I think Bill in True Blood is more directly connected to Anne Rice’s vicious vampires—he’s the exact opposite of a cuddly vampire, which you can argue Angel and Edward are.

 

[BuffyGirl]

he’s the exact opposite of a cuddly vampire, which you can argue Angel and Edward are.

All very good, and I have nothing to say on any of it besides the last part. Angel was NOT really a cuddly vampire. He had a soul. Vampires do not have souls. When Angel lost his again and became Angelus, we got back the soulless evil fiend. That's the way vampires are meant to be, evil. Not soft and loving and cuddly and the only reason Angel was, was because of the curse of a soul. Notice how it's called a curse. So, I don't think IMHO that Angel can be considered soft and cuddly. It's just how I feel.

 

[Fetunche]

If you Angel is soft and cuddly re-watch the episode where he leaves Jenny for Giles to find.

 

[Superlaz]

has there been any recent rumbling from the 'writer'?

 

[Superlaz]

The writer of the proposed production I mean, if that wasnt clear.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

has there been any recent rumbling from the 'writer'?

haven't heard anything in a while

 

[Stinker's Stuff]

Joss Whedon's already lost Buffy once with the first craptastic movie, no one else can do his sarcastic humor, fabulous dialogue, develop rich, deeply formed characters like he can. Joss makes it with love, like's mom's home cooking.

And making it like a serious, horror flick, Buffy? Really? Just leave the franchise and story alone and make your own vampire silliness Wes Anderson. You can put Megan Fox in a bikini, give her a wooden stake and have her hunt vampires while erotically sucking on her index finger. (If Wes is reading and steals that idea, I want commission.)

 

[BuffyGirl]

I just hope that the Avengers movie is successful and Joss gets a ton of dough and buys Buffy!