Whedon fans are up in arms over the widely reported notion of “Buffy” being rebooted on the big screen sans Whedon.
I could very well be wrong–in fact, wouldn’t be surprised if I was–but I see this as a big negotiating ploy. I think that at some point the producers must have approached Whedon, he had terms they were reluctant to meet (money, creative control, whatever) and so they’ve gone public with the notion that they’re willing to proceed without him in order to gain negotiating leverage.
I would not be the least bit surprised if, should a feature film go forward, Whedon winds up attached to it. Of course, knowing Hollywood, I also wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t. Still, it’s worth pointing out that Gene Roddenberry was creatively involved with “Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture” and actively discouraged fans from seeing “The Wrath of Khan” as being inconsistent with his vision of “Star Trek.” And Gene’s fans were no less rabid than Joss’s. But can anyone deny the relative merits of the two films?
So anything’s possible…
PAD
• 
Apparently this is not the case – the Kazuis say they have not spoken to him about the matter at all. (I suspect he fell out with them during the production of the 1992 film – as he said at the wrap, “it was funny when I wrote it”…)
And no one in Hollywood ever lies. And the only reason anyone ever leaves a project is “creative differences.” And hey, how about that sex scene in the final episode of “Bones” that absolutely, positively wasn’t going to be a dream because the producer assured fans that that wouldn’t be the case.
.
In fact, their assertion that they haven’t spoken to him at all convinces me even more than they did.
.
PAD
I suspect it’s more likely that the Kazuis have tried to contact him, and he hasn’t returned their calls…
But that wasn’t a dream, it was a hallucination. Totally different, yes sir.
I read somewhere that his comment about a movie was:
“I hope it’s cool”
How dare you offer perspective! All we want is rants about this subject! 🙂
I am not thrilled if Joss is being dissed, but at the same time, I didn’t love the last two seasons of the show and think that the comic isn’t working anymore. So maybe a new approach is needed.
I just can’t see a need to reboot a franchise that is so relatively new.
Whether they’ve approached Joss or not, I don’t dig the thought of them taking the original movie and just revamping it (pun absolutely intended) so that they can jump aboard the Twilight gravy train. Now, if they wanted to take the Tales of the Slayer route instead, they’d have four volumes of stories to draw from, and they could make as many movies as they want without ticking off the loyal fanbase.
I just want to say Summer Glau would make a great BtVS
A remake of Buffy is different than Trek, at least in my mind.
Trek has been inmany hands throughout the years. Buffy has been a small team of people with a similar vision.
Can a reboot be good? sure, but it was not the keen concept of a Valley Girl Vamp killer that made me love BTVS, it was the characters (many of who were not in the movie) and the writing.
I am not honestly sure that Buffy needs a remake. Now a movie continuing the story from the show, with the original cast? Bring it on!!
With Twilight proving itself to be such a big hit dusting off Buffy is a good idea. The audience that they are going for won’t care about what came before and there just isn’t enough Whedon fans to make or break this project. No matter what they say the suits are betting that they won’t be able to stay away from the theatre. I can see why they wouldn’t want to hire Joss, whose recent projects have been…a cancelled TV show turned into a forgettable movie and a show that barely limped to a second season. The suits are looking to break away from tiny crazy cult/guilty pleasure status. Plus they wouldn’t be tied down with years of continuity.
Well Joss Whedon said in an interview just a week ago that any movie rumours are just that, rumours, until he makes an announcement to the press. Of course, right after that we get this announcement from the Kuzui’s, but I think as far as he is concerned, there will be no Buffy movie that he’s involved with. Especially since he had hardly anything to add after the announcement came out. Plus, even though rebooting is a trend right now, he does like to work with the same actors, and unless the stars are really aligned, I seriously doubt Gellar and Whedon are gonna be involved in a Buffy movie right now. Of course, as much as I love Buffy, i’m not even sure i’d wanna see a Buffy movie even if he was involved. Between the TV series and the comics, it just seems too much like cashing in.
From what I’ve read, it’s not only gonna be Joss-less, but Buffy-et-al.-less – not a reboot (which IMHO involves the same basic characters – Kirk/Spock/McCoy, Bruce Banner, Bond/M, Bruce Wayne, what have you) so much as utilizing the “in every generation a Slayer is born…” concept to tell a *different* Slayer’s story.
.
If that’s the case, Joss not being involved won’t bug me so much, since, y’know, I’ll have absolutely no reason to watch it. And even if I do decide to watch it, it won’t really be missing his voice, what with the whole none of his characters thing.
.
And honestly? I’d rather he spend his time trying to turn Dollhouse into the show I *know* it can be. Or getting a second Firefly movie out into the ‘verse…
.
“I am a leaf in the wind, watch how I *SCHUCK*” *snifs* Still gets me every time…
“I am a leaf in the wind, watch how I *SCHUCK*” *snifs* Still gets me every time…
I cried like a baby.
No more malware errors! Hooray!
Two thoughts–to the creative types out there, and you know who you are, how willing would you be to let someone else play in the world you made? And second, and this is probably just me, do we NEED more Buffy? Did we need a new Trek? Did we need a new Indiana Jones? And, having watched a bunch of them on Sci-Fi, I KNOW we don’t need a new Land of the Lost.
New Trek was excellent, IMHO. Maybe we didn’t absolutely NEED it, but… do we really NEED *any* movies or TV?
.
Much as I hate to admit it… we didn’t need Indy 4 at all. In the slightest. Not even a tiny bit. Especially any parts of it that had to do with fridges or swinging through trees.
.
Will Ferrell clearly utterly and totally ruined Land of the Lost, just from the previews. Yes, the original show was quite camp… but the movie has obviously gone the route of “stupid” fun instead of campy fun.
.
A new movie set in the Buffyverse, featuring a different slayer? That could be quite good. Admittedly, it could also be quite horrendous. Do we NEED it? Well, no. No more than we need, say, Iron Man. Or Spider-Man. Or Transformers. Or… uh… dang, I honestly can’t think of any movies in recent history which I thoroughly enjoyed that *wasn’t* an adaptation of some sort or another. I dunno whether that says more about me or Hollywood…
As a long time Land of the Lost fan (and regular contributor to the Landofthelost.com website), I don’t consider the series to be “campy.” But then maybe we have different definitions. To me, “camp” brings to mind the Adam West Batman series.
Land of the Lost, while operating under the limitations of a Saturday morning budget, stood head and shoulders above other Saturday morning shows of its era. Its first season was script edited by David Gerrold (who, in many ways, was the series true creator). The Pakuni language was developed by UCLA linguist Dr. Victoria Fromkin, and contributing writers included Gerrold, Larry Niven, D.C. Fontana, Walter Koenig and Wina Sturgeon.
Another thing that made Land of the lost stand out, especially in comparison with other Saturday morning shows, is the way the mystery– if you will– unfolded slowly, over the course of the first season. On the one hand, the slow reveal suggested the audience was patient and intelligent enough to come back each week, to learn more. On the other hand, it also provided a subtle bit of the cliffhanger, as if to say, “You want to learn more about these Sleestak creatures? You’ll have to keep watching.”
That’s not to say the show was serialized. It wasn’t. Each episode can be watched independently of the others. They are complete, in and of themselves. But, there is an underlying subtext of discovery running through the season. In the second episode, “The Sleestak God”, we first discover the Lost City (and the Sleestak). But it isn’t until the sixth episode, “The Stranger”, that we begin to learn anything about the people who built the city.
Likewise, a pylon is first seen in the first episode, “Cha-Ka”, but the Marshalls don’t learn more about them for several more weeks.
And in the fourth episode, “Downstream”, the Marshalls discover the river is circular, returning to its source, but it’s not until the 16th episode, “Hurricane”, that they are able to see a visual example of the nature of the closed universe.
Now granted the acting wasn’t always as good as it could have been– I’ll give that the acting on the 1990s remake (among the three main actors) seemed a bit more… polished– but Land of the Lost was an (overall) very well done science fiction series, and the only Sid and Marty Krofft Saturday morning series to last more than one season.
Compared to the 1990s remake, which was filmed in a park and looked like it was in a park somewhere (and which had Sleestak sounding like Mortimer Snerd), the original Land of the lost, while filmed in a studio, felt like another world. As I’ve said elsewhere, the original Land of the Lost (despite its various flaws, which includes much of the third season) was Masterpiece Theatre compared to the 1990s remake.
And that’s probably even more true when compared to the movie.
Rick
P.S. By the way, the Sci-Fi Channel edited the episodes to make room for more commercials during their marathon. I don’t know how badly the edits were done, but I understand they were somewhat more extensive than those the Sci-Fi Channel did in the 1990s. The best way to view he series is uncut, on DVD. Although I understand the new DVD release has almost nothing in the way of extras, unlike the Rhino releases of a few years back.
I have to agree with Rick. When I heard they were doing LOTL as a comedy, I held out the hope that they would go the GALAXY QUEST route with something that takes jabs in a loving fashion. But I’ve since got my hands on the script to LOTL and watched the trailers, and I have to say I’m struck by the meanness of the humor. While it laughed at the sillier aspects, there was still an endearing, respectful nature to the humor in galaxy quest, right up to the fans saving the day. The message I’m getting from LOTL is, “Hey, look at this crazy piece of crap people used to like. Isn’t it stupid?”
“how willing would you be to let someone else play in the world you made?”
I think it would be hard for any creator. but it depends on the circumstances. Who is doing it? How different it is from the original and how connected? How good are the ideas?
“do we NEED more Buffy? Did we need a new Trek? Did we need a new Indiana Jones? And, having watched a bunch of them on Sci-Fi, I KNOW we don’t need a new Land of the Lost.”
I think sequels or prequels are justified if there is some new story, some new angle, a creator wants to pursue.
In the case of Star Trek we had several movies that didn’t have much to add. But there was a franchise that people cared about and wanted to go back to, which has become stale, so finding a way to refresh it was warranted, although some may disagree with the way it was done. All in all, I think the recent movie was sucessful in that regard.
In the case of Indiana Jones I think there was a story to tell. You have a hero dear to many people, and you have the passage of time both for the audience and for the hero. That opens the potential for a story that plays on nostalgia while having a new angle. how well it worked in practice is a different question. But I think the sequel was warranted after all these years.
I think the Buffy Season 8 comic is not working as well as it should. There are several things off with this installment. Having Buffy as a leader of a vast army of slayers seems to have detached her from her roots, and the comic also seems to lack focus. So I think a rethinking of Buffy is warranted. But than you have the question of degree.
Star Trek II took the franchise in a somewhat different direction. so did TNG, but in a different way. Battlestar Galacica took the notion of reimagining to the extreme and found pure gold, but that was many years later.
In the case of Buffy the Whedon touch was crucial and not much time has passed since the show ended. So what are they going to do? have someone try to immitate Whedon, with some changes. Completely reimagine the Slayer? Both very risky propositions that shouldn’t be pursued unless you have a really good angle on the direction they want to take. Just trying to churn some stale story with the Buffy label to make so money would be a mistake, creatively if not financially unfortunatly (see transformers).
I don’t think the odds are very good of Joss joining this. The guy is very, very busy. Even if he waited until Cabin in the woods was done, even if he waited until after the next season of Dollhouse, he still has other projects that he’d like to do.
And it’s not like this is his only way to scratch the Buffy itch. He’s already got the comic going, which is the eighth season and the real continuation of the series as far as he’s concerned. If he has any stories he wants to tell with Buffy, he’s already telling them.
I don’t think the reboot has much chance of being made, either. Fran Kuzui hasn’t actually made a movie since the original Buffy in 1992. Who’s going to give her and her husband a wad of cash to make a movie now? If it does get made, look for it to be Direct to DVD.
The question of whether or not a Whedon-less Buffy reboot makes sense from a financial perspective is highly debatable.
But to me, the question of ethics seems like a much more significant issue.
I don’t know the contractual ins and outs of the situation, so the Kazuis may be completely within their rights — but it just seems wrong to move forward with Buffy without Whedon’s involvement.
If not for Joss Whedon, the name “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” would be nothing more than an obscure footnote — as opposed to the highly marketable brand that has the Kazuis drooling. Whedon was clearly the driving force behind Buffy’s success, while the Kazuis had little or no involvement (apparently, they were producers in name only).
By not at least having a dialogue with Whedon (as they claim), they come across as nothing but opportunistic leeches. (“Hey look, Fran — vampires and reboots are really popular!”)
To follow up on PAD’s Star Trek example, I see this as more akin to a pair of suits swooping in to take the property from televison to film while leaving Roddenberry on the sidelines. (After the “failure” of ST:TMP, Roddenberry was forced to take a back seat on ST:WOK — but he stayed involved in the franchise for years afterward and spearheaded the development of STNG.)
I don’t know the contractual ins and outs of the situation, so the Kazuis may be completely within their rights — but it just seems wrong to move forward with Buffy without Whedon’s involvement.
.
I hate to be a broken record, but: Substitute Paramount for “the Kazuis,” “Trek” for “Buffy” and “Gene” for “Whedon’s” and you are word-for-word saying what Trek fans were saying pre-Trek II. All too often, when it comes to show business (and, truthfully, the fans themselves) the rightness and wrongness of a situation comes down to the final product. If they get the right writer, director and cast and knock it out of the park, it becomes “right.” If not, then it’s “wrong.” Success or lack thereof tends to determine whether something was right or wrong in show business.
.
PAD
Star Trek the motion picture, or “How to see the Enterprise from EVERY angle”.
Even going at 4x speed youre still speeding ages looking at the Enterprise in that film.
Plus it looks so weird that the deflector dish is skin-color until they first go to warp.
The Wrath of Khan, now THERE was a film. One of the few sci-fi films where you actually felt that the characters were actually in danger. like alot of kids at the time I saw it before the episode its succeeds.
Joss created a great series with Buffy. So great in fact it will probably be continually regenerated for decades.
People always have an interest in vampire stories.
Sarah Michelle Gellar could easily end up playing her mother in a movie twenty years from now.
It would be great to get a good vampire film. There have been hardly any these last few years. So there was the first Blade, then…………..I’ll list move if I think of them.
Conor.
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again – “Star Trek: the Motionless Picture” was basically for nerds – the way that plot was subordinated to Looking Good, and, even then, put on complete hold for minutes at a time so that they could show us lots of effects shots for the geeks to wank on.
I don’t see it that way. I’m not even much of a Star Trek or sci-fi fan, and I quite liked the first movie. I kind of see it as a poor man’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. It’s slow and contemplative and somewhat trippy in much the same way as 2001, but was made by a less talented director.
Peter, why doesn’t Joss have control over the property?
Well, taking a guess, he probably signed a contract with the producers which involved them putting up option money for the property. Such options invariably lapse if money isn’t paid or if the property becomes fallow. It’s possible that if the producers don’t do something with it, then rights revert to Joss, so it becomes a smart business decision for them to remake the initial property because then they continue to hold onto it. But that’s just speculation.
.
PAD
This reminds me a bit of that whole THUNDERBALL copyright dispute that resulted in a separate production company doing their own Bond film by the name of NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.
True – but at least Sean Connery starred in it. An aging Sean Connery, but…
“…based on characters created by Joss Whedon.”
I would like to know if this mmovie-to-be is considered a continuation of the series (and then, will it adopt the comic ‘season 8’ or go in a new direction)?
If its ment to be a re-make of the original movie, I feel its too soon, because the series was essentially a re-make of the movie, and its been too soon since the last episode (even sooner if you count “Angel” as part of the whole Buffy mythos).
I could see a ‘remake’ going ahead without Joss, but not a ‘continuation’; and as a fan I wouldn’t want to see anything Buffy related that didn’t have him involved in some way.
The people talking about this deal are Fran Kuzui (the director of the first movie) and her husband. They own the rights to the Buffy character.
.
They say that the reboot won’t have anything to do with the TV show and won’t have any of the characters created in the show. So no Angel, Willow, Xander, etc.
.
They don’t have a story yet. All they’ve really said is that with vampires being big right now, it’s time to make a Buffy reboot.
I just rewatched all of the original cast Star Trek movies trying to get the taste of the new movie out of my mouth, and I have to say that Star Trek The Motion Picture is an underrated film.
Agreed. I actually think it’s one of the better Star Trek movies (certainly better than the latest one).
It’s that time of the year again: birds are singing, the grass is growing, and the Kazuis are coming out of the woodwork …
Fran K. recognized a good thing when nobody else did (and is rightly getting a credit and possibly a profit share ever since), but made a very average movie (and I’m being nice here) out of it. “Buffy” without the serie’s supporting characters is not what made it great. It’s like “Star Trek”: like SF there, in TV-“Buffy” the fantasy elements/”monsters of the week” were just plot triggers or symbols for real world problems.
So, based on this and earlier statements by Ms. Kazui I’m getting the impression that she never really understood why “Buffy” was successful …
Anyway, somebody on the SFX-Forum pointed it out before I could: “Buffy” the TV-show already WAS a reboot – of the movie.
And it’s way too early for a reboot. (“Buffy” the comic is #1 seller at my favourite comic shop, e. g. – because there are new customers who are only interested in “Buffy Season 8”, not in comics in general)
In the end, Hollywood being all about the Almighty Dollar might save us here – I think the commercials prospects of a Whedon-less “Buffy”-movie are not too great …
Was Star Trek II such a depature from the previous tradition of Star Trek?
“Was Star Trek II such a depature from the previous tradition of Star Trek?”
Depends on whose opinion you choose to agree with more. The consensus opinion is that the first movie was a disappointment and that the second movie returned to the “Hornblower in space” flavour of the original series.
Roddenberry believed that with “Star Trek II,” Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer made the whole thing too naval and violent. Bannett has said that in the years after the show ended, Roddenberry became too possessive of Trek and confused his own sense of utopian idealism with what the show was originally about (hence the “tone-poem thinkpiece” that was the first movie). Roddenberry told Bennett that there was not supposed to be any violence or conflict in the 23rd century, which irked Bennett as he had just watched all 79 episodes and there was lots of violence: fistfighting, brawls, nerve-pinches, weapons, etc. You can see Roddenberry’s recanting of violence in the first movie: the only deaths that occur are by misunderstanding (V’Ger erasing various ships, space-stations of people, etc) or accident (the transporter mishap).
Anyway, for the rest of the movies until his death, Roddenberry was consigned to “executive consultant” status, although his suggestions were largely ignored. Reportedly, he did make several attempts to undermine the movies’ productions though: he apparently leaked the news of Spock’s death in “Star Trek II” to get the fans up in arms, and the news of the Enterprise’s destruction in “Star Trek III” to do the same thing.
A typical moment from ST II that Roddenberry took issue with: Remember when that thing crawls out of Chekov’s ear? In the film, Kirk shoots it. Gene’s contention was that, no, Kirk would carefully put the creature in a jar and catalogue it because it was an alien lifeform.
.
PAD
“Remember when that thing crawls out of Chekov’s ear? In the film, Kirk shoots it. Gene’s contention was that, no, Kirk would carefully put the creature in a jar and catalogue it because it was an alien lifeform.”
Now I’m thinking of Khan trying to get Kirk’s attention with the “Buried alive…Buried alive!” monologue whilst Kirk is struggling to catch the eel and put it in a jar…
Seriously though PAD, I think there’s something crucial you’re missing in your Buffy/Star Trek comparison. In the latter’s case, Roddenberry was producer of the first movie and, in the eyes of many, was seen to have dropped the ball, hence Paramount effectively handing over creative control of the franchise to Harve Bennett. I might be wrong on this, but given the fact that so many fans were disappointed with ST:TMP, I can’t help but think that some of them, maybe not many, thought that sidelining Gene was a smart move. With Buffy, on the other hand, Joss Whedon hasn’t really done anything to justify his non-involvement with any future Buffy projects, I can’t imagine any Buffy fans being glad if he’s ousted.
I suppose the only way to please fans would be, as one person here has already suggested, to make a movie about a new, different Slayer. That way you’re not rewriting the (definitive) Buffy of the small screen. Of course, the very title “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” is brand recognoition in itself, so there’s no way the Kuzuis are going to reboot the franchise without making it a film about Buffy.
Thanks.
I think if Whedon were to make a movie similar to the season 8 comic, that would constitute dropping the ball, at least a little. I feel the comic is not working right. But maybe that’s just me. Still, I’d still prefer to see Whedon fix whatever is not working than have somebody else startt fro scratch.
Still, for the Star Trek II analogy to work, they’ll have to make a movie that is sufficiently connected to the original vision of the successful series to satisfy fans, while moving away from the supposed mistakes of the original creator.
Or, as you say, make a movie about a totally different slayer.
Or, they could pull a Battlestar Galactica, reimagine the whole thing, but do such a good job that everybody but a few die-hards are satisfied. They still feel that if Moore wanted to do a completely different version, they should have used a different name.
Conversely, they can make crap like Transformers that is barely connected to the original series and is not very good in its own right and still make huge amounts of money.
In the latter’s case, Roddenberry was producer of the first movie and, in the eyes of many, was seen to have dropped the ball, hence Paramount effectively handing over creative control of the franchise to Harve Bennett. I might be wrong on this, but given the fact that so many fans were disappointed with ST:TMP, I can’t help but think that some of them, maybe not many, thought that sidelining Gene was a smart move.
.
As I recall, Gene went around the country to various conventions, blamed the film’s shortcomings on studio interference, and then told fans that the proposed second film wasn’t his vision. I believe he may even have been the source of the “Spock dies” leak. All of this got the fans reaaaaaaaal riled up. It’s hard to measure by today’s standards because it was pre-internet, but trust me, there was a LOT of outrage about ST II…until it came out and was judged to be far superior to Gene’s most recent effort.
.
With Buffy, on the other hand, Joss Whedon hasn’t really done anything to justify his non-involvement with any future Buffy projects, I can’t imagine any Buffy fans being glad if he’s ousted.
.
For some “Buffy” fans, that’s certainly true. On the other hand, fans have been bìŧçhìņg about Buffy since…well, since the beginning of season 4, really. In season 4 they bìŧçhëd about the fact that she was out of high school. In season 5 they bìŧçhëd that the arrival of Dawn had caused the series to jump the shark. In season 6 they bìŧçhëd largely because Joss wasn’t there (it was mostly Marti Noxon driving the boat). In season 7–well, they liked season 7 better than season 6, but only because 6 had been so wildly unpopular. Now there’s the comic which began strong but people are bìŧçhìņg about that as well. So it isn’t as if there’s been a consistent Joss/fan lovefest.
.
It goes back to what I’ve always said: Ultimately, fans aren’t loyal to creators so much as they are creators’ ability to entertain them. If someone else takes over a character and provides entertaining stories, fans will readily throw the creator under a bus in order to follow the characters and be entertained. That’s not intended as a slam; that’s just the way it is.
.
PAD
I’m not a card carrying fan of Buffy, but I liked seasons 4, 5, 6, 7. That’s not to say I thought they were prefect every second of every chapter, but I liked them. I liked the progression to college, I liked Dawn, I liked season 6 and 7. I’m sticking to the comic out of loyalty and hope that it improves. It has the Whedon touch, but the pacing and focus seem off. Maybe if it was on TV it would have worked better.
My first thought was this will be really bad from a PR point of view.
That being said. The more I think about it the more interested I’ve become.
I recognise this terminology is somewhat blasphemous and inaccurate perhaps, but Buffy has undergone a serious Twlight-ing.
Two issues ago the Buffy season 8 comic had Giles and Faith visit a town that had a demon. The Demon fed on a person’s regret. Vampires were afraid to come into the town, because according to the Watchers who lived there Vampires are big sources of regret.
This is pretty different from the way Vampires were described in early Buffy. In fact if Vampires were creatures of regret then why did the gypsy’s even need to curse Angelus with a soul?
Joss has humanized his vampires.
This of course presents a problem. If vampires have free will can choose to not kill, then Buffy’s a serial killer.
The comic now has vampires as misunderstood and the Slayers as the bad guys in people’s eyes. Vampires are now behaving, feeding only from willing victims.
It’s now more like True Blood or Anita Blake humanity aware of vampires and co-existing with them. (Only without the level of thought as to what the world might really be like in that situation as the other books have set up, because while Joss is good at many things. World-building isn’t really one of them.)
If the Kuzui’s were to set their version of Buffy first in a world where vampires existence are known and tolerated and yet she’s the only one who understands that Vampires don’t sparkle. That would be a very interesting take.
Whedon already moved very far away from his original concept of vampires in the show and in Angel. It became more about it being right to kill bad demons while letting good and even neutral demons live. Vampires were usually bad demons, so it was OK to kill them.
“If the Kuzui’s were to set their version of Buffy first in a world where vampires existence are known and tolerated and yet she’s the only one who understands that Vampires don’t sparkle. That would be a very interesting take.”
If they decide to make a movie which interacts with some of the more recent vampire concepts, that would be good. Whedon has always shown himself capable of interacting with pop culture. However, what made Buffy successful was not Whedon’s not completly consistent concept of vampires. His vampires were never that well thought out. It was something else. It would be regretful to make a Buffy movie without that thing that made the series such a success.
Conversely, they can make crap like Transformers that is barely connected to the original series and is not very good in its own right and still make huge amounts of money.
Considering that The Transformers have been re-imagined 9 times (and that is not including the Japanese-exclusive show and toy lines and the US toy lines that never got a cartoon show or a comic book series) is it any wonder why Bay’s films don’t have any connections to orginal toy line/cartoon show/comic book (hëll even the orginal cartoon show and comic book were different as night and day).
But to say that the Transformers is crap is wrong they have inspired a generation of fans with a love sci-fi.
I would never would read one PAD’s comics if it wasn’t Transformers getting me into comics into the first place or gotten me into anime and manga, classic movies, pro-wrestling, or even for me to watch any of the Star Trek series. I’m not the only one there plenty of huge Transformers fan-sites where fans do a lot more with the Transformers than me from building their own Transformers, writing, drawing, kitbashing, comics, essays.
Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it’s crap.
I was not my intention to say that Transformers are crap, but I do feel that the Michael Bay movie was crap. This is my own personal opinion, nothing more.
I’ll admit that I have little idea what happened in the Transformers franchise since they showed the cartoon in my country in the mid/late 80’s. I haven’t kept up with it, nor was I ever a huge fan. I do have a soft spot for them as part of my childhood. But the truth is, the reason I dislike Bay’s movie was not because it didn’t conform to my childhood memories. I disliked it because it felt as if they didn’t really want to make a movie about Transformers but were somehow forced to stick them into this teen adventure/alien attack/hyped up action movie as an afterthought. + It was a mindless movie at that.
Back to the original issue, I would be very disappointed if somebody gave Buffy a similar treatment as the Transformers received. I would regret it even more if they made a movie that treated the story and character of Buffy as an afterthought and then went on to make so mouch profit that they made another movie.
The question is less “will it be good?” and more “Why?”
assuming that this will be a reboot of the movie and not the show, what concepts are strong enough to warrant another looking at?
If they intend on exploring the TV universe of Buffy, then have at, because that has potential.
PAD: “As I recall, Gene went around the country to various conventions, blamed the film’s shortcomings on studio interference, and then told fans that the proposed second film wasn’t his vision. I believe he may even have been the source of the “Spock dies” leak. All of this got the fans reaaaaaaaal riled up. It’s hard to measure by today’s standards because it was pre-internet, but trust me, there was a LOT of outrage about ST II…until it came out and was judged to be far superior to Gene’s most recent effort.”
Roddenberry really did get on the wrong side of loads of people during the making of ST:TMP – Robert Wise, Harold Livingston, Jon Povill, Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Dennis Clark, Bob Goodwin, Shatner and Nimoy…The behind-the-scenes of that movie, with all the recriminations and rewrites and egoism, in addiion to the production delays in the face of an impending schedule date, really is worthy of a book in itself. No wonder the movie came out fatally flawed. It’s almost a miracle the movie came out at all.
Bennett and Nick Meyer have said that Gene inadvertently did them a favour by leaking the “Spock dies” thing for “ST II.” Originally Spock’s death was supposed to be a shock, occurring a third into the movie, but after the news of it got out, they moved his death until the end of the movie, built up to it, and carried it off in a style that was so moving, and fit in with the death/rebirth motif, it didn’t pìšš øff the fanbase at large (Bennett said Roddenberry slid them “sideways into a better film”). Of course, that might be a rose-tinted, hindsight thing – maybe at the time, loads of fans were still incensed that Spock died (or maybe the footage of the coffin on the planet at the end allayed such feelings…).
PAD: “For some “Buffy” fans, that’s certainly true. On the other hand, fans have been bìŧçhìņg about Buffy since…well, since the beginning of season 4, really. In season 4 they bìŧçhëd about the fact that she was out of high school. In season 5 they bìŧçhëd that the arrival of Dawn had caused the series to jump the shark. In season 6 they bìŧçhëd largely because Joss wasn’t there (it was mostly Marti Noxon driving the boat). In season 7–well, they liked season 7 better than season 6, but only because 6 had been so wildly unpopular. Now there’s the comic which began strong but people are bìŧçhìņg about that as well. So it isn’t as if there’s been a consistent Joss/fan lovefest.”
That’s very true. And although I watched “Buffy” all the way through to the end, I intensely disliked much of seasons 4-7, for the reasons you cited above, plus others. But I was prepared to excuse Whedon because, while “Buffy” was going down the çráppër, “Angel” was going from strength to strength (just like how “Homicide: Life on the Street” got worse when Tom Fontana devoted his energies to “Oz”). Seemed like a fair trade-off.
PAD: “It goes back to what I’ve always said: Ultimately, fans aren’t loyal to creators so much as they are creators’ ability to entertain them. If someone else takes over a character and provides entertaining stories, fans will readily throw the creator under a bus in order to follow the characters and be entertained. That’s not intended as a slam; that’s just the way it is.”
And if this new “Buffy” reboot doesn’t have Whedon, and doesn’t involve the characters from the TV show, fans can disregard it if they please, safe in the knowledge that it’s not affecting or rewriting the continuity of the “Buffy” that the DO like.
Actually, Peter, the director’s cut of STMP is very good. Give it a try. The only thing I don’t like about it are the awful costumes. Those security uniforms still make me cringe. Cheers!
i wish that Joss Whedon could also make a sequel to FireFly and Serenity`.: