# WB to reboot Buffy the Vampire Slayer without Joss Whedon



## Krug (Nov 23, 2010)

It's really happening: Warner Brothers reboots Buffy The Vampire Slayer without Joss Whedon

Uh oh..


----------



## Umbran (Nov 23, 2010)

I like Joss Whedon's work.  But, I also recognize that Joss is not the only person in the world with good ideas.

On the other hand, Joss' Buffy isn't so old a property that it really needs a new vision to fit a new time, or anything like that.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 23, 2010)

PTB in control and just see this as bad about to happen.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 23, 2010)

Is this the first true sign of the apocolypse?!?!?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 23, 2010)

Probably just going to be a tv version of Twilight, without much sincere effort made to disguise that fact...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 23, 2010)

It's a feature film in the works actually, not a TV series.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 23, 2010)

As a huge Buffy fan, I am willing to give this a chance.  I will admit that the original movie was not that amazing, and could be improved upon.  And, while I like Joss's work a lot, he is not the only worthwhile talent, and has had his own share of duds (see: Titan AE, Dollhouse).

One of my biggest worries is how they will handle the generational aspect.  Buffy was always extemely contemporary, which worked well in the 90s.  I'm not sure how that aspect of her character will translate to the FaceBook generation.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 23, 2010)

Reboots are a mixed bag.  Star Trek, Batman, and BSG are all good examples of reboots.  We'll just have to hope that this is one, too.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 23, 2010)

Krug said:


> WB to reboot Buffy the Vampire Slayer without Joss Whedon





This seems unwise.


----------



## Janx (Nov 23, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> This seems unwise.




given that the season 8 comic book has been running for quite some time, and joss has written stories for it (and other Buffy writers), it seems like this new movie will probably just contradict existing material.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 23, 2010)

I'll givie it an even chance.

While I do enjoy the Buffy and Angel series, there are some things about them that really annoy me, such as Joss's Feminazi ideals.


----------



## Felon (Nov 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> given that the season 8 comic book has been running for quite some time, and joss has written stories for it (and other Buffy writers), it seems like this new movie will probably just contradict existing material.



That's okay, as the offical material often conflicts with the existing material. 

It was kind of hard not writing off Whedon altogether with what he pulled in Angel Season Six. It was as shameless a bit of hacking as the Dallas doing the "it was all a dream" bit with Patrick Duffy...worse, actually considering how many months of issues that he wiped from the slate.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 23, 2010)

The only thing that interests me about Buffy is Whedon and his coterie of writers and actors. Without them, this new project might as well be Underworld III.

Wait, is there an Underworld III already? If so, them I mean Underworld IV.


----------



## Welverin (Nov 23, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Wait, is there an Underworld III already? If so, them I mean Underworld IV.




Sort of, there was a third movie, but it was a prequel.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Nov 23, 2010)

Is Wolfram & Hart bankrolling this?

They'll probably get Bristol Palin to play Buffy and the Jersey Shore cast to play her helpers (will they even have the Scoobies?).  And the vampires will probably sparkle in the sunlight.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 23, 2010)

Welverin said:


> Sort of, there was a third movie, but it was a prequel.



Number 4 is coming.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 24, 2010)

I may be risking my geek cred here, but I was never a huge Buffy/Angel fan.  I didn't think the shows were bad; I enjoyed Angel often enough to keep watching.  Buffy, not as much, but I still wouldn't call it bad.  So I don't really accept the idea that a potential reboot _has_ to have Whedon, or else be a terrible film.

it's readily obvious this is an attempt to cash in on the whole  vampire craze going on.  It's because of that I think it probably won't be any  good.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 25, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> I may be risking my geek cred here, but I was never a huge Buffy/Angel fan.  I didn't think the shows were bad; I enjoyed Angel often enough to keep watching.  Buffy, not as much, but I still wouldn't call it bad.  So I don't really accept the idea that a potential reboot _has_ to have Whedon, or else be a terrible film.
> 
> it's readily obvious this is an attempt to cash in on the whole  vampire craze going on.  It's because of that I think it probably won't be any  good.




Also never saw what was so great about the shows, or Joss Whedon's works in general.  Angel was slightly better and i actually watched some episodes of that.  And it did have a pretty nice opening theme. 

And yeah, that's my thoughts on the reasoning for doing this now, also.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 25, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Also never saw what was so great about the shows, or Joss Whedon's works in general.





Character arcs, IMO.


----------



## fba827 (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't think it's a requirement to have Joss attached to the project (though i'm indifferent really on that point of it; someone else may have a fresh and interesting take that might be more accessible to newcomers, where as Joss could have an interesting untold story that would appeal to the exsiting fan base)

Having said that (as pointed out earlier in this thread).  It's really too soon to be doing a reboot.  But, no doubt, it is to ride the vampire trend for some cash.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 26, 2010)

Surprised no one has linked to this quote yet, but here's an example of why Whedon is awesome:

Joss Whedon's hilarious reaction to that Buffy reboot announcement | Blastr

With or without Joss, however, I really don't see the point in a Buffy "re-boot" anyway. The original is still fresh in the minds of a lot of people. The series ended in 2003, with strong DVD sales for quite a while after. 

The BtVS series is also unusual in that the identity of the show is strongly tied to the show's creator himself. Joss is still out there working on other projects (including the ongoing Buffy comic) garnering him new fans, some of whom are probably also checking out BtVS and becoming new fans of that. 

You've also got many of the principal actors out there in the mainstream still to remind people of the characters they played in the series. And except for Buffy (and perhaps a "Watcher"), those characters can't legally be used in the movie. So for the large, active fan base still out there, these points all pretty much get summed up with "This will in no way be the same as the TV show you fell in love with and remember well."

Unless the studio really thinks they can tap into the much younger Twilight fan base and ignore the potential alienation factor of the existing Buffy fans, using the name recognition of Buffy and little else just seems like a project waiting to backfire.

So why not just make a "strong female character has destiny to fight supernatural creatures" movie, and apply one's "great take on the concept" to original characters? My local bookstore's shelves seem to be about to break off the walls with novels based on the premise, thanks in large part to Buffy. Just honor the source material that way, since, in either case, I think the movie will just end up a footnote in the genre anyway.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 27, 2010)

Sir Brennen said:


> So why not just make a "strong female character has destiny to fight supernatural creatures" movie, and apply one's "great take on the concept" to original characters?




Because the public does, in fact, respond positively to names they know.  As much as we might complain about how we hate the remakes and sequels, the truth of the matter is that they are lower financial risk for the studio than a new piece of the same general type.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 27, 2010)

Sir Brennen said:


> So why not just make a "strong female character has destiny to fight supernatural creatures" movie, and apply one's "great take on the concept" to original characters? .




Because they spent tens of millions developing the brand.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 27, 2010)

> "This will in no way be the same as the TV show you fell in love with and remember well."




They're raping my childhood!

Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 27, 2010)

Maybe they will make it R with blood, guts and nudity...  Naaa, this will be high school in the eyes of hollywood and bad casting.


----------



## Orius (Nov 28, 2010)

Watching the reactions to the development of this should be entertaining.







A lot of people proclaim Whedon as some creative genius, but I've also read that he tends to recycle a lot of his character archtypes.  I never really got the appeal of Buffy though, so I'm not copncerned one way or other about this.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 28, 2010)

Orius said:


> A lot of people proclaim Whedon as some creative genius, but I've also read that he tends to recycle a lot of his character archtypes.




There's some truth to that, but the two are not mutually exclusive.  He does tend to center his shows around kick-butt women, for instance.  But he generally shows a whole lot of creativity in the plots and interactions between characters.


----------



## john112364 (Nov 29, 2010)

I'm a little wary of a reboot this soon after the series. The series will be a tough act to follow and it has many rabid fans who will pick a movie apart if it's not top notch. I guess we'll wait and see.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 29, 2010)

john112364 said:


> I'm a little wary of a reboot this soon after the series. The series will be a tough act to follow and it has many rabid fans who will pick a movie apart if it's not top notch. I guess we'll wait and see.



Mind you, the reboot will have nothing to do with the series, since the makers only own the rights to the original Buffy movie, with Kristin Swanson and Luke Perry.


----------



## john112364 (Nov 29, 2010)

Yea, I realize that, but everyone is going to be comparing the two regardless of who owns the right to what.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 29, 2010)

Yeah, probably.

Me, I'm considering this "Earth-2 Buffy".


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2010)

john112364 said:


> The series will be a tough act to follow and it has many rabid fans who will pick a movie apart if it's not top notch.




In order to pick it apart, they have to see it.  To see it, they have to buy a ticket.  If they buy a ticket, the movie's done its work.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 29, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> They're raping my childhood!
> 
> Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble.



Don't think that comparison is really in the same ballpark. The Star Wars prequels:

1) were not a "re-boot", telling a different version of Luke Skywalker's origin as a Jedi. They expanded the existing story's universe, not "re-imagined" it*
2) _were_ still in the hands of the original trilogy's creator, for good or ill
3) did have the benefit of enough time passing that there was a nostalgic childhood rememberence, amping excitement about the new movies 

*midichlorians notwithstanding

Sure you can boil it down to "the sun is going to rise; fans are going to grouse", but I think the third point the most critical - it's going to be recent fans grousing, whose memory of the show is still fresh in their minds. 

Yes, some may see the movie to compare/contrast/complain, but I have a feeling a large portion of existing fans won't be interested, or at least not enough to see it in theaters, or buy it on DVD. It'll probably be a cable/rental/borrow situation for the curious among them.

Of course using "brand names" is usually less risky, but again, in this particular case, I think it's the use of that brand plus the fact it's also a re-boot that makes it problematic. It might actually be somewhat more risky than going with an original character and perhaps skewing the marketing with hype like "a worthy successor to Buffy" and what-not. 

Also, the comparison of re-booting Buffy being like Nolan doing Batman? Nolan's "Batman Begins" had the benefit of not only a decent number of years since the last Batman movie, but also the fact that the last couple of prior Batman outings in the theaters sucked and the character needed a fresh take. Again, neither is really applicable to Buffy.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 29, 2010)

The can be only one (television series).*






*Plus the one original movie.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 30, 2010)

This gal gets what I'm trying to say, plus with a couple of other good points to boot:

We need more vampire slayers — just not more Buffy


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> In order to pick it apart, they have to see it.  To see it, they have to buy a ticket.  If they buy a ticket, the movie's done its work.





Au contraire ... any true Whedon devotee would band together with his or her other Whedonesque fanatics.  One would draw the short stick and force themselves to watch the movie so they could pick it apart ... the rest will wait until it's on Netflix, downloadable for free via pirate warez, or just wait till it's on TV, and then talk about how terrible it is.  

I certainly have no interest.  They won't be getting any money from me.  I really wish more people would figure out that's the way to go about this, if in fact you really think the studio should NOT make this movie ...


----------



## Klaus (Dec 3, 2010)

Here's the fun part:

The producers offered for Whedon to be involved with the new movie, possibly even write it, but he turned them down, being in the middle of the Avengers project. Only after Whedon turned them down did they look for a new writer.


----------



## john112364 (Dec 3, 2010)

Well, at least he was offered the opportunity to be involved. I guess I'll wait and see. Maybe we'll all be surprised.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Dec 5, 2010)

> 1) were not a "re-boot", telling a different version of Luke Skywalker's  origin as a Jedi. They expanded the existing story's universe, not  "re-imagined" it*
> 2) _were_ still in the hands of the original trilogy's creator, for good or ill
> 3) did have the benefit of enough time passing that there was a  nostalgic childhood rememberence, amping excitement about the new movies




Well, I agree that Star Wars prequels are not a reboot, per se, boot (pun intended) they were changed from what I was brought up on.

For example, I was told that the Clone Wars was from a lot of different cloning groups, not just one. 

And it was the Mandalorians who hunted down the Jedu, not an ambush like in ROTS.

Just a few changes like that. 

I was nine years old when I first saw the movie. This was long before I even knew of computers and the like.


----------



## ssampier (Dec 5, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Here's the fun part:
> 
> The producers offered for Whedon to be involved with the new movie, possibly even write it, but he turned them down, being in the middle of the Avengers project. Only after Whedon turned them down did they look for a new writer.




Huh. Wouldn't that be kinda weird for the original creator not being able to legally use his previous work? I mean it's a reboot, but still.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Dec 6, 2010)

Also, there are some things about the original series that irks me that I hope they keep out because of Joss's Feminazism.

Such as his parental issues in which almost every single one of the parents are useless idiots. Especially fathers.

But I'd like them to keep the same sense of humor the series had.


----------



## Ares (Dec 6, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> I'll givie it an even chance.
> 
> While I do enjoy the Buffy and Angel series, there are some things about them that really annoy me, such as Joss's Feminazi ideals.





Really?  Whedon has always been hailed as  a even-handed writer of strong female characters, and to my knowledge has never been accused of being a femnazi (mysandrist).  Please elaborate.  Is it just the parents thing?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> Au contraire ... any true Whedon devotee would band together with his or her other Whedonesque fanatics.  One would draw the short stick and force themselves to watch the movie so they could pick it apart ... the rest will wait until it's on Netflix, downloadable for free via pirate warez, or just wait till it's on TV, and then talk about how terrible it is.




No.  No *true* devotee would trust the opinion of another, or have the patience to wait, or want to see it on anything but a big screen.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 14, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Also, there are some things about the original series that irks me that I hope they keep out because of Joss's Feminazism.



Yeeaah, that's just some misguided Whedon-hate right there.  His shows have strong female characters.  So do other shows and movies.  It's a good thing.



Diamond Cross said:


> Such as his parental issues in which almost every single one of the parents are useless idiots. Especially fathers.



Buffy's mom was an awesome parent.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 14, 2010)

I was watching the extras on the Buffy and Angel DVD sets and in them Whedon once or twice expressed how he no longer had any energy left to continue making the show. He seemed really glad that it ended how it did because he just couldn't go on. Just makes you wonder what the real reason is that he turned it down now.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Just makes you wonder what the real reason is that he turned it down now.




It sounds to me like simple burnout.  

Plus, now he has the Avengers.  Remaking Buffy would be a step backwards.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 14, 2010)

Now that Pee Wee Herman is a hit on Broadway, I hope they cast Paul Reubens again!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 14, 2010)

jonesy said:


> I was watching the extras on the Buffy and Angel DVD sets and in them Whedon once or twice expressed how he no longer had any energy left to continue making the show. He seemed really glad that it ended how it did because he just couldn't go on. Just makes you wonder what the real reason is that he turned it down now.



Since they were looking at a reboot, he may not have felt he could successfully separate his work on the show. It would have been more of a movie remake of the TV show than a reboot of the original movie.  

It could also just be a case of, "Been there, done that."


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 15, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> Yeeaah, that's just some misguided Whedon-hate right there.  His shows have strong female characters.  So do other shows and movies.  It's a good thing.
> 
> Buffy's mom was an awesome parent.




Yeah, you can have strong female characters without making all of the male characters either have a propensity to turn Evil (Angel) a goofball comedy relief (Xander) or untrustworthy (Giles on several occasions. Split loyalty between Buffy and the Watchers for a time anyway...) or just flat out evil (everyone else, Mayor Wilkins, The Master, Spike (off and on), Jonathan, Warren and Andrew, 
Caleb). 

Yes it's a reverse of what women have had to deal with for a long time and still do to an extent. It doesn't excuse it though. 

He does a lot better with Angel, Firefly and to some extent Dollhouse (which I just finished a few days ago). I like the fact that Echo/Caroline was a strong PERSON as opposed to a strong WOMAN, which is what I thought Feminism was about. Parity...not dominance. 

I'm a Whedon fan (I love the hell out of Angel, yes even S4) but I really cant find it in me to re-watch my Buffy box sets. They do, in my opinion tend toward the feminazi side of things.

And yes Joyce was an awesome mom.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 15, 2010)

And for an excellent example of a show with a strong female lead that doesnt make all of the other males look like douches look no further than Veronica Mars. Especially the relationship between her and her Dad. Yes there were a few times when they were at loggerheads but their respect and love for one another was consistent. 

Also her relationships with Logan, Wallace and even Weevil were all very well done without making them look like idiots or one dimensional. 

After THE WIRE, VERONICA MARS is probably my second favorite show in terms of being consistently good.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 16, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Yeah, you can have strong female characters without making all of the male characters either have a propensity to turn Evil (Angel) a goofball comedy relief (Xander) or untrustworthy (Giles on several occasions. Split loyalty between Buffy and the Watchers for a time anyway...) or just flat out evil (everyone else, Mayor Wilkins, The Master, Spike (off and on), Jonathan, Warren and Andrew, Caleb).



There were plenty of evil females on Buffy so cherry picking to make a point doesn't make it true.  In the cases of the supporting characters your descriptions of them simply aren't accurate.  Angel's character wasn't a bash against men, it was a story point about the love that couldn't be.  Buffy is a tormented character and for that you need partners that create massive conflict. And that conflict created one of the best moments of the show when she had to make the choice whether to kill him or not.  Giles was a father figure and became more so as the show progressed.  He was very trustworthy.  And Xander was a goofball but also a great and loyal friend.

If the show was a good example of "femenazi" storytelling, Willow would have never succumbed to addiction, Buffy would have treated Riley better and Buffy herself wouldn't have been such a flawed character overall.  You can bend it all you like but the men weren't all treated as buffoons, incompetent or any other negatives one could drum up.



ShinHakkaider said:


> Yes it's a reverse of what women have had to deal with for a long time and still do to an extent. It doesn't excuse it though.



As I outlined, there is nothing to excuse.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 16, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> There were plenty of evil females on Buffy so cherry picking to make a point doesn't make it true.




Really? Glory, Druscilla, Maybe Amy? I dont count Faith because she eventually gets her redemption arc. Anya? Nope, redemption arc. Adam's creator, I forget her name. was she really evil though? No not really just obsessed with her charges and technology. So who else? Unless you're talking about characters in a lot of the standalone episodes where I'm pretty obviously talking about major characters and or big bads which I dont see as "cherry picking". 



John Crichton said:


> If the show was a good example of "femenazi" storytelling, Willow would have never succumbed to addiction, Buffy would have treated Riley better and Buffy herself wouldn't have been such a flawed character overall.  You can bend it all you like but the men weren't all treated as buffoons, incompetent or any other negatives one could drum up.




I still contest that the men except in few instances (admittedly I'd forgotten about Reily) were depicted pretty shoddily. The male characters for the most part havent really changed much from who they were when they were introduced. 

For example, contrast that with over 5 seasons of Angel, we get to see how Wesley's character actually changed and GREW. Did Xander, really? Giles? Yes, Giles got more fatherly and began to trust Buffy more but all of his changes really centered around Buffy and wasn't he kind of written out of the show for almost a season? And Xander, he was always loyal and protective of his friends and a bit of a goofball. He he got a little more confidence by the end of the show and lost an eye (which was kinda awesome) but did he really change all that much? Not really.  

To address your other point, the fact that it's a show aimed at empowering girls and women, where would it be if the women characters DIDNT have something to overcome? 

Listen, I own S1-5 of that show so it's not like I wasn't a fan. And it's a good show for those 5 seasons (although like I said I think it peaked in S3) but yeah in hindsight I think it pushed the feminist agenda fairly strongly during it's run. I dont think that was something that wasn't pretty obvious, where we differ is in how under written and one note many of the male characters were on that show. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me it would be nice if you wouldn't ascribe ulterior motives to my opinions though. Accusing me of "cherry picking" and "drummin up" stuff is like accusing me of fighting dirty and D00d? I'm not even FIGHTING here...


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 16, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Really? Glory, Druscilla, Maybe Amy? I dont count Faith because she eventually gets her redemption arc. Anya? Nope, redemption arc. Adam's creator, I forget her name. was she really evil though? No not really just obsessed with her charges and technology. So who else? Unless you're talking about characters in a lot of the standalone episodes where I'm pretty obviously talking about major characters and or big bads which I dont see as "cherry picking".



Faith most certainly counts no matter if she was redeemed or not.  Anya was absolutely evil for a while.  Willow was evil for a while as well.  That said, I would absolutely say that the *best *villains were primarily male.  



ShinHakkaider said:


> I still contest that the men except in few instances (admittedly I'd forgotten about Reily) were depicted pretty shoddily. The male characters for the most part havent really changed much from who they were when they were introduced.
> 
> For example, contrast that with over 5 seasons of Angel, we get to see how Wesley's character actually changed and GREW. Did Xander, really? Giles? Yes, Giles got more fatherly and began to trust Buffy more but all of his changes really centered around Buffy and wasn't he kind of written out of the show for almost a season? And Xander, he was always loyal and protective of his friends and a bit of a goofball. He he got a little more confidence by the end of the show and lost an eye (which was kinda awesome) but did he really change all that much? Not really.



Your point that I took issue with about was that the male characters all having negative characteristics to make the females look better by comparison.  When did character development come into this?  Different discussion for sure on that one.  Still, I'm still not seeing any concrete examples of your point.



ShinHakkaider said:


> To address your other point, the fact that it's a show aimed at empowering girls and women, where would it be if the women characters DIDNT have something to overcome?
> 
> Listen, I own S1-5 of that show so it's not like I wasn't a fan. And it's a good show for those 5 seasons (although like I said I think it peaked in S3) but yeah in hindsight I think it pushed the feminist agenda fairly strongly during it's run. I dont think that was something that wasn't pretty obvious, where we differ is in how under written and one note many of the male characters were on that show. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me it would be nice if you wouldn't ascribe ulterior motives to my opinions though. Accusing me of "cherry picking" and "drummin up" stuff is like accusing me of fighting dirty and D00d? I'm not even FIGHTING here...



The show had a very obvious feminist push, I have no problems with that.  It was impossible to miss!  

I'll just ask ... why are you now talking about characters being underwritten and such when that's not what we were talking about?


----------

