Anyone else tired of the current low state of Hollywood originality?

[AnthonyCordova]

I'm sure I'll find a lot of people who disagree here, but I'm tired of

A.) Endless reboots (or revisiting an old idea and lifting something from it to make a movie out of it).

B.) Endless comic book-based movies (with no end in sight. I feel like there will be 50 Batman movies at least by the time I die).

C.) Endless sequels

I'm not denying I've seen a good reboot, a good comic book movie and a good sequel every now and then. But...this has been a disproportionate portion of Hollywood's output for awhile, wouldn't you agree? Does anyone else crave a little more originality from Hollywood then we get currently? Yes, everyone can point to examples that are not A, B or C but A, B and C are undeniably a large piece of everything we get from them. A larger piece than I would personally care for.

If it wasn't for (financially successful/popular) books turned into movies, I feel like the originality quotient in Hollywood would be absurdly poor. (And on a side note, there are a lot of books I would love to see as movies, but since they aren't very popular and since they aren't wildly and financially successful, it will never happen. Hollywood never takes chances on anything that is not a sure-bet financially. Not anymore.)

That's one of the reasons why I'm opposed to the idea of a Buffy reboot. Just on general principal alone, if for no other reason. In this climate, we don't need more of that. I would rather look forward to new ideas, for whatever the next "Buffy quality thing" might be, instead of looking behind me. If you had the choice, wouldn't you rather have something truly new that is great and enjoyable, or just a reboot of what is essentially now an old idea? As much as I love some old movies and shows, I would always prefer something new (of comparable quality) to a reboot (or sequel). You get more in the end (you still have the old things at your disposal after all) and your imagination receives fresh stimulation, something completely different to chew on.

 

[Blaze]

I'm not denying I've seen a good reboot, a good comic book movie and a good sequel every now and then. But...this has been a disproportionate portion of Hollywood's output for awhile, wouldn't you agree? Does anyone else crave a little more originality from Hollywood then we get currently? Yes, everyone can point to examples that are not A, B or C but A, B and C are undeniably a large piece of everything we get from them. A larger piece than I would personally care for.

I think people are simply not digging enough. There are plenty of good cinema out there, maybe just as much as those types of movies you mentioned. But it is true that it's the movie making money that we hear about, therefore we're more exposed to those reboot/sequal/superhero blockbusters. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, and therefore exposed to a lot of Canadian/Quebec cinema that I find a lot of gems out there. I never got the whole "Hollywood" thing anyway, a good/bad movie, no matter where it's from, is good/bad. Maybe Hollywood makes more movies because it's a rich area, but the producers making those movies come from all over the place.

About the sequels/reboot/superhero movies, I don't really mind. I never got the complaining much, because if I don't like it I don't watch it. And if I like it, you bet your money that I'll be the first one sitting in theatre. For example, people have been complaining about The Hobbit series, saying it's a money grab. Well, I happen to LOVE those movies. So let me throw my money at whoever I desire if I enjoy the movies. So if someone is willing to pay to see every single Batman movie, I'm cool with that. I just know that I won't pay for that because superheroes aren't my cup of tea. Same for sequels, like I love Pirates of the Caribbean. I'll keep watching for as long as they make movies. I've seen each one probably over 20x now because I think those movies are fun. Doesn't mean that sequels are always good, there are plenty of bad ones, but as long as they want to make sequels and as long as there is but one fool to watch it, I won't mind.

And when I feel like watching a more "intelligent" movie, I usually just go for something foreign. Not that American movies aren't intelligent, again, plenty of smart American movies out there, but they do have a certain art style. Just like Canadian movies and Japanese movies have a different style as a general rule. You just have to find what you love.

If it wasn't for (financially successful/popular) books turned into movies, I feel like the originality quotient in Hollywood would be absurdly poor. (And on a side note, there are a lot of books I would love to see as movies, but since they aren't very popular and since they aren't wildly and financially successful, it will never happen.)

I can't decide of I agree or disagree with this. I mean I agree about the book part, most of my favorite movies are book adaptation. But I've also seen so many original movies. And unfortunately they tend to do poorly at the box office. For example, the new Johnny Depp movie seemed original, but was a complete flop (now mind you I haven't seen it so it might actually suck). Yet, Godzilla destroyed the charts (again, haven't seen it so maybe the movie does rock). My point is, people want to see a certain (unoriginal) genre, so that's what gets made.

That's one of the reasons why I'm opposed to the idea of a Buffy reboot. Just on general principal alone, if for no other reason. In this climate, we don't need more of that. I would rather look forward to new ideas, for whatever the next "Buffy quality thing" might be, instead of looking behind me. If you had the choice, wouldn't you rather have something truly new that is great and enjoyable, or just a reboot of what is essentially now an old idea? As much as I love some old movies and shows, I would always prefer something new to a reboot (or sequel). You get more in the end (you still have the old things at your disposal after all) and your imagination receives fresh stimulation, something completely different to chew on.

This I agree with, but more for selfish reason. I don't want a reboot because I love the old cast and the Buffy I love so very very much. It'd be hard on me to watch others play the roles, but as I said, if people enjoy it I can't really be mad at anyone for making it.

As a final note, do I wish there was more selection in theatre? Absolutely. But I can't complain, I usually always have at least one movie that I'm really looking forward too.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I really hate remakes and reboots. It's so damn lazy. Especially when they reboot something that came out very recently (e.g. Spider-Man). I pretty much have a policy now of never going to see remakes. I make exceptions only when the remake brings something really fresh to the story (like the Coen Brothers' "True Grit") or when the original was a great concept that was held back by bad execution, low budget or lack of technology. (I'd like to see really good remakes of "Logan's Run" or "Barbarella").

I don't mind sequels so much... at least somebody is telling a new story.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

I think people are simply not digging enough. There are plenty of good cinema out there, maybe just as much as those types of movies you mentioned. But it is true that it's the movie making money that we hear about, therefore we're more exposed to those reboot/sequal/superhero blockbusters. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, and therefore exposed to a lot of Canadian/Quebec cinema that I find a lot of gems out there.

I mean specifically Hollywood. Movies come from all sorts of places, but I'm talking about big budget Hollywood movies. That's certainly not the only thing I watch (especially now) but my post was a criticism specifically about Hollywood originality (or lack thereof).

---------- Post added at 11:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

About the sequels/reboot/superhero movies, I don't really mind. I never got the complaining much, because if I don't like it I don't watch it. And if I like it, you bet your money that I'll be the first one sitting in theatre.

I'm complaining because it's my opinion that the originality in Hollywood right now is at a low. A lot of times I just watch independent films or something like that. But sometimes I'm in the mood for a bigger budget Hollywood movie experience. It's like being in the mood for ice cream or something. It doesn't strike me all the time, but when I really feel like ice cream, it's a total bummer to show up at the store and find 23 of the 30 flavors are all different variations on chocolate, especially if you are like me and you are sick of chocolate (chocolate in this analogy = reboots, comic movies and sequels). I want more options than that. The other 7 remaining flavors might not be any good, or they might not be my taste, but if I had a wider range of options, I might more easily find something I'd like to try. But yeah, I'm certainly not always in the mood for a big budget Hollywood movie, especially nowadays (largely because of the reasons from my original post). But sometimes the mood strikes me still.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

There does seem to be a lack of originality in Hollywood recently, but I'm not really complaining since I don't want to watch a lot of these crappy movies, I've been watching a lot more older movies that are great. As for the reboots, the problem I have with that is rushing into it and not taking the time to execute it properly and tell a good story, same thing goes with sequels. I like the Star Trek reboot but only because I haven't seen the original really. The Amazing Spider-Man I think was too soon to reboot and felt rushed as a result, I didn't like it as much as the Tobey Maguire one. Ever since Nolan's Batman movies, there has been a shift in the way superhero movies are portrayed, with the exception of the Avengers movies. Sometimes it works, X-Men first Class, sometimes it doesn't, The Amazing Spider-Man. I can't complain to much, because I do like superheros movies, especially the Marvel characters so I will watch them at least once.

As for sequels, well if they can make one just as good or better than the first then I'm fine with making sequels or prequels. Also I think that movie makers should get more audience feedback before making movies, so that they know more of what the audience wants to see and not to see. Listen to the fans, especially when it comes to comic book movies.

 

[Robb Stark]

Honestly? No, I'm not.

My reasoning has a few dimensions to it. Firstly, I can almost always appreciate the business dynamics of things like reboots, and when I can analyze something that way, it doesn't bother me, simply because I know that if I was in the same position I would probably be doing the same thing. Movies are made to make money. Hollywood has been shown, conclusively, that reboots and sequels make truckloads of money. If viewers were really tired of them, if they really were, then they would stop going to the movies and revenues would significantly decline. They don't though, so Hollywood keeps making them. That is the fault of the viewer, NOT the studios. They react to what we tell them, and we have been telling them for years that collectively, we want reboots and sequels. That is the major factor for me.

The second part of my answer is the rapid expansion of social media, which I think has tremendously shortened the period of time required before something is generally considered "nostalgic". People enjoy looking back fondly on the things they loved as kids and teenagers, and because mass communication is so much more prevalent today than ever before, because our collective intake of information is so broad and expansive now, our attentions get diverted quickly, which makes it increasingly easier to look back at things made really not that long ago with a longing. Hence the reboot.

As a moviegoer (and I'm a huge movie buff), reboots and sequels don't bug me either. If they're done well then I'm all for it. If they aren't then I don't go and see them. What anyone else thinks doesn't really matter all that much to me, simply because I appreciate the fact that if the quality of the product slides substantially, then the market will naturally move to correct itself and Hollywood will move in a different direction. That's happened for decades.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

I guess I should also say again really fast that I really do sometimes occasionally see a good sequel or reboot or comic movie or whatever, but even still I would vastly prefer the same experience with more original material. Even if the new Batman movie with Ben Affleck is really good, I'm personally kind of tired of Batman. I'd like them to leave it alone for a little while (and Batman was my childhood favorite superhero).

I hear people when they say they enjoyed this or that reboot or comic movie or whatever, I really do, but I'm trying to address a larger problem, regardless of whether this or that particular movie is good. The larger problem is the lack of originality, and that is what I really wish would change, because I want good new ideas to chew on and think about and experience too. If there was a better balance between old ideas and new I don't think I would complain as much.

---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------

Firstly, I can almost always appreciate the business dynamics of things like reboots, and when I can analyze something that way, it doesn't bother me, simply because I know that if I was in the same position I would probably be doing the same thing. Movies are made to make money. Hollywood has been shown, conclusively, that reboots and sequels make truckloads of money. If viewers were really tired of them, if they really were, then they would stop going to the movies and revenues would significantly decline. They don't though, so Hollywood keeps making them. That is the fault of the viewer, NOT the studios. They react to what we tell them, and we have been telling them for years that collectively, we want reboots and sequels. That is the major factor for me.

I've personally stopped going to the movie theater much less often than i used to, for the reasons I spoke about. I'm not reinforcing their formula, but everyone else is it seems. That's part of my complaint, but I didn't mention it earlier. I get it though, I'm the fish out of water and the one with the complaint, so it's my problem not most everyone elses.

changing gears, it's definitely possible to be original and highly successful (which I'm sure everyone would agree). I didn't like the Matrix that much, but it was an original idea and it did very well at the box office too. I'll take a new idea like the Matrix (or whatever the next new idea will be) over something that's been done before, and oftentimes beaten to death.

if an individual reboot or sequel is done well, fine. I'll like it too. But that won't change the fact that, in the bigger picture, originality seems to be in short supply and that it would be nevertheless preferable (for me at least) to get a new idea for my imagination to work with than an old one. Even if this or that sequel or reboot is a good one.

But you're right about it being market and profit driven ultimately. I'm not naive, I realize that too. I liked your idea about the effect of social media and the shortening of time and the nostalgia factor etc. I don't know if I agree with that, but it was an interesting perspective I haven't heard before [MENTION=11975]Robb Stark[/MENTION].

 

[Blaze]

I mean specifically Hollywood. Movies come from all sorts of places, but I'm talking about big budget Hollywood movies. That's certainly not the only thing I watch (especially now) but my post was a criticism specifically about Hollywood originality (or lack thereof).

Even when speaking directly of Hollywood movies, I think there's quite a bit of good stuff out there. Again, could it use more variety and originality, sure, you can never have too much of that. But again, I still don't really get the term "Hollywood". From what I've gathered, the term is used when describing a high budget movie with a certain American feel. The reason we don't have originality in such movies is because big budgets are allocated to movies that are a guaranteed sold. And judging by the public and what they like, a blockbuster is always going to seem lackluster in originality because the only way to get funding is to have a movie that can sell. Usually movies that sell are those like Godzilla and Batman because of the fan base.

I still believe that you can have a very high quality movie without necessarily having a huge blockbuster budget. But I guess in this case it wouldn't be called a Hollywood movie. A good example is Pan's Labyrinth, not a Hollywood movie, but just as good of quality, and received a lot of praise. I guess my point is that people expect certain things from Hollywood movies, and if they aren't given those things they don't watch the movies. But then, how do you differentiate a Hollywood movie from a movie like Pan's Labyrinth aside from the language?

I'm complaining because it's my opinion that the originality in Hollywood right now is at a low. A lot of times I just watch independent films or something like that. But sometimes I'm in the mood for a bigger budget Hollywood movie experience. It's like being in the mood for ice cream or something. It doesn't strike me all the time, but when I really feel like ice cream, it's a total bummer to show up at the store and find 23 of the 30 flavors are all different variations on chocolate, especially if you are like me and you are sick of chocolate (chocolate in this analogy = reboots, comic movies and sequels). I want more options than that. The other 7 remaining flavors might not be any good, or they might not be my taste, but if I had a wider range of options, I might more easily find something I'd like to try.

I won't deny that the originality kinda suck, but sequels/reboot/superhero movies can be extremely original if in the right hands. I completely get the complaining about lack of originality, that's completely fair. But some just complain that sequels shouldn't be made because they are a money gimmick or whatever. This is what I don't get, because you're not forced to watch if you don't want to. But in the case of originality, well if there's no original movies and you have nothing to watch, then this legitimately suck and is worth complaining over (I don't think this is the case, but you may feel differently). Having more diversity wouldn't hurt, this I can agree with.

(PS. this analogy made me giggle a bit because I'm lactose intolerant, what are the odds)

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------

I hear people when they say they enjoyed this or that reboot or comic movie or whatever, I really do, but I'm trying to address a larger problem, regardless of whether this or that particular movie is good. The larger problem is the lack of originality, and that is what I really wish would change, because I want good new ideas to chew on and think about and experience too. If there was a better balance between old ideas and new I don't think I would complain as much.

I don't think the balance is necessarily lost. I'm looking at the movies coming soon, and there's only 1 or 2 sequel etc. for every 10 movies. It might just be that those 2 movies get the most talked about, but the other movies will still be shown in theatre. Now I don't know how many are big budget movies, but at least a few are.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

[MENTION=8404]Blaze[/MENTION] Your thoughts and Robb Stark's contrary opinions are valid...I just felt like complaining. You might be right about some of the details (and maybe the proportion of sequels/reboots/comic movies to original/other movies are not quite as bad as I make it sound) but goddamn it I'm sick of all of it anyway. I want new things.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I also disagree.

I like the current state of hollywood.

I think the comic book movies are much better than book movies. Book movies all have the same format, find a young adult franchise, make it a trilogy, then turn the last one into two movies.
If anything book movies are by far the least original.

The most original material in films now are what comic book movies are doing. What marvel is doing with the expanded universe, crossover movies, spin off television shows across network television and internet television is incredibly original.

I also dont mind a reboot, if there is a need for it. I can't watch old movies, I find the special effects and acting too cringe worthy, it completely takes me out of the movie, so I like a reboot that modernises a movie and allows me to watch without rolling my eyes.
I can understand why some people dont like the idea of a spiderman reboot, for me personally I hated the first ones, Toby and Kristen were just awful and the movies were terrible, so I'm glad they rebooted it. I think they slipped back into old territory in the second one, but I much preferred the first one over the last trilogy.

I also like a continued story. If a movie has a great universe, why just contain that to one film, Buffy has a fantastic mythology and it's wasted by not being used. I liked the set up for Jump and Push but both felt underdeveloped cuz they only had one movie.

I also think with servies like Netflix and Kickstarter we are exposed to more original content and can now choose to watch as much original stuff and we do sequels or reboots.

 

[Doppelgang]

I have to continue the disagreement here with this last comment 😀, not on the grounds of the comic book reboot movies, as yes, I agree some of them are very good, and generally better than watching dated originals.

But regarding books that are turned into films. I personally do not like, and have not watched, either the harry potter or lord of the rings films. But this is because they are pure fantasy and I prefer something with a tinge of sci-fi or horror, or some dark pervasive element. But even so, what other chance would an author such as J.K. Rowling from her background, get to have her original ideas portrayed in a film? If she pitched her idea of kids at a school called Hogwarts to a hollywood director she would have been laughed out of the place and probably given up on the idea altogether. Similar would apply to most original writers who write stories and novels. So, by converting a book to a film, its a great way to get those ideas out to a wider more universal audience that otherwise would have been lost and would not have had a viable outlet.

You could say, why not just read the books. That would be my argument normally, but for many the film format is preferred, and it usually takes up less of your time to watch a film. It also gives some creative people the opportunity to do some different things with the ideas from the book.

Ones I have liked would include,The Millennium Series, girl with dragon tattoo, etc.. the hunger games and many Stephen King ones such as Misery, The Stand series. (Not technically a film this one)

Of course, the downside is you do end up with some trashy stuff that lowers the standards of both the film and book format. Twilight comes to mind 🙄 But you always get things like this, it doesn't take away from the good stuff that has been produced in my opinion, as there is plenty out there to choose from that has come from original sources, and much of this is thanks to converting books to films.

 

[white avenger]

There was a writer (I think Heinlein, but I'm not sure) who once said that there were less than a dozen truly original ideas when it came to story telling, and everything else is just a variation on one o more of those themes. As long as the story entertains me and inspires my imagination, I'm satisfied with it

Comic book heroes and themes? It's just the current theme, like westerns, war movies, martial arts movies, movies based on mythological heroes, and natural disasters have been in the past. Whatever makes money once gets done again, either as a sequel, a remake, a near copy, or a total rip off. Whatever brings in the crowds and sells the popcorn.

Books have sequels, even multi-volume series, that can go on for years, even decades, so why not movies based on those books. I also have literally hundreds of books that I would love to see made into movies, then again, some of my all time favorite books WERE made into movies. Absolutely terrible movies. Then, there are those sequels that are actually better than the originals. It all equals out.

As for a Buffy reboot, the idea doesn't thrill me, but again, it doesn't fill my heart with dread, either. After all, the TV series itself was basically a reboot of a less than great movie, and it turned out pretty well. A new series, miniseries, or movie could be better still. Not that it really matters, because I'm almost certain there will never be one in my lifetime.

 

[Kean]

Book adaptations, Superhero films and reboots are what is in vogue at the minute, but this popularity goes in cycles. Eventually audiences will be burned out from them and it will shift again. I watch a lot of indie films so I feel like I still have a great well of quality film making to enjoy, but in terms of Hollywood, I miss the "heart warming dramas" that used to do well in the 90s, like Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redemption (which granted was originally a novella, but it's more about the style and tone of the filmmaking that I miss.)

As for a Buffy reboot. I'm really in no hurry to see it happen but really all I care about is that the person behind it has a vision and a passion for the story and character. And I'd hope they would totally switch it up because we don't need a flashier version of the stories we had before. Buffy was about flipping the script on female characters, so if a new Buffy was to be done, I think she should be a woman of colour or gay. For Buffy to be Buffy, she needs to be breaking down walls and subverting genres.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=7585]Kean[/MENTION]

if a new Buffy was to be done, I think she should be a woman of colour

That would not be Buffy anymore. Buffy as a character is constructed around certain stereotypes ( valley girl, dumb blonde and so on ) and those are white people stereotypes. Take that away and you have a completely different character, Buffy-in-name-only basically.

or gay

This, I'm OK with, I mean, Buff already does chicks, even had a proper coming out scene on the show so whatever.

 

[Kean]

[MENTION=7585]Kean[/MENTION]


That would not be Buffy anymore. Buffy as a character is constructed around certain stereotypes ( valley girl, dumb blonde and so on ) and those are white people stereotypes. Take that away and you have a completely different character, Buffy-in-name-only basically.



This, I'm OK with, I mean, Buff already does chicks, even had a proper coming out scene on the show so whatever.

If either one of these changes were made Buffy would be different character as she would have experienced the world in a different way than as we traditionally know her. If you're going to reboot, then really do it, otherwise you're just telling the same story. Look at the BSG reboot, the best decision they made was to make their Starbuck a woman. For me, a Buffy reboot isn't worth a damn thing unless they are making big changes and exploring the character in a whole new way.

Maybe the best way to reboot it is the create a whole new character and just let Buffy be Buffy?

 

[The Bronze]

This, I'm OK with, I mean, Buff already does chicks, even had a proper coming out scene on the show so whatever.

When was this on the show? I'm drawing a total blank here.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Most people believe that there is a hierarchy of creativity whereby the arts are the most creative, followed by science as being constrained by the laws of physics, followed by mathematics as being totally regimented.

They have it backwards.

In mathematics, you can create spaces and constructs with properties that do not exist in reality. The real creativity is building a consistent universe around these constructs so that if something like it appears, you know what the properties are going to be. But if you don't understand the basics of mathematics, you cannot understand how creative it can be.

In the sciences and related engineering disciplines, you can be as creative or not as you wish. The basic five-tube radio design did not change much from the late 1930's to 1970 and the design is called the All American 5 by those of us who collect and restore radios. But I have worked on spacecraft designs that were phenomenal at using existing technology (everything used on a spacecraft has to have a long track record and an established reliability and you have to qualify anything that is not on the preferred parts list) with advanced mathematics to get performance no one could have imagined before. Keep a synchronous satellite antenna oriented with 0.1 degree pointing accuracy for two years with only 35 pounds of hydrazine propellant for the attitude control system? No one thought that was possible, but we did it for 3 years and nine months on the Hermes satellite with plenty of fuel still left. But of course, you have to understand the issues to see how remarkable that was.

And then you have the arts. As [MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION] said, there are only 12 plot lines and they have all been done to death. This is not as hopeless as it seems - there are only six strings on a guitar, so how many songs can be played? It is possible to get good stuff like The Matrix and The Butterfly Effect, but this seems to be more accidental than the product of good thought processes on the part of studios.

I concur with the OP that Hollywood has gone stale and interesting things are simply not happening with enough frequency to maintain my interest.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=7585]Kean[/MENTION]

Look at the BSG reboot, the best decision they made was to make their Starbuck a woman.

The best portrayal of Hamlet I've seen in my life was done by a woman. Gosh, it was like magic. After the initial, Wow! Hamlet is a woman! and Hey, she's kinda hot! that lasted about, oh, 20 seconds it just stopped mattering. The actress started speaking and moving and there was no actress anymore, it was Prince of Denmark, you know what I mean? Magic.

But I digress.

Maybe the best way to reboot it is the create a whole new character and just let Buffy be Buffy?

Yeah, but if the character is so different then why not just go with a completely new, original IP?

[MENTION=12470]The Bronze[/MENTION]
Buffy doing chicks? Comics. Coming out scene? It's on the show, well, kinda, when Buffy tells Joyce that she is the slayer in season 2. It's a blatant coming out metaphor, like, nobody's even pretending there.

 

[Kean]

[MENTION=7585]Kean[/MENTION]


The best portrayal of Hamlet I've seen in my life was done by a woman. Gosh, it was like magic. After the initial, Wow! Hamlet is a woman! and Hey, she's kinda hot! that lasted about, oh, 20 seconds it just stopped mattering. The actress started speaking and moving and there was no actress anymore, it was Prince of Denmark, you know what I mean? Magic.

But I digress.

Yeah, but if the character is so different then why not just go with a completely new, original IP?

.

OK, with that train of thought in mind, why should the character of Buffy being a woman of colour be out of the realm of plausibility? How is that more of stretch than Hamlet or Starbuck being played by a woman?

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=7585]Kean[/MENTION]

OK, with that train of thought in mind, why should the character of Buffy being a woman of colour be out of the realm of plausibility? How is that more of stretch than Hamlet or Starbuck being played by a woman?

Because being a man is not what makes Hamlet well, Hamlet. His identity is not based on gender or skin color. Buffy's is. I don't think that a man could portray Buffy because the challenges Buffy faces are very much tied to her gender ( while Hamlet's are universal ) just like her identity is tied to her being a white woman. If you're not a white woman you can't struggle against the stereotype of a dumb blonde nor a valley girl. An Asian actress, for example, playing Buffy is like an Asian actor playing the lead of a Blaxploitation movie. Sure, you could try but WHY? It's ridiculous.