Buffy movie being developed without Joss

[que28]

i dont know about this. maybe the director will realize this is a VERY bad idea and drop the movie...

 

[Spuffy is true love]

I think the only way a movie like this will succeed is if they kinda make it about the origins of the slayer. something having to deal with the begining of everything. like last scene of the movie is when the demon possesses the girl and she becomes the slayer. Other than that I don't see anything succeeding....actually take that back, i don't see anything worth succeeding. if they create one don't lie, everyone here will go and see it and then bitch about it afterwards.....i know i will....lol

 

[AndrewCrossett]

if they create one don't lie, everyone here will go and see it and then bitch about it afterwards.....i know i will....lol

The producers won't care that you bitched about it... only that you went to see it, and paid them.

And then they'll make more just like that one, and we've got a new Buffy franchise. Joss's becomes "Retro Buffy"... and mostly irrelevant to new fans from that point forward.

 

[Jersh]

This movie is just a really terrible idea overall.

 

[TheHalfBreed]

I intend to withhold both my judgment and, if justified, rightful wrath until after the final credits roll.

And the popcorn's still my treat for whoever cares to join me on opening night.

My problem with the film isnt them doing it without joss since alot of the show was written without him. I only wish he was involved so it wouldent be stealing it away from him and it would be done on his terms. the problem I have is that as soon as the opening credits pop up Our buffyverse is done and dead. nothing new will be put into it, it will just wither and die. this film will obviusly be a flop so there wont even be a new buffyverse no matter how bad it would be. so we cant wait to give our judgment. we need to stop this now! :fighting1

 

[jesterjay]

My problem with the film isnt them doing it without joss since alot of the show was written without him. I only wish he was involved so it wouldent be stealing it away from him and it would be done on his terms. the problem I have is that as soon as the opening credits pop up Our buffyverse is done and dead. nothing new will be put into it, it will just wither and die. this film will obviusly be a flop so there wont even be a new buffyverse no matter how bad it would be. so we cant wait to give our judgment. we need to stop this now! :fighting1

It can't wither and die. We're here, we're contributing every day talking about it. 11 years later, we're still here talking about it. I'm pretty sure we'll be doing the same thing in 21 more.

I mean, how many people have you turned on to the show since it ended? I'm up to 6 people. Give me more time and it will be more 🙂

 

[TheHalfBreed]

It can't wither and die. We're here, we're contributing every day talking about it. 11 years later, we're still here talking about it. I'm pretty sure we'll be doing the same thing in 21 more.

I mean, how many people have you turned on to the show since it ended? I'm up to 6 people. Give me more time and it will be more 🙂

this is only because the buffyverse isnt dead . . . . yet. theyre still adding to it with season 8.
once this remake is created and they have their little franchise spawned form it. anything buffy related will be based off of the new franchise. not this buffyverse , Not Ours. the charechters we love, the stories that where special to us. the emotions we felt while watching will be forgotten. any chance of bringing back the buffverse to our screens, any hope at all will be extingished

 

[white avenger]

They got away with something similar for two years with "Dark Angel," and you might even say "Supernatural" would fit flawlessly into the Buffyverse, as would the SciFi channel's "Supernatural," and several others.

I just realized that I had made a mistake here. The above SHOULD have read "...as would the SciFi Channel's "Sanctuary." Sorry for any confusion that it might have caused.

 

[WhiteHat]

If I may butt-in for a moment. I think that with a large enough budget and respectable writing it might succeed, and with those two crucial factors in place a film has a chance to please the core fanbase and maybe draw in more fans. Given the fact that there have been many Slayers throughout time, having a film about one or more previous slayers through (pre)history could be great. Doing historical pix, though, is very expensive and cutting financial corners would not be wise.

Setting Ideas:

* Ancient Egypt (pyramids, mummies, curses, evil lurking in ancient cobweb-strewn tombs...)
* Mediaeval Europe (While knights were on crusade the Slayer had her own battles against the minions of the Hellmouth)
* Renaissance Italy (set amidst the Guelph-Ghibelline fighting; Dante's Inferno imagery, etc.)

I would love to see the film if they could do a solid job of including Slayer Mythology in one or more of the above time-frames. 😀

 

[AndrewCrossett]

If I may butt-in for a moment. I think that with a large enough budget and respectable writing it might succeed, and with those two crucial factors in place a film has a chance to please the core fanbase and maybe draw in more fans.

The reaction I've seen suggests to me that this movie has no chance to please the core fanbase, regardless of its quality, because of the fact that the creators are cutting Whedon off from his own creation and using it against his will to make their own project. This is legal because of a piece of paper the Kuzuis apparently own.

I've been all over the place saying that you can't make a true Buffy movie without the heart and soul of Buffy, which is Joss Whedon. Without him, Buffy is a mannequin... a Buffybot.

"Doesn't matter if it's good or bad," I'll say, "Without Joss it's not really a Buffy movie."

"But how can you say that without seeing it and knowing whether it'll be good or not?"

"Because, as I just said, that doesn't matter. The Buffy you love is Joss Whedon's Buffy. He has her story, from beginning to end, in his head. She was born there, and she'll die there. The story of Buffy is the story Joss tells, or that people tell under his supervision."

"But maybe it will be good..."

And so on, and so on.

I might be able to write a really good Buffy story myself. Some people tell me I have, in fact... several stories. But they're not real Buffy stories, and I would never have the gall to claim they are.

The movie may create new fans (if it's successful) or drive fans away (if it's not). But the new fans will be attached to a fandom other than ours, following a different character than the one we've known. And the fans who are driven away will be driven away from our fandom as well as that other one.

 

[complex]

I will concede the obvious. ANYONE who tries to remake, reboot, redefine, retell, rewrite, or recast "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" without involving the original cast or at least having substantial input from Joss is going to have a very tough row to hoe in producing a story that the fans will fall immediately in love with, or even willingly accept. However, with the right writers, the right actors, the right director, an adequate budget, and enough effective advertising beforehand, it could be done. Note that I said COULD. I am not familiar with anything that Kazui has directed, but I am willing to accept that he would probably not be the right director, but remember, movie projects sometimes change directors several times before even the initial casting begins. There is still time for this to develop into a workable, good quality movie. I, for one, sincerely hope that it will. I've seen actors replaced, directors replaced, writers replaced, even production studios replaced, and the resulting movie still turn out well. I intend to withhold both my judgment and, if justified, rightful wrath until after the final credits roll.

And the popcorn's still my treat for whoever cares to join me on opening night.

The original cast is from 1992... Technically "the show" is a remake...

But I still agree with you.
It wont be the slightest bit the same without sarah, nicholas, emma,alyson, tony, JOSS....

 

[white avenger]

.

The movie may create new fans (if it's successful) or drive fans away (if it's not). But the new fans will be attached to a fandom other than ours, following a different character than the one we've known. And the fans who are driven away will be driven away from our fandom as well as that other one.

But that's the point, if I'm understanding everything correctly. It WILL be a different Buffy. No Sunnydale, Giles, Willow, Xander, Joyce, or any other of the characters we all know and love. Just some strange girl who happens to have the same name and powers as the REAL Slayer. I can live with that quite easily, and feel no threat to the original cast, creator, and staff of one of my favorite tv shows.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

But that's the point, if I'm understanding everything correctly. It WILL be a different Buffy. No Sunnydale, Giles, Willow, Xander, Joyce, or any other of the characters we all know and love. Just some strange girl who happens to have the same name and powers as the REAL Slayer. I can live with that quite easily, and feel no threat to the original cast, creator, and staff of one of my favorite tv shows.

Except for the confusion it will create among new fans to have two different, competing, corporate-sponsored franchises centering on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

And that confusion will be precisely what Fox cites when they go to court (I would think) to defend their trademarks.

Some people would argue that competition is healthy, and that the better franchise (Joss's) will emerge victorious and stronger. But that's now how it works in Hollywood. The winner won't be the one with better writing, it will be the one with the bigger budget, more media coverage, and more PR.

Life isn't fair. And even less so in corporate Hollywood, where thousands of people are paid to make sure it isn't. Profit -- usually, but not always, within the technical bounds of legality -- is the only measure of right and wrong.

 

[TheHalfBreed]

and feel no threat to the original cast, creator, and staff of one of my favorite tv shows.

The film itself is the threat to the TV. it will cut the buffverse timeline off as soon as its released to make a newer, worse one. i'm also going to be so sick of explaining the tv show is Great and thats the buffy I like

 

[BillyidolwannaB]

But what if all the new fans give original Buffy a chance and like it more than the re-make! New fans. @andrewcrosset: are the Kuzuis cutting Joss outta the picture here? If Joss decided he wanted a piece of this would they be happy?

 

[white avenger]

Except for the confusion it will create among new fans to have two different, competing, corporate-sponsored franchises centering on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

/QUOTE]


But how will that be any different that having more than one Dr Who, James Bond, Tarzan, Zorro, Superman, Batman, or Sherlock Holmes? If the franchise is strong enough, and I believe that it is, Buffy and the Buffyverse will survive a change of actors, writers, directors, and even the loss of Joss Whedon's input. The only matter worthy of any real concern is whether or not the quality of the finished product measures up to, or even surpasses the original, and that will not be determined until the movie is made. Until then, everything is just speculation and more or less educated guesses, flavored by a tremendous amount of emotionalism.

Ian Flemming never had any input whatsoever on the making of a single James Bond movie. Edgar Rice Burroughs had no part in the making of any Tarzan movie. And though they did all star the same actor, only the original screenplay for the first "Dirty Harry" movie was written by the character's creator, Harry Julian Fink. Are we afraid that Buffy isn't as enduring a character as Harry Callahan? Do we honestly believe that the only people capable of playing the roles or writing the stories were the original tv group? Well, maybe they ARE the only actors and writers capable of making a "real" Buffy story. One way or another, I want to know, and the only way that I will know is if this movie is made. So, if it's made, I'll go to see it. If it's crap, or if it's really good, we won't really know until then.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

But how will that be any different that having more than one Dr Who, James Bond, Tarzan, Zorro, Superman, Batman, or Sherlock Holmes?

Doctor Who: A group creation, and still in its original continuity, despite the time gap between the old show and the new one. Shifting actors and writers have always been an integral part of the series. Nobody's original creation is being trampled here... in fact, the show has gone out of its way to preserve and acknowledge its origins.

James Bond: All the Bond movies made during Fleming's lifetime were based on his stories. He approved of the movies and did, in fact, actively make suggestions about them. They adhered to his vision, and it wasn't until long after his death that the franchise veered away into new territory, after having filmed literally every Bond story he ever wrote.

Tarzan: Burroughs could hardly wait to sell the film rights to Tarzan, and he got very rich as a result. They veered off his original stories, but he couldn't care less. He was a pulp writer, and... ka-ching!

Zorro: Another pulp creation like Tarzan. His creator, Johnston McCulley, took a similar attitude toward the movies (i.e., $$$!!). In fact, he liked Douglas Fairbanks's performance of Zorro so much that he actually based his own subsequent stories off that version.

Superman and Batman: Created for comic books, which by their very nature are shared by many writers and artists. It's true that Superman's creators got screwed, but years later they successfully sued for compensation.

Sherlock Holmes: Only two Holmes movies were made during Conan Doyle's life, which adhered closely to the spirit of his creation. The later Basil Rathbone ones, which placed Holmes in the 1940's and so forth, were made after his death and licensed by his estate.

If the franchise is strong enough, and I believe that it is, Buffy and the Buffyverse will survive a change of actors, writers, directors, and even the loss of Joss Whedon's input. The only matter worthy of any real concern is whether or not the quality of the finished product measures up to, or even surpasses the original, and that will not be determined until the movie is made. Until then, everything is just speculation and more or less educated guesses, flavored by a tremendous amount of emotionalism.

I guess I'm doomed never to succeed at convincing anyone that this is not a question of quality, but of principle. From my viewpoint, the "only matter worthy of any real concern" is that the creator of Buffy... the one who has been telling her story for 12 years while the Kuzuis sat on their asses and cashed paychecks... the only one who has ever made Buffy's a story worth paying attention to... is being excluded from his own creation.

If the Kuzuis were really concerned with making a good movie (they're not; they're interested in a quick cash-in -- Vertigo Entertainment exists specifically for that purpose), they would be working with the one person who's had success in producing and guiding Buffy stories.

Ian Flemming never had any input whatsoever on the making of a single James Bond movie. Edgar Rice Burroughs had no part in the making of any Tarzan movie. And though they did all star the same actor, only the original screenplay for the first "Dirty Harry" movie was written by the character's creator, Harry Julian Fink.

But none of those creators were cut out of the process, and none of them saw movies made with their characters against their wishes. If Joss had even so much as been asked for his participation or blessing in this project, we might be looking at a very different environment.

The Kuzuis had no part whatsoever in creating Buffy. They fronted the money to make a movie, which they proceeded to ruin. Their rights to the character consist of a piece of paper.

Well, maybe they ARE the only actors and writers capable of making a "real" Buffy story. One way or another, I want to know, and the only way that I will know is if this movie is made. So, if it's made, I'll go to see it. If it's crap, or if it's really good, we won't really know until then.

Do you really believe that the only gauge of whether a Buffy story is "real" or not is the quality? Because if so, I've read many good fanfics that should be submitted as "real" Buffy stories.

There seems to be a strong temptation here to use our potential enjoyment as a way of defining right and wrong. Sure, I knocked down that old lady and stole her purse, but I had fun spending her money. That's all that really counts, right?

(I'm not trying to accuse anyone here of villainy... just trying to convey how I view the situation.)

 

[Sunnydale Siren]

No Whedon


No SMG


NO Thank You!!!

 

[WhiteHat]

Mr. Andrew: Joss was part of the "soul" of the show. He had great writers working for him, talented actors to incarnate the characters, amazing set designers and lighting people, Mr. Beck's great musical talent, &c.

Avenger: Civil War = Deep South = Anne Rice territory. It's all been done before. Don't get me wrong, I think Interview with the Vampire is perhaps one of the best books to come out of the '70's (as opposed to that von Danniken schlock), but that take on Vamp Lore is played out. If you haven't yet read it, you are robbing yourself of some deliciously good reading. 😀

Edgar Rice Burroughs had no part in the making of any Tarzan movie.

IIRC, Mr. Burroughs was involved with early film interpretations, as the one with Herman Brix.

The aforementioned list of franchises is excellent to show that, if the character/fundamental concept/world has a life all his/her/its own, then people will not necessarily shun a Slayer flick without SMG, Joss, et al. The Slayerverse may be an exception, in that Buffy was part of a long line of Slayers and not sui generis, or suae generis, as the case may be. I for one would love to see the world of BtVS expanded on to give us insight into how earlier women in history coped with the big responsibility of being the Slayer in context of the timeframe and culture in which she lived, not just middle-class late 20th-early 21st century California.

The new film could have the word SLAYER in it, but not BUFFY, unless for some bizarre reason it must.

 

[white avenger]

IIRC, Mr. Burroughs was involved with early film interpretations, as the one with Herman Brix.

Oh, yeah, "Tarzan And The Green Goddess," filmed in South America. I had forgotten that one (but, then, it's so VERY forgettable). I believe he also co-produced that one, and said that Brix, who later changed his name to Bruce Bennett and ended up playing the private detective on the "Perry Mason" tv show.

I agree that there would be fewer bad feelings if this evil proposed movie were a story about another, as yet unknown Slayer rather than Buffy, and I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't what actually happens in the end, and this whole "rebooting Buffy" thing is just a ploy to stir up interest . And it surely has done that!

As for Ian Flemming having any input into the James Bond movies during his lifetime, he only posed for a few promotion photos for the first couple. Other than that, he sold the movie rights to the entire series, including any future books, and was so disappointed in the resulting movies that he actually considered killing Bond at one point. ("You Only Live Twice." He renigged at the last moment and just gave him amnesia.) He was never consulted about plot or any kind of content of any of the movies, which becomes pretty clear if you compare the books with the movies bearing the same titles. And he was never satisfied with Connery. The only actor who he ever actually liked in the part was George Lazenby.

Both writers pretty much sold their characters and walked away counting their money.