Pretty much all of the reasons on this list are...hm, how should I put it...bullsh-t. For one thing, he doesn't realize that the movie is going to be about the character of Buffy, which is why it's pissing off the fans so much. I'd actually be on-board if they were writing it about a different Slayer. Then, there's his explanation for "being done with Buffy"...it makes no sense. First, he starts going on about how he was annoyed that she got too strong, which is ridiculous on its own. I almost had to laugh at his "she's human, people!" comment...does he not realize that she had superpowers and could heal really fast from the very beginning? As for the strength continuity, every single show does that, so I don't see why he sees it as a valid reason to complain about the show. Besides, the way I see it, she can "leap tall buildings in a single bound and take a punch like a superhero" in more episodes than she can "get knocked out easily with a kick to the head," and when you listen to the writers' commentary in those episodes, they usually admit that she shouldn't have gotten knocked out so easily. Then mid-paragraph, he decides that he wants to change his reason and says that she got too depressing for his taste. What the hell does he want? Then, there's his "Joss has the worst endings ever" argument, which I'd sort of be behind if it weren't for his last comment about thinking that the Angel finale was bad. I know it's an opinion, but I think he's, like, the only person ever to not think that the Angel finale was awesome. Just sayin'.
Now, this is the only reason I can understand...
Reason 3: J.J. Abrams Scored with Star Trek
I was never a Star Trek fan, but I enjoyed J.J.'s new film. So did the rest of the country, obviously. He breathed new life into a franchise that was associated with geeks and nerds at comic book conventions. When I think Star Trek, I used to think of bad acting, cheesy sets, and generally crappy sci-fi (I'm looking at you, Enterprise). Now I think of it as a fresh, viable franchise. Perhaps a new Buffy crew would have the same effect, making it seem less like teeny-bopper fare, and more like a strong genre comedy.
...but unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense in the end. For one thing, the only season of Buffy that was "teeny-bopper fare" was the first one, but that's beside the point. Unlike Star Trek, Buffy is fairly recent and is widely recognized as a great show. Plus, Star Trek was a whole franchise of shows that spanned through generations (they had The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise) whereas Buffy was not only one individual show, but also very character-based while Star Trek was more plot-based, making the character replacements much easier for them to do.
But the main reason why a Buffy movie wouldn't be like the Star Trek one is because J.J. Abrams has proven himself to be a very good writer/director. Lost, Alias, and Fringe are all very good (not to mention popular) shows. The Kuzuis, on the other hand, have only made the original Buffy movie, which pretty much everyone thinks was just awful. If they got a more capable writer and director, I'd be behind it, but alas, they didn't.
But lousy reasoning aside, the main reason why this list bugged me was because the guy who wrote it clearly wasn't a fan of the show. He seemed to only like the first season, then decided that, when the entire show wasn't a campy, light-hearted comedy, it was too dark. Plus, he said that he wanted the movie to be a "genre comedy," which is exactly what the fans are worried about...while Buffy did have a lot of humor incorporated into it, it was a sci-fi drama at the core, but when it's sci-fi heavy he says it's "ridiculous" and when it's a drama, he says it's a "downer." They should have gotten someone who actually enjoyed the show to write the list because of they did, maybe their reasoning would make sense.
