OldSchoolVamp
Townie
I agree. Really dont expect anything. Thinking if I have no expectations then I cant be disappointed. Shows like Buffy and Angel are best if left alone, usually
-
Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
4. See 1 through 3.
Come on, register already!
Buffy Reboot: Part 2
- Thread starter nightshade
- Start date
Kratos
Scooby
I think it’s too early to know if it’s going to be a complete reboot or spin-off. I’m not really bothered anyway.
DeadlyDuo
Scooby
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2016
- Messages
- 9,005
- Age
- 30
Well if fan reaction to the initial news was any indication, they'd be better off going for a spin off rather than reboot since they practically got a resounding "NO" from fans when it looked like they would be redoing the characters. Once it was clarified that the writer had no intention of replacing the characters, fan reaction mellowed a bit to "we'll give it a chance but we're not expecting much".
Spanky
Scooby
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 22,945
From some fans. Some other fans liked the idea.
DeadlyDuo
The majority of fans were against the reboot idea but more okay with the revival idea.
HowiMetdaSlayer
*minority*
Taake
The cheese stands alone.
Ethan Reigns
Scooby
What I don't hear is the resounding ka-ching of someone actually plunking down some money to write a script and shoot a pilot. Until then, this is just an announcement to test the waters and see if there would be any interest. If the studio execs don't hear anything but unabashed clamour for a reboot, they are not going to pony up the money for a series. Rebooted series are not doing that well. And putting a black person in as the lead so they can blame any failure on racism is not gonna fly either.
HowiMetdaSlayer
Occasionally, I am callous and strange 🐶
Sharky
Townie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Messages
- 39
- Age
- 26
Alyson has stated before she'd want to be involved in a Buffy revival correct? That's one thing that would make me excited for this.
Buffy is Buffy. Nobody else is Buffy.
If they want to do a show about a slayer that is NOT Buffy, just have a new slayer.
One slayer dies, another is called. So, okay, there’s a new slayer. That’s FINE. Have all the new slayers you want. Have hundreds of them. A new one every week. Who cares. Could be fun.
There is ONE Buffy. You don’t get to have another Buffy because there isn’t another Buffy.
This is like when they replaced John Boy. No. John Boy was John Boy and Buffy is Buffy and the TV people can pretend that the new one is what they ARE NOT, but everyone watching knows who John Boy and Buffy are...and they weren’t the new ones.
You can replace Darrins. You canNOT replace Buffy.
(So blah.)
If they want to do a show about a slayer that is NOT Buffy, just have a new slayer.
One slayer dies, another is called. So, okay, there’s a new slayer. That’s FINE. Have all the new slayers you want. Have hundreds of them. A new one every week. Who cares. Could be fun.
There is ONE Buffy. You don’t get to have another Buffy because there isn’t another Buffy.
This is like when they replaced John Boy. No. John Boy was John Boy and Buffy is Buffy and the TV people can pretend that the new one is what they ARE NOT, but everyone watching knows who John Boy and Buffy are...and they weren’t the new ones.
You can replace Darrins. You canNOT replace Buffy.
(So blah.)
Spanky
Scooby
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 22,945
That's who the show is about: Buffy. You said it best "no one else is Buffy" so why do a show with a character that is not Buffy. It should be Buffy because no one else IS Buffy.
Another actress won’t BE Buffy.
She can be Allie or Brittney or Kaylie or whatever the hell else. But she can’t be Buffy.
This whole “new slayer show” is risky as it is. Kind of like that woman who wrote the “sequel” to Gone With The Wind. Everyone checked it out. Almost everyone decided that it sucked.
It’s really hard to follow up on something that was wonderful and beloved. Odds are you won’t do as well and everyone will know it.
Trying to re-do it? Failing before you start.
You cannot replace Buffy with some new actress, just like you couldn’t replace John-Boy or Margaret Mitchell.
A new slayer show could be good, but it has big shoes to fill. And you know what they say about men with big shoes! (Big feet.)
Trying to make someone else into Buffy...nope!
She can be Allie or Brittney or Kaylie or whatever the hell else. But she can’t be Buffy.
This whole “new slayer show” is risky as it is. Kind of like that woman who wrote the “sequel” to Gone With The Wind. Everyone checked it out. Almost everyone decided that it sucked.
It’s really hard to follow up on something that was wonderful and beloved. Odds are you won’t do as well and everyone will know it.
Trying to re-do it? Failing before you start.
You cannot replace Buffy with some new actress, just like you couldn’t replace John-Boy or Margaret Mitchell.
A new slayer show could be good, but it has big shoes to fill. And you know what they say about men with big shoes! (Big feet.)
Trying to make someone else into Buffy...nope!
Kratos
Scooby
What’s the reboot going to be called anyway? Buffy: The Next Generation doesn’t sound right to me.
I'm thinking it'll be called Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Spanky
Really? Buffy? What kind of name is Buffy?
HowiMetdaSlayer
Doubt it even from the rather limited info we have so far...
DagonSphere
Potential
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Messages
- 235
- Age
- 33
If it's a new slayer who is not called Buffy, maybe they'll go by the title that the WB initially wanted: Slayer.
If it's a reboot where they do actually have a new Buffy and it is unconnected to the original universe, they'll stick with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
If it's a reboot where they do actually have a new Buffy and it is unconnected to the original universe, they'll stick with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
HyperionWitch
Townie
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 52
Depends on how a show is approached. A tv series set within the so called Buffyverse doesn't actually need to have Buffy Summers, Willow Rosenberg, Sunnydale, California, or a Hellmouth in order to be successful. If that was the case, we would not have ended up with five seasons and 110 episodes of Angel. If it wasn't for Joss jumping the gun hoping to make sure his cast and crew had jobs going into 2005, combined with executives at the now defunct WB network making what they later admitted was a mistake, we'd have probably ended up with 6 or even 7 seasons of that show and 132 or 154 episodes.
Happy to hear that they are not planning to just pretend some random girl is Buffy.
Disappointed with the whole, “The world is scarier...” thing. I suspect they’re going to make a seriously political show.
I’ll watch the first one, but the second it gets in-your-face political, I’m out.
If I want political stuff, there are PLENTY of news channels and other shows and movies, newspapers, magazines, websites...I don’t want Political Slayer.
When I turn on the tv, it’s to escape.
I suspect they’re going to churn out NameHere, the Political Slayer.
Disappointed with the whole, “The world is scarier...” thing. I suspect they’re going to make a seriously political show.
I’ll watch the first one, but the second it gets in-your-face political, I’m out.
If I want political stuff, there are PLENTY of news channels and other shows and movies, newspapers, magazines, websites...I don’t want Political Slayer.
When I turn on the tv, it’s to escape.
I suspect they’re going to churn out NameHere, the Political Slayer.
W
WillowFromBuffy
Guest
The original Buffy was political. It wouldn't be the most academically discussed pop culture franchise if it was just campy escapism. Joss is infamous for the way he was able to twist the arm of the studio reps when they tried to stop him from being too bold.
A new Buffy show that didn't tackle contemporary issues wouldn't be Buffy.
Octavia
Mostly campy escapism for me
thrasherpix
Scooby
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 3,415
- Age
- 38
I don't mind political, even if it's against my own political leanings. What irritates me is all the terrible writing of late which is trying to replace good writing by being "woke" so that they can blame their laziness on things like reactionaries (or even Russian bots)...especially when they insult the franchise that was actually at least as woke, if not more so, in the past AND with better stories and characters but now try to make it sound as if they're so revolutionary. Though I can quibble and stuff on what Joss was trying to accomplish at times, or at least how he went about it, I didn't see him as mindlessly pandering to the public, which is more than I can say for much of the stuff coming out today. (But it can be done well, IMO, and I have cautious hope for the Buffy reboot.)
If anything, it frustrates me even more when they mix this bad writing and attitude with representation as I see it as counterproductive (and I think the Heathers TV series was trying to be "woke" in a clueless way so counterproductive that at first I thought it was deliberately MOCKING social justice issues until I read up on the writers and other creators of it). At least when I harshly criticize Ayn Rand's fiction (sometimes for very similar reasons as the wannabe "woke" stuff of today with terrible writing, dry characters that are way too perfect and thus can't grow against enemies so defective that one wonders how the enemies achieved their power in the first place, and the like) I don't care as much as I don't subscribe to her politics & philosophy anyway. (That said, I want to point out to any Rand fans reading this that my criticism of her writing is not the same as typical liberal condemnation of it, and there are people I greatly respect--and recognize some of them as far smarter than me--who revere Ayn Rand, though I find it odd that they do.)
Come to think of it, many cynical corporate formulas for movie writing (like the butchery of Jem, which inversed what the show was actually about in a checklist of market research applied to the story in a way that showed a lack of understanding context of either Jem and/or the market research--though I recognize the cartoon was out to sell toys first and foremost, so does have crass capitalism in common with the movie). It's pandering, predictable, and often without actual suspense...just like a lot of would-be "woke" shows come off as to me and many others.
If anything, it frustrates me even more when they mix this bad writing and attitude with representation as I see it as counterproductive (and I think the Heathers TV series was trying to be "woke" in a clueless way so counterproductive that at first I thought it was deliberately MOCKING social justice issues until I read up on the writers and other creators of it). At least when I harshly criticize Ayn Rand's fiction (sometimes for very similar reasons as the wannabe "woke" stuff of today with terrible writing, dry characters that are way too perfect and thus can't grow against enemies so defective that one wonders how the enemies achieved their power in the first place, and the like) I don't care as much as I don't subscribe to her politics & philosophy anyway. (That said, I want to point out to any Rand fans reading this that my criticism of her writing is not the same as typical liberal condemnation of it, and there are people I greatly respect--and recognize some of them as far smarter than me--who revere Ayn Rand, though I find it odd that they do.)
Come to think of it, many cynical corporate formulas for movie writing (like the butchery of Jem, which inversed what the show was actually about in a checklist of market research applied to the story in a way that showed a lack of understanding context of either Jem and/or the market research--though I recognize the cartoon was out to sell toys first and foremost, so does have crass capitalism in common with the movie). It's pandering, predictable, and often without actual suspense...just like a lot of would-be "woke" shows come off as to me and many others.
I think politics is fine, but when I watch tv today (which I've mostly stopped doing), it's not that shows have a political message so much as they come across as political indoctrination. Basically it's preachy and hamfisted, it follows ideology so much that they've lost nuance and complexity and to a large degree, the ability to bridge divides and appeal to more than one "side". Say what you want about Joss Whedon - but he knew how to appeal to many different people and deeply.
If you can only appeal to one group of people, whatever side you're on, that's a great misfortune. I think the entertainment industry is so obviously mired in one type of political ideal right now that people have a right to feel vary about what these elites will produce in terms of reality representation. It seems to me that many people in Hollywood have forgotten that their lives and concerns may not reflect the lives and concerns of the greater audiences.
And let's not forget that online outrage mobs are a very real thing. It is hard for TV to be politically brave now, whatever story they are trying to tell, because they risk an outrage storm. So, it's safer to pander and try to play it safe. Of course there seems to be no safe anymore, there is always something to be offended by, no matter what political spectrum you feel like you belong to. That's also probably why some people, like myself, get vary about reboots. We're outrage-fatigued and long for good stories that aren't so heavily policed by correctness. Nothing will ever be 100% correct, that's why utopia is a no-place.
If you can only appeal to one group of people, whatever side you're on, that's a great misfortune. I think the entertainment industry is so obviously mired in one type of political ideal right now that people have a right to feel vary about what these elites will produce in terms of reality representation. It seems to me that many people in Hollywood have forgotten that their lives and concerns may not reflect the lives and concerns of the greater audiences.
And let's not forget that online outrage mobs are a very real thing. It is hard for TV to be politically brave now, whatever story they are trying to tell, because they risk an outrage storm. So, it's safer to pander and try to play it safe. Of course there seems to be no safe anymore, there is always something to be offended by, no matter what political spectrum you feel like you belong to. That's also probably why some people, like myself, get vary about reboots. We're outrage-fatigued and long for good stories that aren't so heavily policed by correctness. Nothing will ever be 100% correct, that's why utopia is a no-place.
Mr Trick
Agree with just about everything you said.
W
WillowFromBuffy
Guest
If we are talking about the dangerous "SJW-ideology," then there are plenty of shows that are aggressively nihilistic, such as Family Guy and Big Bang Theory. They're not very good, but they exist and they are really popular.
Not that I said that, but I was expecting a defensive response about it, felt predictable. Most people I know think that BBT is basically a sign of everything that's wrong with society, I haven't watched past season 5 so I can't judge as to its quality now, but what I said would apply to that show as well based on my experiences. I also feel like neither Family Guy nor the Big Bang Theory really have a "message" in the way that more dramatic series do, but maybe they've changed since I last tuned in.
DeadlyDuo
I like both BBT and Family Guy. BBT later seasons are better than the earlier ones.
thrasherpix
Never could get into BBT, but from what I've seen of FG, it's a trollish parody of everybody like MAD Magazine, pointing out our absurdity cloaked within its own absurdity, and being an equal opportunity offender in the process.