Buffy should not be re-made

[burrunjor]

I've been listening to the podcasts Still Pretty and Still Dead recently and they've made me realise just how flawed Buffy and Angel were when it came to the depiction of feminism, masculinity, race, queerness and basically anything else you can think of.

Within the context of when it was made it was ground breaking, yes. However 20 years later looking at it with a modern lens there are a lot of moments that just haven't aged well so that's why I think a reboot, if handled well, is much needed. We will always have the Buffy we grew up with, the Buffy that shaped and inspired us, but the people growing up today need a different Buffy. The show was ahead of its time 20 years ago but now it's behind the times, we need a Buffy who is ahead of our current time.

I want to see Buffy through the lens of a female show runner, better yet a woman of colour or a queer woman or even someone who is both. I want to see a diverse cast, I want to see them tackle the demons of today's society. It's something I can see the BOOM! Comics reboot trying so hard to do but the writer just isn't experienced enough to tell a large story in the compacted format of a comic book. There has definitely been growth, they're doing a lot better getting those character moments in recently but it still isn't great. In saying that though the foundation is there for a talented showrunner to take the skeleton of the comics and turn that into something really amazing in my opinion.

No offence I'm not having a go, but this is exactly why I fear a remake of Buffy (or Blade for that matter.)

I don't want divisive identity politics being brought into the franchise.

Yes Buffy was always a show about female empowerment, but there is a world of difference between that and identity politics. One is a good thing, the other is needlessly dividing and atomising us by superficial characteristics whilst ironically claiming to do the opposite. (which coupled with it's intimidating cancel culture is why it pulls so many people in.)

I absolutely do not want a showrunner for the new Buffy to be be black, woman or an LGBT person simply because they are black, a woman or an LGBT person. I want a good writer to run Buffy. If they happen to be black, LGBT or a woman, great! If not, don't fire them because they are a white man. Talent needs to always come first. If we'd ran the original show that way K Todd Freeman would have been cast as Spike over James Marsters. (I like Freeman, but obviously James was the best choice there.)

Similarly a good story, and good characters must always come first.

No casting people for their skin colour, either way, no writing LGBT characters as nothing but LGBT, no little digs at men, no caring about the ham fisted political message above the story and the monsters being effective, and no constant lecturing on the part of the writers about current events that will date it in ten years time.

You say Buffy and Angel have dated I don't think they have at all.

I actually think that modern genre series could learn a lot on how to write women and minorities from Buffy. Look at these clips from that ghastly CW Supergirl series.

Most people I know can't even make it past the first clip montage.

Supergirl Superfeminist Supercut 2

Supergirl Superfeminist Supercut 3

See the difference between that and Buffy? Buffy had black characters like Wood who didn't complain about being black, had other characteristics beside that and were fully rounded. Supergirl almost uses its black characters as trophies to show how great the writers are for casting them and revels in divisive crap about white vs black people.

Compare this dialogue from Robin Wood to a bit of dialogue from a black character from Class a notoriously awful, SJW spin off from DW.

Class


TANYA: White people.
APRIL: White people what?
TANYA: Always so optimistic. Always so certain things are going to work out for you. Oh, well, because they usually do.
APRIL: My dad tried to kill me when I was eight.
TANYA: But you got your mum up walking again. Typical white-person happy ending.

Buffy


ROBIN Well, I told you. It's my, um, sanctuary. It's the hell mouth, Spike. You can never be too careful. Just, um, stay away from the walls, and you'll be all right.

SPIKE It's a bit much, isn't it? What's your story, Wood?

ROBIN No story, really. Just trying to do what's right. Make a difference. How 'bout you? What kind of man are you, Spike?

SPIKE Sorry. Not much for self reflection.

ROBIN Yeah, makes sense. See, you strike me as the kind of guy who just careens through life, completely oblivious to the damage he's doing to everyone around him.

SPIKE That right?

ROBIN Oh, I know more about you than you think, Spike. See, I've been searching for you for a very, very long time. Ever since you killed my mother.

SPIKE I've killed a lot of people's mothers.

ROBIN Yeah. You'd remember mine. She was a slayer.

SPIKE So, that's it, innit? Brought me here to kill me?

ROBIN (turns to face Spike) No, I don't wanna kill you, Spike. I wanna kill the monster who took my mother away from me. (clicks the mouse on the computer; a song starts playing; the screen reads "Early One Morning.")

ROBIN There he is.

See what I mean? Buffy had much better black characters because it treated them as characters (okay Kendra's dodgy accent aside LOL.)

As for how an SJW show writes its female characters ironically that bit with Calista Flockheart in Supergirl going on about how brilliant women are because of their deeper feelings reminds me of Andrew's speech about womanhood after they think Dawn is the potential. 😆

In regards to representation we need more shows like the original Buffy and Angel, that have gay, black and female characters and just get on with telling a good story with them, rather than using them as a political statement, or as a way for the writer to stroke their ego and make out that they are the new Gene Roddenberry.

Buffy doesn't need remade because it wasn't progressive enough. It doesn't need remade at all, but I do think a remake could work if someone wants to tell a new and interesting story with the character. I think there is enough in Buffy for there to be other interpretations like Sherlock Holmes and Dracula.

However if all anyone is going to care about is the skin colour or sexuality of the main characters then it's best left in the past, as Doctor Who should have been.

 

[Spanky]

You say Buffy and Angel have dated I don't think they have at all.

Going to the skating rink most certainly was a date. Buffy and Angel have dated.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I don't want divisive identity politics being brought into the franchise.

Absolutely agree. Once you start filling your show with identity politics, you then start alienating sections of your audience who don't agree with those politics, your ratings go down, and your show gets cancelled, hoisted by its own petard.

Yes Buffy was always a show about female empowerment, but there is a world of difference between that and identity politics. One is a good thing, the other is needlessly dividing and atomising us by superficial characteristics whilst ironically claiming to do the opposite. (which coupled with it's intimidating cancel culture is why it pulls so many people in.)

This is such a true statement and accurately reflects what is happening right now with you know what going on.

I absolutely do not want a showrunner for the new Buffy to be be black, woman or an LGBT person simply because they are black, a woman or an LGBT person. I want a good writer to run Buffy. If they happen to be black, LGBT or a woman, great! If not, don't fire them because they are a white man. Talent needs to always come first. If we'd ran the original show that way K Todd Freeman would have been cast as Spike over James Marsters. (I like Freeman, but obviously James was the best choice there.)

Completely agree. Someone shouldn't be discriminated against because of their skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc but that has to apply in BOTH directions and not be treated as a one way street. A person can't complain about unfair treatment if their solution is to treat someone else unfairly and declare it to be "progress".

Similarly a good story, and good characters must always come first.

Absolutely. A character should be about more than just skin colour, sexuality, gender etc.

No casting people for their skin colour, either way, no writing LGBT characters as nothing but LGBT, no little digs at men, no caring about the ham fisted political message above the story and the monsters being effective, and no constant lecturing on the part of the writers about current events that will date it in ten years time.

The recent series of Doctor Who fell into this trap with a couple of episodes. What seemed like a fairly decent story was then ruined by the on the nose lecture at the end.

You say Buffy and Angel have dated I don't think they have at all.

Technology and fashion wise (in the first 3 seasons) it has, alongside some of the terminology used (Spike today wouldn't get away with saying half of the stuff he did back then) but overall the show holds up well and would still be relevant today.

I actually think that modern genre series could learn a lot on how to write women and minorities from Buffy. Look at these clips from that ghastly CW Supergirl series.

Most people I know can't even make it past the first clip montage.

Supergirl Superfeminist Supercut 2

Supergirl Superfeminist Supercut 3

See the difference between that and Buffy? Buffy had black characters like Wood who didn't complain about being black, had other characteristics beside that and were fully rounded. Supergirl almost uses its black characters as trophies to show how great the writers are for casting them and revels in divisive crap about white vs black people.

I couldn't even make it through the whole of the first video.

There seems to be a victim mentality going on lately in regards to black people (and it's not necessarily coming from the black people themselves). It's white liberals with a "saviour" complex.

Compare this dialogue from Robin Wood to a bit of dialogue from a black character from Class a notoriously awful, SJW spin off from DW.

Class


TANYA: White people.
APRIL: White people what?
TANYA: Always so optimistic. Always so certain things are going to work out for you. Oh, well, because they usually do.
APRIL: My dad tried to kill me when I was eight.
TANYA: But you got your mum up walking again. Typical white-person happy ending.

So glad I didn't watch that show because that dialogue is racist. So much so you can tell that one character is white and the other isn't because of how racially focussed it is. Basically April (the white character) says her dad tried to kill her when she was a child, and Tanya (the non-white character) seem to, not only dismiss and ignore that bit of information, but complain that April's mother isn't paralysed/dead because it's a "typical white-person happy ending".

That is so messed up.

[QUOTE}See what I mean? Buffy had much better black characters because it treated them as characters[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Kendra's accent was a bad choice but I think they wanted to show that slayers can be from anywhere rather than just from America. Also I think I read somewhere that Kendra's accent was supposed to be a real uncommon accent and they had a dialect coach to assist, however because it was such an uncommon accent, it just sounded to the audience like a bad Jamaican accent.

Of the black characters that do appear, none of them are shown to be oppressed or victims of racism.

Kendra had a very rigid upbringing, she was raised to be a slayer rather than a person. However, that upbringing has nothing to do with the colour of her skin and was more about raising her to be the perfect slayer who followed orders without question.

Robin Wood was a school principal. That was a job he would've had to train for. He couldn't just walk in off the street and ask to run a school. He would've graduated college with a degree. He is successful.

Rona seems like one of those people who isn't oppressed yet will claim racism when something doesn't go her way eg during the training session where she got taken down then claimed it was because "the black chick always dies first".

In regards to representation we need more shows like the original Buffy and Angel, that have gay, black and female characters and just get on with telling a good story with them, rather than using them as a political statement, or as a way for the writer to stroke their ego and make out that they are the new Gene Roddenberry.

Buffy doesn't need remade because it wasn't progressive enough. It doesn't need remade at all, but I do think a remake could work if someone wants to tell a new and interesting story with the character. I think there is enough in Buffy for there to be other interpretations like Sherlock Holmes and Dracula.

However if all anyone is going to care about is the skin colour or sexuality of the main characters then it's best left in the past, as Doctor Who should have been.

Doctor Who was good until identity politics entered into it in the last few series. Pre-Clara it was good.

I think they will struggle to remake Buffy. There's no real appetite for a reboot/remake, and when it was originally announced, reception was lukewarm at best. They had to have the writer/showrunner (whatever her role was going to be) come out and say that they weren't planning a do over of the beloved characters. The only thing that seemed to be a driving force was that Buffy was going to be black. It wasn't a case that the best actress for the role was black, it was literally "let's remake a show that doesn't need remaking but this time.....wait for it.....let's make Buffy black!"

 

[BansheeSerenade]

All I said was that I would like to see a modern take on Buffy dealing with the demons of today's society, just like the original dealt with the demons of society 20 years ago. I find it very interesting that some of you would interpret that as "SJW warrior" bullshit and almost throw a tantrum about a show about female empowerment not being told from the perspective of a white man.

You don't need to say white people are bad to tell the stories of people of colour. You don't need to make fun of men to empower women. I never said anything like that.

I never said I want Buffy's quality to be any less than the original, I simply said I want to see a Buffy story told within the context of the world we live in now because people growing up today deserve to have a Buffy that speaks to them in the way the original spoke to us.

 

[Taake]

I agree that it shouldn’t be a person running or being cast on the show just because they possess exterior characteristic this or that, but I would definitely be down for a black (or non-white) Buffy, it shouldn’t be the focal point of the show, but I can see why that representation would matter a lot to people, just like Buffy mattered to young me. My only concern about any new Buffy is that she would have to represent an idea too much and not get to be an organic character who gets to be feminine and traditional but also groundbreaking and tough.

I felt like Supernatural had their flirt with a pseudo new Buffy-Faith hybrid in Claire and especially the Wayward sisters episode, and that character and ep are just about the least favorite thing I’ve seen on tv in the last decade or so. Everything about it was so lackluster and screamed of trying too hard, even previously interesting characters like Patience fell flat and lost all her potential. For me it was because they were trying to tick boxes and play it safe, creating cardboard cutout characters with unearned respect and power (they even had a hero shot of Claire rescuing the boys) and it was dull as heck to watch.

Basically, I am down for a new Buffy, but I do worry it would be a post-modern academic’s version of what makes a challenging narrative and what society looks like, which will appeal primarily to that very specific and rather narrow target audience. Something for critics to rave about, and audiences to shun. Something in its own way very rigid and structured according to rules and ideas of underlying myths and ideas, and not messy and resonant with the world most people live in.

(I don’t mean to diss academia, I love it, but when I talk about theories or studies outside of academia, like 90% of the people I talk to have no real grasp of what the heck you’re talking about or why it matters at all. Some may find it interesting, but many get off the interest train at the first available stop)


I wouldn’t mind if they tried out a brand new Buffy in comic form first, not the Buffy comics now mind, recycling old characters, but a brand new Buffy in a brand new circumstance and with new surrounding characters.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

All I said was that I would like to see a modern take on Buffy dealing with the demons of today's society, just like the original dealt with the demons of society 20 years ago. I find it very interesting that some of you would interpret that as "SJW warrior" bullshit and almost throw a tantrum about a show about female empowerment not being told from the perspective of a white man.

Nobody is having "a tantrum" as you so put it. However, the "demons of today's society" are very subjective depending on who you ask. The police are not "demons", any sane rational person knows this, and yet there are those who would paint them as such because it fits an agenda. There is a lot of divisive identity politics going on at the moment and when you start using those divisive identity politics as the foundation for a show, you start alienating people who don't conform to your own political bias. Media is massively influential in people's perception of things, for better or for worse., to quote Spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility", the moment that media is used to push a particular narrative, it becomes propaganda.

@burrunjor wasn't throwing a tantrum about a "female empowerment" show "not being told from the perspective of a white man", her/his point was that somebody shouldn't be excluded from a job or hired just because of their gender, race or sexuality. He/she actually said that if the showrunner did happen to be black, LGBT, or a woman then that would be absolutely fine but a person shouldn't be hired just because they tick those boxes. Talent should be the deciding factor in whether or not somebody gets the job, not their race, gender, sexuality etc.

You don't need to say white people are bad to tell the stories of people of colour. You don't need to make fun of men to empower women. I never said anything like that.

Unfortunately that is the narrative going on in the real world at the moment, particularly the first half of that statement. Like I said in my above post, there is no real appetite for a Buffy reboot, the show still holds up today more or less, yet the point of the proposed reboot seems to be to have a black Buffy. Now there is nothing wrong with having a black Buffy, asian Buffy, native american Buffy or another white Buffy (I've even suggested a way in previous posts where they can have their POC Buffy, keep the brand recognisable name, and tell a decent story without stepping on the toes of the original), but a show shouldn't happen just because a character is a certain race., it turns it into a gimmick.

I never said I want Buffy's quality to be any less than the original, I simply said I want to see a Buffy story told within the context of the world we live in now because people growing up today deserve to have a Buffy that speaks to them in the way the original spoke to us.

Again, there is a narrative going on in the world right now that is dangerous and false. To use that as "the context of the world we live in now" for a new show is only perpetuating that false narrative and alienating sections of your audience (no matter what race they are) who don't subscribe to that narrative. Buffy should be used as a positive role model for everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexuality etc, she shouldn't be used as a means of pushing divisive identity politics.

 

[Priceless]

Nobody is having "a tantrum" as you so put it. However, the "demons of today's society" are very subjective depending on who you ask. The police are not "demons", any sane rational person knows this, and yet there are those who would paint them as such because it fits an agenda.

This was done 20 years ago in Angel, through the character of Gunn and the zombie cops. If it's done correctly you don't even know it's happening. I think the problem is not with the stories the new writers will probably want to tell, but with the heavy handedness of it. It has to be done with a lightness of touch that Whedon possessed.

 

[BansheeSerenade]

Uhhhhhh I am really confused right now. First of all, nowhere did I make any mention of the police and nor did it even enter my mind as an example of demons of today's society. I was purely talking about the way demons in the original were metaphors for the struggles of teenagers in the 90s which are different to the struggles faced by the teens of today.

Also I'm really uncomfortable with the way you are referring to being black as "divisive identity politics."

I understand that the best person should get the job but my argument to that is why is our default that a white man is the best qualified to tell this story until someone else can prove they're better? If the story is about a woman shouldn't the default be someone who has the same lived experience until a man can prove he could tell the story better? I'm not saying it HAS to be a woman or a person of colour, I am saying I personally would like their perspective in a reboot.

Buffy was specifically designed originally as a white blonde girl. Is that not a gimmick? They didn't hire the best actress, they hired the best actress that fit their pre conceived idea of who Buffy was. How is that any different to rebooting the show with a black actress in mind?

I'm just confused I guess as to why the original show tackling social issues is held in such regard but the hypothetical of that same exact thing happening with a black woman is dismissed as heavy handed. Nobody is asking for a cheesy Supergirl CW forced woke series, we're talking about the exact same quality storytelling of the original series based around what it's like growing up in today's world.

 

[Priceless]

I'm just confused I guess as to why the original show tackling social issues is held in such regard but the hypothetical of that same exact thing happening with a black woman is dismissed as heavy handed. Nobody is asking for a cheesy Supergirl CW forced woke series, we're talking about the exact same quality storytelling of the original series based around what it's like growing up in today's world.

My comment was not about any supposed black/female show runner. I'd actually be up for that, I think the time is right. It's that some may think the shows never dealt with social issues in their original run, when they most clearly did and I have no problem with a new Buffy doing exactly the same thing, as long as it's done well. In fact, that's is all I ask, concentrate on fantasy or social issues or BLM or anything you want, just do it well and I'll watch.

 

[burrunjor]

The recent series of Doctor Who fell into this trap with a couple of episodes. What seemed like a fairly decent story was then ruined by the on the nose lecture at the end.

Oh god it didn't half. Rosa is a classic example of why you don't put politics above story. It's basically a lecture with the barest semblance of a plot.

Space racist (they actually call him that) shows up, no backstory, no motivation and his plan is to get Rosa Parks not to sit on a bus. He is beaten without any agro, sent away and then the end is literally Jodie standing around lecturing her companions like a mamby pamby school teacher at the end of an after school special.

Compare that to say Witch which is a comment on people living vicariously through their kids, but actually comes up with a fully fleshed out villain that gives two actresses a chance to shine in dual roles, comes up with some nightmarish scenes of horror and actually pushes the hero to their limits and ends with a terrifying scene that actually makes you feel bad for the villain, all while getting a message about not trying to relive the past over.

All I said was that I would like to see a modern take on Buffy dealing with the demons of today's society, just like the original dealt with the demons of society 20 years ago. I find it very interesting that some of you would interpret that as "SJW warrior" bullshit and almost throw a tantrum about a show about female empowerment not being told from the perspective of a white man.

I'm sorry if you felt attacked. My rant was more just using your post as a way of voicing my concerns about the current political climate. You did express some of those opinions so I used that as a way of talking about it whilst addressing your concerns.

I certainly don't think that a female empowerment show has to be told from a white man's perspective. I like Charmed for instance that was created by a woman. Also I think making out that the likes of Buffy and Xena were just a guy's vision is somewhat demeaning to the women who played these roles.

Television is a group effort. The actor, actress arguably plays as big a role in creating the character as the author. Look at Spike. He was really James' creation as much. Xena certainly was Lucy Lawless' creation. She was intended to be a femme fatale who would die in three episodes. Lucy however brought the nuance, the humour and the physicality to the role (Xena wasn't even meant to be that great a fighter in her first episode, hence her being a foul seductress.)

It was entirely because of her performance that Xena got her own show and is now an icon. To dismiss that as just being told from Rob Tapert (her creator) persepective does down contributions from women in the genre IMO.

Unfortunately that is the narrative going on in the real world at the moment, particularly the first half of that statement. Like I said in my above post, there is no real appetite for a Buffy reboot, the show still holds up today more or less, yet the point of the proposed reboot seems to be to have a black Buffy. Now there is nothing wrong with having a black Buffy, asian Buffy, native american Buffy or another white Buffy (I've even suggested a way in previous posts where they can have their POC Buffy, keep the brand recognisable name, and tell a decent story without stepping on the toes of the original), but a show shouldn't happen just because a character is a certain race., it turns it into a gimmick.

I actually wouldn't want a Buffy reboot with a black lead, simply because I feel that part of Buffy's character is that she is the little blonde girl who goes into an alley, but who turns around and kills the monster.

Sometimes a characters appearance is important to their character. For instance I don't think Mary Jane should be anything other than a red head. The Kingpin meanwhile I have no issue being black, as long as he is a big, bald guy.

Similarly Xander I wouldn't have any issue being black, or even Willow as their skin colour, hair colour doesn't matter at all.

I also don't think in terms of representation it's ever a good idea to replace existing characters with minorities, simply because it does kind of feel like handing over scraps than creating new characters.

Let's look at Buffy herself. Buffy's predecessor is really Rachel Van Helsing, a character introduced in Tomb of Dracula (which Joss has always acknowledged as one of his biggest influences.)

Rachel is a little blonde girl who is the latest in a long line of Vampire hunters. (The Van Helsing family) She has a stuffy English mentor and she doesn't want to be a Vampire hunter, she just wants a normal life.

She was Buffy twenty years before the Buffster.

Who says little blonde girls never killed Vampires before Buffy?

However she didn't make an impact like Buffy, partly at least because she was just a female version of a male character. She was a descendent of Abraham Van Helsing, so she wasn't actually a female Van Helsing, but still in essence she was.

As a result she had to compete with all of the existing male Van Helsing's, the book, Peter Cushing etc, so she was swamped and vanished in the sea of Van Helsings.

Buffy however was a new character with a clean slate, didn't have to be seen as just another version of an old male character, and now ironically if anything is more iconic than Van Helsing.

Its the same with this female Doctor Who, though to be fair that was also because unlike Rachel, Jodie's Doctor was AWFUL. Still even if she had been good, then the Doctor would still always be seen as a male character, because he entered into popular culture that way, there have literally been dozens of male versions across all mediums, the most iconic versions are guys like Tom Baker.

Of course that would be the same in reverse too, a male version of Xena wouldn't suddenly cause people to see her as a male character, as the character entered into popular culture as a woman.

Ultimately if you want good representation I don't think there can be a substitute for an original character as Buffy and Rachel Van Helsing show. (Though that's not to say you can't have feminine versions of male heroes. I do really like Rachel Van Helsing. If there is a good story reason, go for it, but ultimately ironically for representation all of this female DW's Ghostbusters, black Buffy's is dragging us back the way.)

I couldn't even make it through the whole of the first video.

There seems to be a victim mentality going on lately in regards to black people (and it's not necessarily coming from the black people themselves). It's white liberals with a "saviour" complex.

I don't blame you. I agree that it isn't women or black people that are doing this. Ironically it's often either self loathing white men, or white men with an ego complex like J J Abrams, Steven Moffat and Chris Chibnall. Basically these guys look at Gene Roddenberry and even Joss Whedon who nowadays get credit for having black, LGBT characters in a time when such a thing was genuinely unusual (and admirable.) They want to be remembered in the same way, only problem for them is society has moved on. Whilst I am not saying that racism or bigotry has gone from our society, ultimately having a black or a female lead is hardly the big deal it was in the 60s or even the 90s. Nobody cares!

So these people have to race bait, both in the show and in the promotion for the show, so that when people call them up on it, they can make out that their critics are racists and they are like a modern day Gene Roddenberry. Ultimately they just end up driving everyone away as white men don't want to be insulted, women don't want to watch men being insulted, and black people and women don't like being talked down to and put on pedastels.

That's why Jodie, Ghostbusters, etc fail every single time, whilst Xena, Buffy and Angel, three shows chalk full of strong women, LGBT people, black people, interracial relationships, but cared about telling good stories are still huge hits 30 years on.

I'm just confused I guess as to why the original show tackling social issues is held in such regard but the hypothetical of that same exact thing happening with a black woman is dismissed as heavy handed. Nobody is asking for a cheesy Supergirl CW forced woke series, we're talking about the exact same quality storytelling of the original series based around what it's like growing up in today's world.

That's absolutely fine, it's just that when you said it should be a black woman that I felt we were veering into identity politics, so again I used it as a way to voice my concerns with a reboot.

Ultimately if it has to be a black woman then it's not hard to see how the writers could fall into the Supergirl, New Who mentality of using her as a trophy or a way of stroking their ego. By all means make it tackle what it's like growing up in today's world.

@burrunjor wasn't throwing a tantrum about a "female empowerment" show "not being told from the perspective of a white man", her/his point was that somebody shouldn't be excluded from a job or hired just because of their gender, race or sexuality. He/she actually said that if the showrunner did happen to be black, LGBT, or a woman then that would be absolutely fine but a person shouldn't be hired just because they tick those boxes. Talent should be the deciding factor in whether or not somebody gets the job, not their race, gender, sexuality etc.

Yes exactly. Oh and I'm a guy. A lot of people have thought I was a girl online though because I'm always going on about female singers I love like Paloma Faith and Amy Winehouse LOL.

(Though conversely some like on Gallifrey Base, which I'd stay away from at all costs have called me a woman hater because I didn't like Jodie's Doctor.)

 

[chasesummers]

The answer to me is quite simple: Don't reboot if something is made right. Continue yes, but not reboot.

In today's shows you'll see political influences and personal agendas being injected in them.

I believe that the show is capable to introduce a new slayer without even needing the original Buffy crew. If you give a brief history in how it all came to be, you'll get new fans interested in the classic which equals to more money. However, the money is on the title, that's why it's easier for them to just be lazy and reboot it; using the name Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Will a reboot bother me? Nope, I'll skip it like I did with Charmed. However I'd check it out if it was a sort of continuation.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I want to see a Buffy story told within the context of the world we live in now because people growing up today deserve to have a Buffy that speaks to them in the way the original spoke to us.

The world we live in now is similar to the world we lived in at the time Buffy aired with a few exceptions:

1. The rise of social media as a means of promoting groupthink and ganging up on people in social media to the point where some commit suicide.
2. The expansion of political correctness into identity politics.
3. The cancel culture where a person could have all outlets of expression shut down for expressing views unfavourable to the current groupthink.
4. The smartphone has taken over from the computer as a means of doing everything the computer used to be necessary for and has taken the place of libraries, so Giles would have to have a different backstory.
5. Any business or organization now cannot survive without a good website. Sunnydale High would have a website now. Sunnydale Mall may have closed or at least been in dire financial straits because bricks-and-mortar stores are disappearing.

Racism existed back then as it does today, especially among the politically correct and the postmodernists. Social Justice Warriors existed back then. Professors were still docking marks if you did not go along with their political views back then. For the most part, society was the same back then as now except for the items I have listed above.

A while ago, I wrote up a brief fanfic showing how Buffy would have been altered by the use of the smartphone. I might put that up in the "Introduction to the Watcher Diaries" section of the forum because it does show the differences that would happen today. The most memorable mobile phone in Buffy was the one Cordelia said she had to use to call everyone she knew after Buffy almost staked her and it was one that you had to pull up the antenna to use. I think people can look past that even now because the story is more important than the technology and the story is a timeless one of someone trying to fit in at a new school and running into problems, sometimes of her own making.

Should any of this impede rebooting Buffy? The new items of society could be incorporated easily but the question is, will it be done right or will it end up looking like Supergirl? Sadly, I would expect the latter. There may be some bright people in Hollywood, but they often seem to fall into traps of their own making by trying to look "modern". Would the new items of society be able to support a new series? I don't think there is enough material for more than a few episodes, so I doubt there would be any point to a new Buffy other than to cash in on the name.

 

[BansheeSerenade]

Pose.
Dear White People.
Atlanta.
Black-Ish.
Empire.
Power.
Orange Is The New Black.

We have had a lot of recent examples showing us that you can have well written, compelling narratives about the experiences of black people. Just because there is a possibility of a Buffy reboot focusing on a black Buffy, maybe even a black majority cast, that does not mean it is going to be hamfisted garbage pandering like the examples you have all been using.

Also can somebody PLEASE explain to me what is so awful about "identity politics" and why some of you are throwing that around like some kind of a dirty word. Because right now it just looks like thinly veiled racism which I'm sure is not the intention of any of you.

Why does me mentioning Buffy being black or asking to see a woman of colour as the showrunner veer us into identity politics? What does that even mean, and why is it a bad thing?

What is the transition from political correctness into identity politics? Is there a difference between the two? And why is either of them a bad thing?

 

[Taake]

Why does me mentioning Buffy being black or asking to see a woman of colour as the showrunner veer us into identity politics? What does that even mean, and why is it a bad thing?

What is the transition from political correctness into identity politics? Is there a difference between the two? And why is either of them a bad thing?

Probably because people have had bad reactions to shows like Supergirl and the recent Dr. Who and feel like the cultural dialogue has gotten preachy and heavy handed.

That said, let’s continue this with caution as we do have a temporary limit on political posting at this time. It makes for a negative atmosphere where people misunderstand each other or preemptively accuse others of racism, which is a serious charge and shouldn’t be done so lightly.

Just think about how you guys continue this.

 

[Spanky]

Just think about how you guys continue this.

Guys? Guys?!?! Why does everything have to be about the patriarchy?

 

[thrasherpix]

Also can somebody PLEASE explain to me what is so awful about "identity politics" and why some of you are throwing that around like some kind of a dirty word. Because right now it just looks like thinly veiled racism which I'm sure is not the intention of any of you.

Because a lot of it isn't about genuine social justice, but group think. The most vulnerable members are those that consider themselves part of it, but who deviate from the group think slightly, or even dare associate with someone who is now the "enemy" for trivial reasons, and they'll turn on that person with all the passion of the alt-right. (If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd actually think cancel culture was the most insidious conspiracy of the alt-right to sucker punch and demoralize those it claims to represent, and to discredit such people to everyone else.)

The problem isn't unique to them, and I could point out cases long before the internet where the same psychological and social methods prevailed (among left and right), such as the frightening incident of Dreyfus in which even proof of innocence was transformed into proof of guilt, no matter how irrational, much as cancel culture works against those they perceive to be the enemy (which can be people in their own ranks who don't toe the line despite told to be themselves as insincerely as most others are when they say "be yourself"). The fact that genuine bigots are exploiting this to their own ends does muddy the water a lot.


If you truly want a (long) explanation on how warped cancel culture gets from someone who once saw herself as part of it (and is still leftist while denouncing cancel culture along with the alt-right) I'll share (maybe others as well), but that will take more effort than reading a paragraph, and I don't know if you're really that curious or just hand wringing.

It's actually much less of a threat to TV and movies than many make it out to be (or so it seems to me, they'll all have haters with or without cancel culture, and some have expertly learned to manipulate the condemnation of political groups to their advantage for decades now), and ironically is a greater threat to those that identify with the group should they ever step even an inch out of line (those are the ones most likely driven to suicide after receiving enough hate to make even the alt-right seem nice by comparison).

It's just some people in Hollywood (and similar places) pander to it, not out of idealistic reasons (if anything, it may be a PR job for all the rampant sexism, agism, and racism in the industry that they're trying to appear better than), but as cynical corporate trend following (though I think cancel culture and the like is much smaller than many give it credit for...they post a lot but I've noticed their likes and retweets are almost always a few hundred at most, that is the size of a small town which is insignificant, though it seems otherwise when they, and their detractors, are posting melodramatically as much as they can, and YT algorithms and the like find it profitable to direct people to such rants as they tend to be shared the most, and with it, the ads that come with it so that it's profitable to spread it).

If you pay closer attention to this thread, the vast majority aren't against the Slayer being Black, but against BUFFY being Black. That, and following the trends of certain other movies and shows which they don't want to see mar Buffy as well.



I could add that female leads, and those of color, have been around quite awhile (though I'd agree we need more of them), but they don't normally catch the same flak as rebooted shows in which the race or gender is changed. And sometimes even when they are, like when Starbuck was made female in BSG, I remember most being fine with it, because it was still a good story and character (I'd later catch eps of the original and think the female Starbuck was far more interesting myself, but then so were all the characters).

And while I'd be very wary of a "Black Buffy" (but I'd give it a chance), I'd instead be very excited to get a new Slayer who was Black, like this trailer that makes me cheer and have me very impatient to watch:

Finally, I wanted to expand on my own comment above:

A version of Buffy meant to appease Cancel Culture than tell a good story could've backfired on me and undermined me with victimization and/or putting females on a pedestal so as to be unrelatable. I'd be open to a retelling, but also worried.

By coincidence, I first rented the Buffy dvds when I was dealing with inner-gender issues. Though I didn't identify as transgender, I was a tomboy who saw myself as just me rather than identifying as anything. What I hadn't realized at the time was that I'd subconsciously absorbed some messages about being a woman (which some fear-based feminism contributed to along with misogynists and well-meaning sexist, and also media) that made me scared that I became more femme as my girlfriend at the time wanted me to that I'd become spineless at best, a victim at worse. As I struggled with my subconscious fears, I was finally able to make them conscious and and worked on my irrational fears, and I feel that coincidentally watching Buffy at the time, where the characters were strong yet feminine (but also flawed so as to be relatable) and that was exactly what I needed. I was able to go more femme (and it helped me in business so much that I kept it up, but conquering those irrational fears helped a lot as well), and realized I still had the same fire, strength of will, and assertiveness I always had. It did not diminish me at all as I subconsciously feared it would.

If I'd instead gotten a "woke" message on how being female made me a victim (and thus demoralizing, even paralyzing, reinforcing my subconscious fears rather than helping me overcome them), and/or if the female characters were put on a pedestal so that I couldn't relate to them (and at worst, even believed I didn't deserve to overcome as they did because I wasn't perfect like them, something plenty of writers trying to be "woke" seem to not understand, or at least fear any flaw will be seen as a sign of misogyny or racism or whatever) then it wouldn't have helped empower me. I'm sure I'd have overcome it anyway, but it would've taken longer, and I would not have gotten hooked into the series as I have.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

This was done 20 years ago in Angel, through the character of Gunn and the zombie cops. If it's done correctly you don't even know it's happening. I think the problem is not with the stories the new writers will probably want to tell, but with the heavy handedness of it. It has to be done with a lightness of touch that Whedon possessed.

If I remember rightly though, the cops themselves weren't actually the villains. They'd all lost their lives in the line of duty and it was the guy controlling them who was the real bad guy, not the ones in uniform.

This is what I mean though, Angel was able to do that story without demonising cops as a whole.

If that story was done today with the current false narrative, then those cops are going to likely be portrayed as literal demons hiding behind a disguise which is wrong.

Uhhhhhh I am really confused right now. First of all, nowhere did I make any mention of the police and nor did it even enter my mind as an example of demons of today's society. I was purely talking about the way demons in the original were metaphors for the struggles of teenagers in the 90s which are different to the struggles faced by the teens of today.

The problem is, in the current climate, there are those who are trying to force the "cops are bad" false narrative down everyone's throat, and people that disagree with that narrative and are critical of those trying to push that narrative are then "punished" for it. What you do not want is a show operating under the "Buffy the vampire slayer" banner basically being used a propaganda to push an ideology and agenda.

Also I'm really uncomfortable with the way you are referring to being black as "divisive identity politics."

What I mean is that Buffy's race shouldn't be used to define her. It shouldn't be the sum of her character and it shouldn't be used to push a victim mentality rhetoric that all the hardships Buffy faces are because of her race and not the decisions she makes.

Again, it's the current climate we live in. If we were discussing this topic a year ago or even pre-May this year, then this would likely be a completely different conversation. However, given everything that is going on, a lot of things are becoming politicised that shouldn't be but they are because it fits a particular agenda.

I understand that the best person should get the job but my argument to that is why is our default that a white man is the best qualified to tell this story until someone else can prove they're better? If the story is about a woman shouldn't the default be someone who has the same lived experience until a man can prove he could tell the story better? I'm not saying it HAS to be a woman or a person of colour, I am saying I personally would like their perspective in a reboot.

Nobody is talking about a white man being the "default", just that someone shouldn't be discriminated against based on skin colour, gender or sexuality etc. This applies to everyone in both directions. Someone shouldn't be hired just because it is "woke" to hire them. It's the same principle with the Oscars, someone should be nominated based on the merit of their work, not on their gender etc.

Buffy was specifically designed originally as a white blonde girl. Is that not a gimmick? They didn't hire the best actress, they hired the best actress that fit their pre conceived idea of who Buffy was. How is that any different to rebooting the show with a black actress in mind?

Buffy was a subversion of the "dumb blonde" stereotype in horror movies who often dies first because she stupidly walks into the darkness after hearing a noise and then gets killed by the monster. At no point is Buffy being that stereotype, she's the exact opposite. I'd be all for a black Buffy where her skin colour is not a plot point in any way.

I'm just confused I guess as to why the original show tackling social issues is held in such regard but the hypothetical of that same exact thing happening with a black woman is dismissed as heavy handed. Nobody is asking for a cheesy Supergirl CW forced woke series, we're talking about the exact same quality storytelling of the original series based around what it's like growing up in today's world.

Social issues back then were actual issues eg the show had to hide Tillow's relationship and use magic as a metaphor because they weren't allowed to show them being in a relationship as such, hence why we don't get an actual Tillow on-screen kiss until Season 5.

20 years ago, showing a same-sex couple on screen was somewhat daring, now it's just normal. Racism is barely an issue today, that's not to say that people don't experience some incidents from individuals, but racism is certainly not "systemic" despite what certain factions would have you believe.

or BLM

No. Just no.

I can't comment too much on this because we're supposed to be avoiding political posts, but what I will say is that there is something not right about that group. There is a dark undercurrent there that is not good. They hide behind the mask of the "black lives matter" sentiment but they don't give a crap about black lives unless it fits the anti-cop narrative. The sentiment needs to be separated from the organisation the same way Germans need to be separated from another organisation. To include BLM as part of a fictional television show is propaganda.

Oh god it didn't half. Rosa is a classic example of why you don't put politics above story. It's basically a lecture with the barest semblance of a plot.

Space racist (they actually call him that) shows up, no backstory, no motivation and his plan is to get Rosa Parks not to sit on a bus. He is beaten without any agro, sent away and then the end is literally Jodie standing around lecturing her companions like a mamby pamby school teacher at the end of an after school special.

That wasn't the worst example., that honour goes to the plastics in the ocean episode. There was also that episode where they went to that hotel and the monsters used to be humans or something, it was basically about global warming.

voicing my concerns about the current political climate.

You're not the only one with concerns about the way things are heading.

I actually wouldn't want a Buffy reboot with a black lead, simply because I feel that part of Buffy's character is that she is the little blonde girl who goes into an alley, but who turns around and kills the monster.

I think it could work if they made black Buffy not Buffy Summers. My idea would be that black Buffy's mom is Anne who named her after the original Buffy (who saved her twice, once in Lie to Me and the other in Anne). That way you could tell new stories with a new cast, keep the brand recognisable name, and honour the original without stepping on its toes.

Also black Buffy's friends would then be their own characters rather than "oh that's Willow with a new name" or "that's supposed to be Xander but they've turned him into a girl".

Sometimes a characters appearance is important to their character. For instance I don't think Mary Jane should be anything other than a red head. The Kingpin meanwhile I have no issue being black, as long as he is a big, bald guy.

Mary Jane already exists in the MCU as a non-red head. I agree though, Disney's live action Little Mermaid is going to have a non-red head Ariel which is wrong. It's nothing against the actresses, they would've been stupid to turn down their respective roles, but that's two well known red heads not cast as red heads.

The X-Men will be coming to the MCU (no doubt with Storm as a main character) so there will be plenty of opportunity for diversity there, however I hope they don't go race swapping certain characters in that. For example, I don't care if they do a black Cyclops but Jean Grey needs to be a red head (plus it would show an interracial relationship where the guy is black and the woman white which is still kind of taboo in film and television, more so than a black woman/white guy combo). There is no way in hell they should race swap Storm (they'd be under fire from all quarters if they did that) but they could do an Asian/black Xavier. I'd like them to keep Gambit and Rogue white (to show that white southerners aren't racist since that seems to be a common stereotype) and I think Jubilee is already Asian. There is a whole list of mutants from all over the world they can include.

Similarly Xander I wouldn't have any issue being black, or even Willow as their skin colour, hair colour doesn't matter at all.

I also don't think in terms of representation it's ever a good idea to replace existing characters with minorities, simply because it does kind of feel like handing over scraps than creating new characters.

I agree. This is why I don't want a female James Bond. There shouldn't be a Hannah Solo either if they ever did a Star Wars reboot.

Ultimately if you want good representation I don't think there can be a substitute for an original character as Buffy and Rachel Van Helsing show. (Though that's not to say you can't have feminine versions of male heroes. I do really like Rachel Van Helsing. If there is a good story reason, go for it, but ultimately ironically for representation all of this female DW's Ghostbusters, black Buffy's is dragging us back the way.)

I agree. If you race swap/gender swap/sexuality swap known characters, then there is a very real chance they will be compared unfairly to previous incarnations of that character which then puts the new version at a disadvantage and if you don't like the new version then you're going to start switching off.

I don't blame you. I agree that it isn't women or black people that are doing this. Ironically it's often either self loathing white men, or white men with an ego complex like J J Abrams, Steven Moffat and Chris Chibnall. Basically these guys look at Gene Roddenberry and even Joss Whedon who nowadays get credit for having black, LGBT characters in a time when such a thing was genuinely unusual (and admirable.) They want to be remembered in the same way, only problem for them is society has moved on. Whilst I am not saying that racism or bigotry has gone from our society, ultimately having a black or a female lead is hardly the big deal it was in the 60s or even the 90s. Nobody cares!

So these people have to race bait, both in the show and in the promotion for the show, so that when people call them up on it, they can make out that their critics are racists and they are like a modern day Gene Roddenberry. Ultimately they just end up driving everyone away as white men don't want to be insulted, women don't want to watch men being insulted, and black people and women don't like being talked down to and put on pedastels.

Exactly. The moment you're show starts get preachy is when people start turning off. Nobody wants to be lectured to, least of all when they're trying to watch something for entertainment and forget about their day.

That's why Jodie, Ghostbusters, etc fail every single time, whilst Xena, Buffy and Angel, three shows chalk full of strong women, LGBT people, black people, interracial relationships, but cared about telling good stories are still huge hits 30 years on.

Agreed. When you make something a gimmick, the more you try to push that gimmick, the quicker people start to lose interest.

(Though conversely some like on Gallifrey Base, which I'd stay away from at all costs have called me a woman hater because I didn't like Jodie's Doctor.)

This demonstrates the concept of identity politics. They turned the Doctor female in order to be "woke", and because you (a man) said you don't like the new Doctor, you get accused of hating women despite that not being the reason why you dislike Jodie's Doctor. Having the Doctor be female is the gimmick and thus any man who doesn't enjoy the new gimmick for whatever reason is immediately accused of hating women.

Pose.
Dear White People.
Atlanta.
Black-Ish.
Empire.
Power.
Orange Is The New Black.

We have had a lot of recent examples showing us that you can have well written, compelling narratives about the experiences of black people. Just because there is a possibility of a Buffy reboot focusing on a black Buffy, maybe even a black majority cast, that does not mean it is going to be hamfisted garbage pandering like the examples you have all been using.

I think the Fresh Prince of Bel Air is a great show and that was basically an all black cast. That dealt with social issues at times without being preachy about it so it can be done.

Again, it's all about the current climate.

Also can somebody PLEASE explain to me what is so awful about "identity politics" and why some of you are throwing that around like some kind of a dirty word. Because right now it just looks like thinly veiled racism which I'm sure is not the intention of any of you.

Identity politics basically leads to "you're either with us or against us" mentality, also known as mob rule. People who don't conform to how they "should" think or behave (as decreed by a certain group) are then "punished". This could be via "cancel culture" or literally attacked either physically or verbally. Again, I can't really comment much because of the restriction on political posting but identity politics is divisive.

Why does me mentioning Buffy being black or asking to see a woman of colour as the showrunner veer us into identity politics? What does that even mean, and why is it a bad thing?

Again, it's the current climate and the divisive identity politics going on which is bad for everyone no matter what their colour, gender, sexuality etc.

What is the transition from political correctness into identity politics? Is there a difference between the two? And why is either of them a bad thing?

Political correctness has led to "snowflake culture". Identity politics is snowflake culture on steroids that makes the hulk look positively calm.

 

[Priceless]

If I remember rightly though, the cops themselves weren't actually the villains. They'd all lost their lives in the line of duty and it was the guy controlling them who was the real bad guy, not the ones in uniform.

This is what I mean though, Angel was able to do that story without demonising cops as a whole.

If that story was done today with the current false narrative, then those cops are going to likely be portrayed as literal demons hiding behind a disguise which is wrong.

I'm not convinced that's the case. These big studios have to sell their shows around the world to make profit. I cannot image a show that demonise every single law enforcement officer as a big selling point. Not in a teen drama set today. If they set the show in some landscape, then maybe.

But even then, I'd consider that really bad storytelling. The conflict comes from good/bad, right/wrong etc. and if all cops are bad, then there's no nuance and that's exactly what I was saying before, we need a lightness of touch in the writing, not a sledgehammer.

 

[burrunjor]

If you truly want a (long) explanation on how warped cancel culture gets from someone who once saw herself as part of it (and is still leftist while denouncing cancel culture along with the alt-right) I'll share (maybe others as well), but that will take more effort than reading a paragraph, and I don't know if you're really that curious or just hand wringing.

I loved your post Thrasher Pix, but I'd also like to say that I think thankfully more and more people are coming to that way of thinking.

I myself have toyed with different political leanings. I was always a leftie in the important ways. I supported gay marriage, free healthcare etc.

However I also became disillusioned with SJWs in 2014, and I stupidly at first thought guys like Paul Joseph Watson were reasonable critics of identity politics. I was never on the same wavelength as them completely as they were more right wing, but I did used to watch some of their videos and felt they were more reasonable. Thankfully it didn't take me long to see guys like PJW, Sargon of Akkad etc were just as bad as the SJWs they rallied against. They spewed toxic crap about women like the SJWs do about men, divided people by race (like Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux's toxic ideas about race realism) supported people being silenced (Sargon loves Joseph McCarthy and Agusto Pinochet.)

Sadly for a long while most people felt they had to belong to either tribe, the extreme lefties or alt right shit lords, but more and more people it seems are shunning both, whilst still holding onto their principles.

I partly blame comedians for people being so splintered into left and right camps. Comedians should be taking the piss out of both, thereby giving people a more reasonable middle ground in popular culture.

Instead modern comedians are such shameless cowards when it comes to standing up to cancel culture and will never criticise anything SJWs do. As an Amy Winehouse fan it makes me bitter to see a lot of the same comedians who viciously attacked her in genuinely misogynistic ways now pander to shallow feminists and virtue signal. Basically it was trendy to be nasty back in the 00s, so they ganged up on her, now it's trendy to be an SJW in the industry.

Mike Henry for instance, who made a joke mocking Amy on the day of her death is now stepping aside from voicing Cleveland in Family Guy to be more sensistive to BAME people. Either it's all okay or none of it is. I can't stand people who create pecking orders, even more so because they are cowards. I guess anorexics like Amy (who was ridiculed for her looks) can get to ****. Maybe if anorexics organized an angry mob, edgy comedians like Henry would suddenly become more "sensitive" to their demands.

It's true that there have always been SJWs, but back in the day comedians at least had balls and took the piss which deprived them of the power they have now.

The late great Rik Mayall (a British comedian) skewered both the left and the right brilliantly. In The Young Ones his character called Rick, was a rabid SJW. He called people sexists, racists, Nazi's, fascists over nothing, he goes on about accepting others, whilst hurling vicious abuse at people, he claims to be a Leninist, but is politically illiterate, comes from an upper middle class background etc.

In The New Statesman however, another sitcom of his, he skewered the conservatives brilliantly. His character in that Alan B'Stard embodies the Ayn Rand, Sargon of Akkad, Yaron Brook lets make being poor illegal right wingers LOL.

Sadly today however Rik Mayall would be accused of being alt right and a fascist by today's "edgy" comedians because of his anti SJW character, even with The New Statesman.

Hell even Buffy used to take the piss out of SJWs. Willow's mother is an SJW. She is so obsessed with making sure everything is part of the patriarchy in regards to Willow, she focuses on finding sexism in Disney movies, and when Willow comes out as gay, her mother uses her as a trophy to her liberal friends, rather than actually be there for her in a meaningful way.

Sadly however Joss nowadays panders to SJWs in a ridiculous way on twitter too.

I don't know when it became attacking SJWs made you an alt right shit lord? (Not saying that's what is going on on this board to be clear. I' more thinking in general and certainly on Gallifrey Base. It's very telling that Buffy fandom is able to criticse this toxic identity politics whilst DW fandom's is so in the thrall of it.)

This demonstrates the concept of identity politics. They turned the Doctor female in order to be "woke", and because you (a man) said you don't like the new Doctor, you get accused of hating women despite that not being the reason why you dislike Jodie's Doctor. Having the Doctor be female is the gimmick and thus any man who doesn't enjoy the new gimmick for whatever reason is immediately accused of hating women.

It's insane on Gallifrey Base. They will accuse you of being a woman hating scumbag even if you are a woman LOL.

It's not just GB though. Doctor Who is completely in the thrall of these people. Has been since the start of the Capaldi era to be honest.

Look at this message that the editor of DW magazine sent me.

Oh mate. DWM is a magazine about Doctor Who, made by people who love Doctor Who, for people who love Doctor Who. And that's not you. You're just an angry, women-hating, transphobic turd. If you were the last man alive, DWM wouldn't want YOU as a reader.

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

Now I am not playing the victim here. I started this argument about the ghastly way the show had treated long term fans, but still this shows you how witless his response is.

You have no idea (or maybe you do) how refreshing it was to come to the Buffy boards after being on GB. This board was so relaxed in every way compared to that creepy cult like forum. Okay things can get a bit tense politically here at times, but it's nowhere near as bad.

Funny thing is that Buffy was a female led show, with probably a bigger female fanbase than DW, yet DW is the rabid SJW one? Again I think that backs up the identity politics is more white men with a saviour complex, or on an ego trip than anything else.

 

[BansheeSerenade]

Funny thing is that Buffy was a female led show, with probably a bigger female fanbase than DW, yet DW is the rabid SJW one? Again I think that backs up the identity politics is more white men with a saviour complex, or on an ego trip than anything else.

Hence why I said I'd love to see the reboot helmed by a woman, especially a woman of colour, if we are going to get a black Buffy. It wouldn't be a white man trying to pander and make themselves look good and make a spectacle of the social issues the show would be tackling. It would instead be a story told by someone who has lived that experience and understands all the nuances of these issues on a personal level. I was never trying to imply a woman of colour should just be handed the job as a diversity stunt, I just feel like we would get a better story from someone who knows what they're talking about. If a white man could tell the story of a black woman better than a black woman can obviously he should get the job, I just don't think that's realistic.