Please God- I hope this never happens

[Justme]

I can assure you that I will not.

Really.

Disapproving of it but watching it is the same as approving of it and watching it. WB's accountants don't care why you watched it, only that you did.

Well there are ways to watch it without paying so it's not the same at all.

I really don't understand your problem here. That they "stole" Buffy? Well clearly they didn't as it seems to be legal. That they are doing this before Whedon dies? You really think Buffy is strong enough to last that long?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I think AC's point is sometimes things dont need to be tinkered with.. I mean, is Buddy Jesus really necessary?

So like, Buffy is his Jesus kinda thing...



edit: just noticed, buddy jesus in a thread titled 'please god' - how ironic

 

[VisionGirl]

So this woman is going to writing about Buffy The Vampire Slayer as in just just the character of Buffy?

Uhh... what?

First of all Buffy is not Buffy without Joss Whedon. I think a good deal of us agree on that.

So what about the rest of them? Now don't get me wrong, I love the character of Buffy. I mean yes she's annoys me from time to time, like all the characters, but I like her. But Buffy is not what makes BTVS so good and interesting. She is a part of what makes BTVS good. Willow, Giles, Xander, Angel, Spike, Cordy and lots of other characters are parts of what makes Buffy so good. This new movie won't be worth anything without those guys.

No, they cannot use any of the TV characters. They can only use the movie characters.

It's karma, I am telling you. After Whedon working hard for years to ruin Buffy....

Wha-?!

 

[Litheran]

I think AC's point is sometimes things dont need to be tinkered with.. I mean, is Buddy Jesus really necessary?

So like, Buffy is his Jesus kinda thing...

Oh, come on; doesn't he just...POP!

 

[JoeyLostDharma]

No, they cannot use any of the TV characters. They can only use the movie characters.



Wha-?!

You sure about that? They can't use any of the TV characters? I haven't seen the movie, so that means what exactly? No Giles, Willow, Spike...? Who else?

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I really don't understand your problem here. That they "stole" Buffy? Well clearly they didn't as it seems to be legal.

They stole her in an ethical sense, not a legal one. Just because you legally can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Everything good about Buffy is because of Joss's years and years of hard work as a writer and supervisor of writers, directors and actors. WB is now looking to swoop in and profit of all that work without his approval, without his involvement, and without even any mention of his name. That's wrong. Legal, and wrong.

 

[VisionGirl]

I'll re-quote Poniewozik, from the Time blog:

That said, I can't think of any good reason that Buffy needs to get rebooted, especially so close to its having gone off the air (and having lived on in graphic novels). Is there really some creative purpose, some paradigm of the '90s-to-mid-'00s that needs to be rethought from the drastically changed perspective of the early '10s? See: "Look around and see what vampire crap we own," above.

Other than making money, what is really the point of this?

 

[Username]

You sure about that? They can't use any of the TV characters? I haven't seen the movie, so that means what exactly? No Giles, Willow, Spike...? Who else?

It's only Buffy, and some boring guy named Pike.

 

[xaphania]

You sure about that? They can't use any of the TV characters? I haven't seen the movie, so that means what exactly? No Giles, Willow, Spike...? Who else?

As far as I know, they only have rights to Buffy - a vampire slayer. So as well as none of the other characters... None of the Sunnydale mythology - so, no Hellmouths (anywhere). No soul-having vampires. No Slayer backstory. I even read somewhere that the last name "Summers" might be a TV-show only thing. So they're pretty much getting "generic vampire hunter who just so happens to be called Buffy".

 

[Justme]

I think AC's point is sometimes things dont need to be tinkered with.. I mean, is Buddy Jesus really necessary?

So like, Buffy is his Jesus kinda thing...

Buddy Jesus is fab.

I get the point but AC seems a little over the top calling it "wrong" and "poison" etc. I just had a quick scan at Superman on google, seems that this character was played with in all sorts of formats by different writers in an even shorter period of time.

It seems to me that surely keeping Buffy alive is ultimately good for fans. I mean if this movie sucks but isn't a flop and makes money this can surely only be a good thing? It doesn't hurt anybody really and it makes sure that the world is still alive in the future.

The only harm would be if it was disastrous at the box office, but then it's not like it's unprecedented to bring characters back even after this.

As far as I know, they only have rights to Buffy - a vampire slayer. So as well as none of the other characters... None of the Sunnydale mythology - so, no Hellmouths (anywhere). No soul-having vampires. No Slayer backstory. I even read somewhere that the last name "Summers" might be a TV-show only thing. So they're pretty much getting "generic vampire hunter who just so happens to be called Buffy".

Well I think the whole concept was originally "pretty blonde cheerleader type as a superhero". I mean it's not really generic, I think people don't give the original concept enough credit.

 

[JoeyLostDharma]

Oh man. My hopes just got taken down a notch.

 

[VisionGirl]

You sure about that? They can't use any of the TV characters? I haven't seen the movie, so that means what exactly? No Giles, Willow, Spike...? Who else?

They cannot use the TV characters. So, it'll be Buffy & Pike...I guess. Or maybe they'll just pretend that Merrick never died. 🙂 You know, just ignore the 18 years of story-telling that has gone on since the movie (both in comics [as in Buffy omnibus] & TV).

 

[Justme]

They stole her in an ethical sense, not a legal one. Just because you legally can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Everything good about Buffy is because of Joss's years and years of hard work as a writer and supervisor of writers, directors and actors. WB is now looking to swoop in and profit of all that work without his approval, without his involvement, and without even any mention of his name. That's wrong. Legal, and wrong.

That's art. That's how characters and mythology survive.

 

[VisionGirl]

I get the point but AC seems a little over the top calling it "wrong" and "poison" etc. I just had a quick scan at Superman on google, seems that this character was played with in all sorts of formats by different writers in an even shorter period of time.

Did you read my (much) earlier post? Superman has been around since 1932, and much re-imagining and reincarnations has happened since then. It's not an equal comparison.

 

[Justme]

Did you read my (much) earlier post? Superman has been around since 1932, and much re-imagining and reincarnations has happened since then. It's not an equal comparison.

Yes I did and that is exactly what I am talking about. Have a look at The Superman timeline.

What I mean is 2 years after superman started the radio serials started, a year later cartoons, 10 years later tv series. The time frame is comparable.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I get the point but AC seems a little over the top calling it "wrong" and "poison" etc. I just had a quick scan at Superman on google, seems that this character was played with in all sorts of formats by different writers in an even shorter period of time.

Comic book characters are intended to be passed around from writer to writer and artist to artist. Buffy was not. Her life and story are Joss's to tell.

It seems to me that surely keeping Buffy alive is ultimately good for fans.

How so? This Buffy has nothing to do with the one we've been watching for 13 years and 8 seasons. The movie can't legally use that character or any of the other TV characters... it can only use the name and concept to trick people into thinking this is *that* Buffy.

I mean if this movie sucks but isn't a flop and makes money this can surely only be a good thing? It doesn't hurt anybody really and it makes sure that the world is still alive in the future.

If it makes money they will make more, and it will soon replace Joss's Buffy in the marketplace and in the public's mind.

That's art. That's how characters and mythology survive.

You are talking as if everything should be in the public domain. That's not how it works. Joss is still alive and still telling his stories.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I totally agree with AC. It's just wrong. It's shamelessly grabbing at the good name that Joss has established. It's nothing like Superman, Batman, Star Trek, James Bond... there are fundamental differences that have been addressed throughout the thread. It's wrong, and to claim you're a fan while doing it is just outrageous.

 

[TheVoid68]

A Buffy movie, without Joss Whedon? As in, without the man who wrote pretty much every single top-class episode of the show ("top-class episodes" here meaning "pieces of liquid genius like Restless and The Body that are the standalone reason that this show is one of the greatest things ever to grace this Earth instead of just a pretty good show that got crap later on")?

And without Sarah Michelle Gellar? As in, without she who played an, IMO, rather plain and slightly irritating lead character and made her fantastic and lovable through being a freaking amazing actress?

And without any of the other characters? As in, without Faith, Angel, Spike, Xander, Cordelia, etc? As in, without the best damn characters in the show, who made it what it is? Without the perfectly balanced, wonderfully sweet friendship between the core four Scoobies, and the irresistible banter between all the characters?

My thoughts?

I mean, yeah, it could be brilliant, it's entirely possible... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Justme]

Comic book characters are intended to be passed around from writer to writer and artist to artist. Buffy was not. Her life and story are Joss's to tell.

Says who? What about other famous creations? Dracula? Robin Hood? Romeo and Juliet. The reason they do stick around is because they are being constantly re-imagined. I don't think that you can say "Okay this format is ok to retell but not this one".

How so? This Buffy has nothing to do with the one we've been watching for 13 years and 8 seasons. The movie can't legally use that character or any of the other TV characters... it can only use the name and concept to trick people into thinking this is *that* Buffy.

Again I don't think you give enough credit to the original concept of the blonde cutiepie being the chosen one. The ideas of popularity vs responsibility, breaking stereotypes, female empowerment, isolation etc they are all there. Joss didn't imagination the whole Buffy canon from start to finish otherwise there wouldn't be as many plotholes.

You are talking as if everything should be in the public domain. That's not how it works. Joss is still alive and still telling his stories.

Maybe but then again if this happens maybe the replacement will be better?

I think we can reach common ground here though. I think the biggest problem is the manufacturing of a "hit", if they manage to turn Buffy into something as shallow and bad as Twilight that just so happens to push enough tweenies buttons to make a buck it would be sad.

Joss plays in this playground though, he is part of it so he can't complain too much.

---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

You are talking as if everything should be in the public domain. That's not how it works. Joss is still alive and still telling his stories.

I am talking morally as that is what you said you meant.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

So they're pretty much getting "generic vampire hunter who just so happens to be called Buffy".

Not at all.. the movie was much better than that. I am tired of people pissing all over the movie; it had epic scenes and Paul Reubens killed it. You can not like a movie that isnt made or written all you want but dont really call Buffy a generic vampire hunter because at that time it was anything but that.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

It's nothing like Superman, Batman, Star Trek, James Bond... there are fundamental differences

What are they? How is it nothing like that? Please explain, because I do not see a difference.