Oh no you don't, your not going to heap all of this on me without at least owning up to what ever point you think does not apply to you, applying to you 😛 ....
We both made this about Star Power. If you'll review with me our discussion we'll be well on our way to sharing this blame of an alternate dimension where Ben is driving the General Lee...
You sad while discussing this wonderful topic that although Dukes of Hazard was a television series made into a movie it was a different thing than a new Buffy movie....up to the point you gave a reason beyond nostalgia being a difference, I would have agreed with you
You said (and here comes what sent me off with the star power ramble): "It was a successful show PLUS had some rather large names in it." also "SMG, God love her is not in the same league as Stiller or even Wilson dollar potential wise"
You have quoted what I said but YOU have misinterpreted it.
You, as I have said again and again, threw Dukes into the pot as a comparison. I argued that It had rather large names attached (Scott, Knoxville and Simpson are still very well known) PLUS it was a hugely successful show. I have ALSO argued that the show was part of a slew of movies based on 70's/80's TV shows given a remake.
Buffy was mildly successful but nothing to really shout from the rooftops. Its viewing figures were adequate and its critical reviews were great BUT Dukes was VERY popular and has an appeal that endured.
Yes as with most TV shows over the years it has been romanticised but that only helped with the movie.
Buffy has not been off the air long enough to be romanticised AND more to the point cast changes would be a complete no go from fans.
Michelle Geller isn't a strong box office draw alone and aside from fans and FEW casuals a Buffy continuation movie would be difficult to make a commercial success.
I have "˜owned' up to the ONLY mistake I have made "“ in fact this is exactly why people don't generally recognise the small mistakes because their detractors take it to mean that one mistake means the whole argument is wrong and theirs is correct "“ HOWEVER I have explained time and again where your mistake was and thus I have nothing else to "˜own up to'. Maybe you should read my entire argument again.
This led me to believe something that you may not have said but I believe you did mean Mr. Wriggle room; that without the large stars salary -one that trumps Gellars, the Buffy movie might not be made. (otherwise how is what you said a meaningful difference, both would be television to movie)
I have never said nor have I even suggested that a Buffy movie would need a large star, so stop trying to suggest that. I find it quite offensive that rather than fight the actual argument you will make your own by changing my meaning just to suit you.
The REASONS that a Buffy movie wouldn't be made are presented time and again in my posts, it is not something I have suggested but what I have actually said.
Furthermore, since the movie would likely be hurt by loosing old fan base by having anyone but Geller as Buffy... studios would be apprehensive about green lighting a production because they are not allowed to spend more money on a gamble that high actor salaries equal more butts in the seats and possible greater return.
Your entire comment here makes no sense. Can a film be made or not?
Sarah seems reluctant, so without her can one be made?
I have argued often in this very thread that Sarah is the ONLY one who can do it and that without her a Buffy movie wouldn't work now. I have given other reasons too.
If I have misrepresented your point I apologize, i just can't see it....except for what I see it as. I'd appreciate an explanation not blame
I have NOT blamed you for anything, that comment in my last statement was actually for the entire board.
If you feel it applies to you, you need to look into that and stop blaming others.
Another point where we still fail to have an understanding on my part is the star trek comment. In the discussion I explained that I believe star trek having a movie might have relevance to Buffy getting one as well, both were popular television programs and iconic, When you think Space the Final frontier you think trek....Buffy has the same name association/ relationship with vampire jandras.
I explained my view that when star wars came around it gave the medium an incredibly popular hit and movie production companies would be more open to production of other space related stuff because of that.
You and I argued a bit on that, with me saying that Buffy could do the same thing for the vampire medium with its name recognition and it's already established fan base.
You said: "Star trek was rehashed because star wars was big, granted, but it was the only thing that could be a successful franchise with a growing legion of fans that the studio had in their possession."
To this I disagree with you.
Star Trek again was a different one.
First of all, the studios needed something at short notice to go up against Star Wars. Trek had been gaining momentum since its cancellation including some of its episodes garnering larger viewing figures than first run.
How can you disagree with documented fact?
Fact - the studios wanted to make a Space movie to compete/take advantage of the Star Wars market.
Fact "“ the studio owned it and already had a growing fan base.
Those are highly documented and discussed.
Buffy has only been off the air for 5 years AND in its TV run was complete PLUS it is within a genre that isn't fresh or new.
Star Wars was paving the way forward, it was a new lucrative market in Cinema where as the "˜Vampire' genre has been there now for a decade at least(this cycle). Buffy the movie doesn't bring anything new to the genre nor does it tap into an underused Genre "“ Star Trek did both.
Latter you say something I actually agree with though when you said that I was getting hung up on television shows and forgetting the large influence of novels on Hollywood.
I say apply your own reasoning to your above quote and you'll see that trek was far from the only thing franchise wise to work with.
You seriously need to do some actual research about the Star Trek history. There are plenty of legit documentaries out there that detail everything I have said as fact which strengthens my argument on it being tapped because of its position. Buffy doesn't hold such a position.
With the man on the moon in the 60's there was an explosion of Sci fi like Flash Gordon...some of the things that shaped Lucas vision of star wars...the list is really very long. Some where shaped into movies and so was star trek
Stick is beating you again.
Star Trek was owned by the Studio, they didn't have to pay for the rights.
You need to understand that Star Trek was OWNED by the studios they had a full license to make TV shows with it or movies, other shows they would have had to purchase. The studios wanted to make money and while they wanted to exploit the Star Wars cinema they also didn't want to take too many risks as Star Wars might have been a fluke. Add to that, with contracts of the stars and the show already in their files AND an established cast wishing to do the movie, they also meant they didn't have to spend time sorting out casting issues, solving money issues and thats why Star Trek was made.
Films generally took longer to make back then. The average movie takes 5 to 7 months now where as back in as early as the 80's movies could take up to a year and a half. This is not great turn around when you want to exploit a fickle market so you need to do things as fast as possible.
So I fail to see your point in argument that their is a substantial difference...you cant have it both ways. You can't claim that trek was the only franchise with which the studios had to work with. It was a successfully franchise, however, just like Buffy and that actually favors my side of the argument that suggests producers would not be worried over going ahead with it.
Your biggest failure is your inability to understand the different times.
See above for the reasons why you are so wrong.
As my grandpa use to tell me "Enough stick, here's some carrots..."
Thats an excellent catch with considering Angel as additional resource material for season length. When i had said that I felt Buffy was closer to sex in the City than the Xfiles I meant it logistically as well as 'gut feeling"
Logic wise, I was considering it a six season series to a seven vs. the xfiles comparison of ten seasons to seven without factoring in Angels addition as a spin off.
If the movie requires the additions of characters like Angel and Spike, which I don't see the fans being happy without at least one and that goes for the creators too, then you need to factor in Angel the Series because of the character development. Character development is needed for the view to understand what decisions are being made and why they are. If you require this you need to use the entire Buffy/Angel verse which means you count both series thus you have a logistically more equal run of X-Files and Buffy.
Now for a few paragraphs in ( )....somewher my grammar teacher is crying...
(Gut feeling I think of Buffy as a dramedy set in a supernatural setting, X-files a drama set in a somewhat supernatural/scifi setting. And Sex in the city as a dramedy set in a natural setting. To me xfiles and Buffy seem very different.
Settings are not an all powerful driving force, so much as theme. I understand setting can influence theme but Trek and Wars seem very different to me, for example despite the setting of space.
I apologies for going off on a tangent, but i feel this needed stated because Hollywood is trained to look at the script and theme as well, which contain the backdrop. How often did the Xfiles make you laugh?)
This is utter bollocks. IF we were arguing Beverley Hills 90210 and Buffy being closer thematically you would have an argument but SatC share few things with it.
X-Files was written to have a couple of jokes per episode and even had entire episodes dedicated to comedy.
Buffy was the same. Buffy was not meant to be a comedy BUT it made you laugh a few times an episode and had comedy ones.
Sex and the City was supposed to be a Comedy Drama, you were supposed to laugh often at it(not that I did) because that is what it was supposed to do.
I was about to get in debate mode about the whole origins thing, as that is not needed in great detail necessarily in super hero movies and the origins themselves can be simple.
In my head I originally thought, here is your origin...*cue intro* There, done.
But Buffy has become somewhat complicated, you can't even say "in all the world there is but one" anymore. I'm not sure as to where to even begin to cover how to work it all into a script, but simply because I'm too simple to do so does not mean it can't be done.
Exactly, you can't give a very brief intro because the casuals need to know what is going on BUT you can't do an origins story because the fans would feel patronised and even annoyed because it is till fresh. The history is too big to get into a 10 minute film bit.
In 10, 15 years a movie could be done with an Origins and new cast, but for now its not going to get the studio backing it needs because they want the most money possible.
The ONLY way for a Buffy thing to be done is a TVM or a straight to DVD endeavour and the truth of that is the people involved have already said that wouldn't be something they want to pursue and the spin offs have consistently failed to get further than the ideas page.
