The New Buffy Movie Has a High Bar To Clear

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

QueenWren:

Fumbleumble:
Oh.. first off... A role model? for whom?... other female vampire slayers?

Me for a start, just because you didn't appreciate Buffy as a role model doesn't mean that none of the rest of us did. Buffy is a genuinely strong female chracter, without being hugely patronised, masculinised or overly girly, which is kind of a rare thing.

And yes I know she does start off very girly but she gets less girly without being less feminine.

REALLY?.. and there aren't REAL women out there, capable of REAL feats worthy of living up to.. as opposed to an entirely madeup and impossible female, incapable of being taken seriously in a real world stuation?.... What kind of world (in your head) do you live in?

Remaking Buffy without Whedon would be like re-making the fightclub without Fincher, Norton, Pit or the now Mrs. Burton I get that vampires are 'in' at the moment and i get that next to twilight Buffy looks Godlike but that is no reason to mine what was essentially one of the best long running series..... ever.

I think some of the episodes are borderline genius and the focus on having a sense of humor was a perfect balancing act between some of the very real drama (the episode where buffy's mother dies suddenly is actually quite hard to watch)

Well, in this day and age, everything is getting a reboot. I say good luck, I'm not going to watch either way.

Zachary Amaranth:

seekeroftruth86:

Hmm? I never said it was entertainment gold, I was just seeing how the formula might be shaken up a bit, so that they don't need to remake a franchise. I chastise their lack of creativity because they won't take the initiative to try new things (which doesn't bring in the cheese, to reiterate). They just want to cash in on a popular franchise by digging it back up. They recast people, maybe re-write some motivations and scenarios, but ultimately it will be the name that drives the show. That's what I think is uncreative. I (as well as many other people I'm sure) have tons of ideas for shows, movies, and video games. Why do we need remakes?

But still, you chastised them for not trying something new and suggested something old. At that point, what does it matter if they reboot Buffy or not, if they're just rehashing a different tired old plot instead?

Yes it was a bad example. Still, they're not going to try anything new, they're going to re-use plots from the show, or the original film and call it a re-make to cash in on its fans, which is my point. They don't need to make more "Buffy" they need to try and make a new IP. I would appreciate that, and I don't expect them to use random idea in a video game forum. If it's "older than I think" it wouldn't have surprised me. That's why a singular person can't make an entire piece of work like this, as Extra Credits have noted.

On that note, where have you seen the ideas I used before? Out of curiosity.

I'm with Whedon - just leave things well enough alone and stop half-assing the creative process. Come up with a new idea to make into a movie for once. If Congress thinks it's worth their time to have hearings about steroid use in professional sports, then they should take five minutes and make a law against remaking anything before at least 50 years has passed from the original production.

Elizabeth Grunewald:
The New Buffy Movie Has a High Bar To Clear

Buffy the Vampire Slayer may not have been perfect, but it's awfully close.

Read Full Article

I'll give anything Joss writes a shot, but it took me years to finally go, "Okay, fine. I'll watch Buffy. But only a few episodes." I was absolutely taken in, and I watched the whole thing as a marathon, promptly followed by Angel.

My first experience with Joss was with Serenity. Not Firefly, mind you, but the movie. I had a bad week and went to a movie expecting some okay, popcorn-worthy sci-fi comedy (based on the previews). And I was absolutely floored. Later on, I found out about the series (which I promptly watched), and since that time I've always had an eye out for Whedon's next project.

There are two things that this movie will be missing, both of which just go more smoothly in Joss Whedon's hands:

1) Ensemble. Many of the pieces in Whedon's fiction--the settings, the characters, and so on--aren't all that unique or ground-breaking. They're usually best classified as "an interesting blend of..." rather than something new. But the difference in Whedon's writing is that he seems acutely aware of how all of those pieces interact and play on each other. His writing balances it such that the story may have a "central character," but it does not have a singular "star." All of the pieces fit together in such a fluid and organic way, even throughout various shifts in the group dynamic. The cast is the star, a complex composite character made up of many--heroes and villains alike.

(Incidentally, his ability to weave and juggle multiple characters in this way is exactly what makes him perfect for The Avengers. If only he'd done X-Men as well.)

2) Authenticity of character. I submit Xander, Cordelia, and Wesley into evidence (since your most recent posts have revolved around those two series). The "day one" version of each of those characters and the "day final" character are nothing near similar. Any writer can suddenly change a character for one thing to another, but this was done in such a patient and authentic way that you scarcely notice it until you look back. Characters grow, learn, and change--rather than "goofy fall guy" remaining "goofy fall guy" forever to preserve the familiar feel of the show--and they do it in a way that is wholly believable. The process pulls the viewer into the change, essentially making the viewer's emotional palette another piece of the ensemble.

You don't have to be super-deep to pull an emotional response effectively, either. Nicholas Sparks knows exactly which strings to pull to make most people cry by the end of his books/movies. It's not that they're particularly deep, intellectual, or artistic. It's that they make effective use of the basic moving parts we all share. I think it's more impressive if someone can get a rise out of you with the simplest of tools, in the same way I find pencil drawings often more artistically impressive (though not technically impressive) as computer-generated images. Doing more with less, sticking to the basics.

Hell, Joss demonstrated more character development in Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog with the Dr. Horrible character that most television series demonstrate in a handful of seasons. Not because he's some sort of literary genius, but because he made Dr. Horrible's character believable by speaking to the audience on the most basic level--wanting two very different things at the same time, and what happens when you try to have them both. Who hasn't felt that at some point? This kind of authenticity is what really sets Whedon's work apart in terms of its characters, which then makes what he does with the cast-as-character even more effective.

And how about Giles and Shepherd Book? Developed through absence of development--you are given the sense that they've gone through immense changes, even when you're not explicitly shown, or even told, the extent of those changes. Yet still you somehow feel that they're carrying the weight of an unknown past.

(This is also why I feel Joss is far better on television than he is in movies, as movies rarely afford the opportunity to establish characters in that way. With Serenity and Avengers, he worked/works with previously-established characters, helping him along somewhat. And while Alien:Resurrection was just plain awful on many accounts, I'll say that the freelance crew still carried with them the feeling that their stories went further back that what we were seeing.)

OVERALL: I think this movie is going to try to capitalize on the least effective aspects of Joss's writing--the premise/setting. Firefly was in space, not about space. Buffy and Angel had monsters, but they weren't about monsters. Dollhouse was set in the house, but it wasn't about the house. Joss works well in sci-fi because it gets us off our "reality guard," and lets him do some fun things once in awhile, but (unlike most mainstream sci-fi) it's not about the sci-fi stuff. That's just backdrop, contrasting to our own reality, as a way of showing us that--even in futuristic, monster-filled fantasy worlds--people go through the same stuff we do now... oh, and sometimes there's a cool gadget or monster or something.

deth2munkies:
Given the show you pour your undying devotion to is a reboot, why not give another one a chance before condemning it to the gutters of movie hell?

Adapting a 90-minute movie into a 144-episode serial is an entirely different prospect to reversing the process. Buffy started short and bad, so was expanded and mined for all its value.

That's a little like building a small business, then deciding to expand and develop. But, wait, lets make the business tiny again! ;)

Totally agree, Dastardly.

Fumbleumble:
REALLY?.. and there aren't REAL women out there, capable of REAL feats worthy of living up to.. as opposed to an entirely madeup and impossible female, incapable of being taken seriously in a real world stuation?.... What kind of world (in your head) do you live in?

In the movie/tv business there are very few decent (let alone good) female role-models. Buffy is a rare exception. This is regardless of the fact she's a super-powered hottie that beats up demons for a hobby. Most of the drama in Buffy is in the relationships. Sure they're based on a nonsensical premise, but that doesn't take away from her character does it?

Or are you incapable of making that distinction and are all fictional heroes worthless as role-models? This is a gaming forum, your post makes me think you're of the type to hate all kinds of fantasy and science fiction because they're not real. I'm sure there's a nuance somewhere you forgot to express.

Elizabeth Grunewald:
-buffy's a rare exception-

Have you seen Birds of Prey?

Not that its better or anything, just wonder how you think it stacks up in this context.

There was a lot I enjoyed about that show, but Buffy wasn't one of them.

That said, I have nothing but mild interest in how the reboot goes and wish them luck with it. Casting ought to be fun.

DarkPanda XIII:
Well, y'know, it's been roughly 13 years ago since the series began and 18 for the movie, why not do a -remake- of it?

I'd say give it two more years, but then I realized it may take 2 years to make anyway. So..*shrug*

Why not? Because the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

What about Muffy the BLood-sucker Muderer ... no wait, Molester! No .. Murderer.

Anyway, my point is, remakes are creative death for a creative industry. Rigor mortis has already set in, it seems. Yes, H'wood has been remaking since the beginning, but the remakes are flying thick and thin. There's no point to remaking Buffy, or anything that's 13 years old. Sheesh. Is that "old" now? Well, it's about time Starwars was remade.

Continue Buffy. Add to it. DO something parallel to it. Remake it? What a waste of creativity.

seekeroftruth86:
Instead of endless remakes I wish producers would try to create new IP with similar themes. Why not try a different spin on the vampire slayer type genre?

Well there was this great, great, great, great film starring Hugh Jackman... I believe it was called "Van Helsing"...

(Ok, that's my sarcasm quota reached and exceeded for the day.)

As much as I loved the series, the one thing I DIDN'T like about it was the character of Buffy. While I appreciate the strong female role-model that Buffy presents, the character devolved into a selfish, self-centered bitch. She was well described in the series proper as someone with a superiority complex as a result of her inferiority complex. When Riley basically tells her shove her bullshit at the end of season 5 was the best thing I ever saw.

I loved the series thoroughly, every other character was funny and interesting, the plot intelligent, the experiments made with the format often brilliant, but the character of Buffy wasn't simply "strong", she was an asshole. Unlikable, crazy and with serious issues that she needs to resolve, but never does. I'd like to see a female character characterized as strong without being a self-centered bitch. That's just female machismo. Which isn't "strong", it's emulating male behavior.

That being said, a reboot could be interesting, and I won't condemn it until I see it. You never know. I deride the lack of originality by rebooting a franchise, but that doesn't mean it won't be worth a look.

Buffy is overrated high-school melodrama without providing anything truly remarkable. It was just another 90s TV series with supernatural events taking place.

This is the rare article which I think has a great conclusion for all the wrong reasons.

All of Buffy's best moments are when it was faithfully executing the "high school horror" concept, or when it was experimenting with the form. The monster of the week, the soap opera character development, the superpowers-plus-insecurity formula that lets Joss Whedon shine, the cast large enough to cash in emotional currency when someone dies or turns evil, the chemistry between a plucky bunch of unknown actors - those were the good parts of the show. Buffy went downhill after the characters graduated from high school and half of them left, not because there was any change in Buffy's character or Joss Whedon stopped writing episodes.

The "Buffy" IP is not inherently valuable. Neither is the character of Buffy, who detached from her supporting cast is basically Kitty Pryde with more sex drive. It's like making a Seinfeld reboot film: the concept is just not flexible enough to work like that.

Vortigar:

Fumbleumble:
REALLY?.. and there aren't REAL women out there, capable of REAL feats worthy of living up to.. as opposed to an entirely madeup and impossible female, incapable of being taken seriously in a real world stuation?.... What kind of world (in your head) do you live in?

In the movie/tv business there are very few decent (let alone good) female role-models. Buffy is a rare exception. This is regardless of the fact she's a super-powered hottie that beats up demons for a hobby. Most of the drama in Buffy is in the relationships. Sure they're based on a nonsensical premise, but that doesn't take away from her character does it?

Or are you incapable of making that distinction and are all fictional heroes worthless as role-models? This is a gaming forum, your post makes me think you're of the type to hate all kinds of fantasy and science fiction because they're not real. I'm sure there's a nuance somewhere you forgot to express.

Who said 'ALL' fiction...?

But fantasy fiction.. absolutely.. and if that is where you are looking for your rolemodels... then there is a serious lack about you.... and it's rather sad too.

Just leave our buffy


We had some great years in my teenage, id was a sad day when it was over, but it was a day i actually probably wont forget. Thats not something other series can say.
It was a great phenomenon, every other time it was just *WOW* whats that? It was fresh, new and creative. Everything which this reboot wont be. When we learned one thing from the series than its that you shouldnt disturb what is lying six feet under :P

damn, after someone mentioned Angel's "smiletime" episode some time ago, i had to watch it again yesterday now i got another reason to rewatch EVERYTHING it's been some time

The problem with doing a new Buffy movie kinda has to do with the chronology of the universe. After season 7 (and season 5 of angel) stuff happens, you can't just write over that, or beyond it, since it's not finished yet.

Doing it during the show it kinda impossible, since the show had a growing "power curve" and all. The best time would probably be sometime between season 3 and 4, when everyone was only kinda powerful, but most of the cast is still, ahem, around.

Regardless, if it's funny, sexy, and has the original cast, I'm down for it. Especially if it includes post season 4 Willow (heh heh).

Fumbleumble:
Who said 'ALL' fiction...?

But fantasy fiction.. absolutely.. and if that is where you are looking for your rolemodels... then there is a serious lack about you.... and it's rather sad too.

I think its the exact other way around actually. I think that if you look at things that way you're limiting yourself, closing your mind to possibilities and that's a very sad thing indeed.

Why shouldn't you see Buffy as a rolemodel? She takes initiative, doesn't back down when called into question, is determined, will make sacrifices to attain that which she wants. Heck, those are traits not too far from the Nightingales of the world I'd think.

Let me put it in a more extreme way. I'm absolutely convinced Jesus, or at least a large part of his life, is fictional and completely fantastical. Why shouldn't I try to emulate his example of acceptance and doing unto others as you would want to be done unto yourself. Sure, he created wine out of water, generated infinite bread and walked on water, that doesn't change the virtues of his character.

And then there's the value of the metaphor. The demons needn't be taken literal. What does fighting demons stand for exactly? You can explain it in a million ways. And still the virtues of the character don't change...

And here's why I said all fiction.

All those other more realistic problems characters face in other works of fiction are just as made up as that demon. Point is, giving a presentation or fighting demons is merely a cosmetic difference, the role-model worthiness of the character is in how they deal with their problems.

Lastly, fantasy heroes and real-life heroes are not mutually exclusive to have as role-models. You can take advice from Buffy's good actions as well as Ghandi's.

I'm looking for funding to buy the rights to Dirty Dancing or Titanic . I plan on turning both into kung fu and tits action movies where Christina Hendricks and Scarlett Johansen battle giant scorpions in a post apocalyptic desert.

Because if someone can buy the rights to Buffy and turn it into Twilight, if someone can reboot Spider-Man only seven years after the original movie, then I should be allowed to take other people's favourite movies and just ram them into the ground out of spite.

It's more honest than ramming them into the ground for profit anyway.

Vortigar:
Snip

Seconded! Being a preteen girl in the 90's was particularly rough. I would be pretty beauty pageant-like if I would say I looked up to some female politician or career woman. In reality I watched tv, and the only real options were either crap like Dawson's Creek and 7th Heaven or Buffy.

I will probably end up seeing another Buffy movie but I would be really happy to see something after the show. I mean they did it with Sex and the City, why not something actually interesting? I know it would be hard to bring in new audiences but people are smart, occasionally.

ShinningDesertEagle:
Buffy is overrated high-school melodrama without providing anything truly remarkable. It was just another 90s TV series with supernatural events taking place.

Why do I have a feeling that if you ever did sit and watch more than one episode of this show, you went into it expecting to hate it?

But really, couldn't they have just called it something else if they are planning on changing a majority of it? Do the same story and just call it "Staker" or something like that. Good lord its not that difficult.

Fumbleumble:

QueenWren:

Fumbleumble:
Oh.. first off... A role model? for whom?... other female vampire slayers?

Me for a start, just because you didn't appreciate Buffy as a role model doesn't mean that none of the rest of us did. Buffy is a genuinely strong female chracter, without being hugely patronised, masculinised or overly girly, which is kind of a rare thing.

And yes I know she does start off very girly but she gets less girly without being less feminine.[/quote

REALLY?.. and there aren't REAL women out there, capable of REAL feats worthy of living up to.. as opposed to an entirely madeup and impossible female, incapable of being taken seriously in a real world stuation?.... What kind of world (in your head) do you live in?

There are plenty of real women that I admire and think of as role models, I could give you an exhaustive list but for now I'll stick to; Jennifer Saunders, J K Rowling and my mother. It's just that I think fictional role models can be important and inspiring too.

Just because your brain is limited to the mundane doesn't mean the rest of us are. Are you going to say we shouldn't have historical role models because what they did is no longer relevant? Should I chuck my copy of Virginia Woolf because she died 50 years ago?

[quote="Vortigar" post="6.246773.9063177"]

Lastly, fantasy heroes and real-life heroes are not mutually exclusive to have as role-models. You can take advice from Buffy's good actions as well as Ghandi's.

Thanks Vortigar this is pretty much what I would have said if I had been online earlier

Argh wierdness happened to my last post but the point is still there

Eh, everyone's already said what I thought.

Depends if the reboot is only taking in the original movie or wants to reboot the series.

If it wants to measure up to the series, good luck. The not even complete story is told in 7 seasons try putting that into 1 or more movies will be very difficult.

If it tries to only imitate the movie, that would be less of a problem. The original movie is really camp and nothing like the series that followed it.

My relationship with Buffy is pretty much like my relationship with Star Trek. I have seen a few episodes - enough to understand that I've missed out on something great - and I have no interest in the movie.

I was under the impression that the reboot was ONLY doing the original movie, and not including anything from the later series. Perhaps I'm wrong? But I don't think whoever is doing this project is going to be taking anything from the series into account.

While the original movie was less than stellar, and more than a little cheesy, my opinion is to leave it alone and come up with something original. I'd much rather see a creative, inventive, and fun new movie than another remake.

As a general rule, it's more dangerous to follow success than failure. If the new series is about average in quality (and most new series are, that's what "average" means), it will suffer from comparison to Whedon's series. Fans will think it's kinda good, but not as good as the "real" Buffy.

I'm curious to see what they do about cell phones, which were not yet ubiquitous in 1997.

After the series finale, there were dozens of slayers running around. Following one of them seems better than rehashing Buffy's story. Supposedly there were other Hellmouths. It could work.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here