Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

It's a pretty good read and I understand Joss's statements about the matter. I still remember that flashback sequence with Angel lurking in the shadows after he learns there is another Slayer.

 

^ It's a fairly old Buffy comic, and, well you'll see, but the way the Vampires were drawn in the original first few lines of the Buffy comic series look a lot more 'monsterfic' than their TV counterparts

 

Update Buffy?! The show only ended 7 years ago!

And whilst it's true that fans eagerly await the return of Buffy to screens, they want SMG, they want Joss Whedon, they want the characters they know and love. Does anyone actually want this remake? In the history of Hollywood tragedies, this is one of the worst. What a dumb idea. No Joss, I'm not interested.

 

Uuuuummmm........neither is Joss.

 

That's because the Kuzui's had anything to do with it.

 

Obviously from the majority of the posts in this thread and the one before it...none of the fans of the television series or Joss wants this film to happen, nor asked for it. As has been commented before it is obvious that the Kuzuli's are attempting to use their rights on this franchise to attempt a cash grab in the midst of vampire popularity. It is nothing more than that.

 

If this movie uses the characters from the 1992 movie I don't see a real problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(film)

It could become something "epic"

 

It pretty much has to use the characters from the movie. They can't touch the television characters.

 

Seven years is considered an eternity in Hollywood.

Properties these days can be rebooted in less than five...

 

Hell they're rebooting Spider-Man after three years and Superman after four years.

 

I have my issues with SR...but it could of had a sequel & another after that and been fine...I can't wait to see what Zach Snyder does.

 

And Star Trek after a four year gap between ENT and XI, and a seven year gap after Nemesis :P

 

Although it was a reboot of TOS, so technically more like 19 years since the last TOS film.

 

I'd say that the relationship between the movie & TV show versions of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is most similar to the relationship between Stargate & Stargate SG-1. In both cases, the TV show didn't remake the original movie. While there were a bunch of contradictions between the movie & the TV show, the TV show at least presumes that some version of the events of the movie occurred before the TV show began. The movie in a vague form is the backstory for the TV series.

Yes, but in this case, I'd be objecting to a remake of the 1992 movie even if the 1997-2004 TV franchise didn't exist. I mean, stylistically, there hasn't been a whole lot of changes between 1992 & 2010. This whole thing would be easier to swallow if they could give us an idea of how this remake is intended to be different from its predecessors. A "reboot" & a "remake" are very different things. "Reboot" merely suggests that the new incarnation will pay no heed to the continuity of the previous version. "Remake" implies that the new version will use the same storyline as the previous version as well.

The reason why no one objected to the reboot of the Batman movies after only an 8 year gap from 1997-2005 is because Batman Begins was so thoroughly different from the 1989-1997 movies. It was a change in style & tone. It told a story different from any of the other movies. It even used a couple of villains--Ra's al-Ghul & Scarecrow--that hadn't been used in any of the previous films.

As for the recent Spider-Man reboot, I'm skeptical about going back to the beginning this soon. However, I'll reserve judgment until I get a better idea of exactly what they're getting at here. Maybe they have a very specific reason for going back to high school. Certainly they seem to be making some tangible changes, like making Gwen Stacey the love interest this time around, with Mary Jane Watson nowhere in sight. Still, I'll need more information before I determine for sure whether this is a worthy effort or merely a reboot for the sake of rebooting.

 

i didnt read all the posts here, but at this point, 7 years later, i say, "eh, whatever... let's see what you got." because honestly, it might be good. Whedon does some good work, but it's not all gold (Dollhouse). and sometimes letting other people play with your toys can lead to gold (Clone Wars mini episodes, Deep Space 9).

worst case, it's crap and forgotten about. Best case, it's good and you get more buffy. no use getting riled up beforehand.

 

Putting on my pedant hat, I wouldn't count the new Star Trek movie as a reboot, because it's technically within the same greater continuity - it just involves a new alternate timeline being sprung off the 'prime' timeline, as a result of the actions of Nero. It's part sequel, part prequel.

 

I'll reserve judgment if or until a reboot of the show (movie?) is made but, frankly, I don't have high hopes for it. I was a little excited about the prospect of an animated BTVS series that was supposedly in the works a few years ago but I don't think I really have any desire for any more BTVS outside of Whedon's creative control.

 

It's not a re-imagining or a remake, but I would call it a reboot.


Look, with the half doezen re-this words in circulation it sort of helps to have them mean slightly different things. Abrams' film may possess continuity to a point with previous Trek titles, but it's for all intents and purposes the adventures of the recast Enterprise crew.

The way this reboot is framed - with Old Spock and an acknowledgement of a previous timeline - makes me avoid calling it an outright remake, but it's clearly a reboot. It's a reboot that genuflects towards the source material rather then picks and chooses what it wants (as with Stargate and Buffy) but reboot all the same.

Just as Whedon's series was a reboot of the Buffy film and now this Buffy film is a remake of... well, the first Buffy film, really.

Uh... so rebooting the franchise is an age problem in 2010 but not 1997? Or would this be okay if the film was in some sense a loose sequel to the first movie that ignores the series entirely, a la BSuperman Returns? I don't see why that distinction is so important really.

There's no reason to assume the new Buffy film will be stylistically similar to the earlier Buffy efforts. In fact one could make a case it'll be less similar then Whedon's 1997 reboot of the franchise because, however unhappy he was with the original film, he did write it. It's possible as the first such Buffy title Whedon is in no way involved in it could turn out to be fundamentally far more stylistically different.

You see between that and the statement above I do not understand you at all.

 

^ It's probably fair to call ST'09 a reboot all right. I was just pointing out that it's very different from eg Batman Begins or Casino Royale, which were clearly brand new continuities for the characters. The term probably doesn't have any single meaning now anyway.

 

I like to call ST09 a requel.