RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,559
Posts: 5,513,945
Members: 25,146
Currently online: 563
Newest member: TM2-Megatron

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 27 2010, 12:36 PM   #151
Jetfire
Guest
 
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2010, 10:47 PM   #152
I am not Spock
Commodore
 
Location: Australia
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

Admiral_Young wrote: View Post
Hell they're rebooting Spider-Man after three years and Superman after four years.
And Star Trek after a four year gap between ENT and XI, and a seven year gap after Nemesis :P
__________________
It's a FAAAAKKKEEE!
Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight
I am not Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2010, 11:10 PM   #153
George Bailey
The Revd's Oldman
 
George Bailey's Avatar
 
Location: Bob The Skutter
View George Bailey's Twitter Profile
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

I am not Spock wrote: View Post
Admiral_Young wrote: View Post
Hell they're rebooting Spider-Man after three years and Superman after four years.
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.
__________________
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider!
George Bailey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 12:14 AM   #154
The Borgified Corpse
Admiral
 
The Borgified Corpse's Avatar
 
Location: Ouch! Forgotten already? You were just down there 20 minutes ago.
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

Ethros wrote: View Post
Just to clarify, the TV series is not a continuation of the movie.

There are numerous differences with how the vampires are represented, SMG Buffy wasn't called in 1992, SMG Buffy burned down the gym unlike movie Buffy, etc

It's more of a continuation of Joss's original script.

Yeah it's the same basic story, but just saying to be nerdy, that movie is not "canon"
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.

Kegg wrote: View Post
Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote: View Post
No, there's really not an amusing contradiction. The 1992 movie was a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it.
Not the issue. People were objecting to the very idea of a remake within such a short frame of time. "Not even old enough to warrant a remake" would be The Borgified Corpse's exact words.
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.
__________________
Kegg: "You're a Trekkie. The capacity to quibble over the minutiae of space opera films is your birthright."
The Borgified Corpse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 07:07 AM   #155
darthraidr
Commodore
 
Location: irvine, ca, usa
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

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.
darthraidr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 05:18 PM   #156
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

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.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 09:00 PM   #157
JediKnightButler
Fleet Captain
 
JediKnightButler's Avatar
 
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
View JediKnightButler's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to JediKnightButler
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

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.
JediKnightButler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 09:48 PM   #158
Kegg
Rear Admiral
 
Kegg's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland.
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
Putting on my pedant hat, I wouldn't count the new Star Trek movie as a reboot,
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.

The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
[
Kegg wrote: View Post
Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote: View Post
No, there's really not an amusing contradiction. The 1992 movie was a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it.
Not the issue. People were objecting to the very idea of a remake within such a short frame of time. "Not even old enough to warrant a remake" would be The Borgified Corpse's exact words.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.'
- Philip K. Dick
Kegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 09:54 PM   #159
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

^ 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.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 11:55 PM   #160
Hanukkah Solo
Admiral
 
Hanukkah Solo's Avatar
 
Location: Skywalker
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

I like to call ST09 a requel.
Hanukkah Solo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 12:12 AM   #161
Mr. Adventure
Admiral
 
Mr. Adventure's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Adventure
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

It might be a trainwreck but it will be interesting to see what they do. Whedon got seven seasons of Buffy + five of Angel + comics so it's not like he got screwed exactly.
Mr. Adventure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 01:46 AM   #162
AJBryant
Fleet Captain
 
AJBryant's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

Skywalker wrote: View Post
I like to call ST09 a requel.
I am soooo gonna steal that.
__________________
Abba Anthony [St. Anthony the Great] said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.' " -- Wisdom of the Desert Fathers
AJBryant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 04:31 AM   #163
Turtletrekker
Vice Admiral
 
Turtletrekker's Avatar
 
Location: Tacoma, Washington
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

AJBryant wrote: View Post
Skywalker wrote: View Post
I like to call ST09 a requel.
I am soooo gonna steal that.
That's awesome!
I'm gonna steal it too!
__________________
Whatever you celebrate this time of year-- be it Christmas, Hanukah, Ramadan, Kwanza, the Solstice, Life Day, Durin's Day, Festivus or whatever, let it be happy, joyful and safe.
Turtletrekker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 05:39 AM   #164
Too Much Fun
Commodore
 
Too Much Fun's Avatar
 
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

I've heard it referred to as a "rebootquel". I always liked that expression.
Too Much Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 06:15 AM   #165
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Buffy TVS to be (ugh) Rebooted

Skywalker wrote: View Post
I like to call ST09 a requel.
Nah, that's what The Incredible Hulk was.


Kegg wrote: View Post
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.
Which is why the perfect term is... relaunch!
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
buffy, joss whedon

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.