Buffy the Vampire Slayer Remake... Without Joss

[darkwing_duck1]

However, Whedon's nonchalant response may indicate that even he realizes that, hey, it's just a show.

Even if he felt otherwise, as others have said, he has to be very cautious about what he says. His star is not ascendent in Hollywood at the moment. His recent track record with the industry features as it's highlights (starting with the most recent): producing a TV show that got canned after one season (Dollhouse), having a film project pulled out of his hands by the studio (Wonder Woman), and producing one big screen movie that went essentially nowhere at the box office (Serenity).

Prior to that, he had one arguable success (Buffy series), diminished because it was shown on a "fringe" venue, not one of the "big four", one mediocre outing that was cancelled before it's natural end point (Angel), and another "one season wonder" (Firefly).

His only positive credentials at this time are three moderately successful comic book runs, and that's not going to be enough for a big studio to want to back him.

Simply put, he cannot afford to make enemies by bad-mouthing others.

Now before everyone starts jumping down my throat to defend one project or another, understand I am not passing judgement on Joss from a "fan" perspective, but from the perspective of a movie/tv studio exec. From that PoV, Joss' track record is far from being a "big success".

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I just read io9's article on it, and I see what they're saying, but shouldn't it be Joss's choice to allow someone else to take the reigns, since he's the creator of it. I understand the argument because I made a similar argument about Red Dwarf, Doug Naylor needs new writing blood to help it stay fresh, but it should be his choice to make, not forced on him by someone else.

 

[Skywalker]

Joss doesn't own the rights, so (as far as I know) he doesn't really have any control over what happens to the franchise.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Joss doesn't own the rights, so (as far as I know) he doesn't really have any control over what happens to the franchise.

I know, and I think that is a problem with the way copyright currently works. And why I can't by the arguement about creators rights when big companies role it out as a reason to extend copyright.

 

[Ethros]

His recent track record with the industry features as it's highlights (starting with the most recent): producing a TV show that got canned after one season (Dollhouse)

I can't comment on how good or bad it is having not seen a single minute of it yet, but I do believe Dollhouse has been renewed for a second season. So get it right

 

[Lindley]

one mediocre outing that was cancelled before it's natural end point (Angel)

Debatable. The show could have gone longer, but there's nothing particularly wrong with where it ended.

Besides which, personally I felt it was a stronger series than Buffy.

As for Dollhouse, definitely not his best work, and the ratings were fairly bad; yet for some reason it *is* getting a second year. Hope he can do something with that.

 

[jadelee]

Agree with Lindley! Who cares where the show will be ended?

 

[Ethros]

And calling Angel "mediocre" is just dumb

 

[doubleohfive]

However, Whedon's nonchalant response may indicate that even he realizes that, hey, it's just a show.

Even if he felt otherwise, as others have said, he has to be very cautious about what he says. His star is not ascendent in Hollywood at the moment. His recent track record with the industry features as it's highlights (starting with the most recent): producing a TV show that got canned after one season (Dollhouse), having a film project pulled out of his hands by the studio (Wonder Woman), and producing one big screen movie that went essentially nowhere at the box office (Serenity).

Prior to that, he had one arguable success (Buffy series), diminished because it was shown on a "fringe" venue, not one of the "big four", one mediocre outing that was cancelled before it's natural end point (Angel), and another "one season wonder" (Firefly).

His only positive credentials at this time are three moderately successful comic book runs, and that's not going to be enough for a big studio to want to back him.

Simply put, he cannot afford to make enemies by bad-mouthing others.

Now before everyone starts jumping down my throat to defend one project or another, understand I am not passing judgement on Joss from a "fan" perspective, but from the perspective of a movie/tv studio exec. From that PoV, Joss' track record is far from being a "big success".

Dollhouse has been renewed for a second season, however I read somewhere that the budget is getting severely cut.

Also, you forgot about Dr. Horrible's Sing-along-Blog.

Though, I do agree that its more likely Whedon was biting his tongue over this issue.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

His recent track record with the industry features as it's highlights (starting with the most recent): producing a TV show that got canned after one season (Dollhouse)

I can't comment on how good or bad it is having not seen a single minute of it yet, but I do believe Dollhouse has been renewed for a second season. So get it right

That's fair enough...my information was out of date. My apologies.

Interestingly enough though, Dollhouse was saved more by accounting than popularity.

http://filmtvindustry.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_upfronts_part_2_dollhouses_renewal

 

[darkwing_duck1]

one mediocre outing that was cancelled before it's natural end point (Angel)

Debatable. The show could have gone longer, but there's nothing particularly wrong with where it ended.

Besides which, personally I felt it was a stronger series than Buffy.

And calling Angel "mediocre" is just dumb

Again, as I indicated when I first posted, I am not addressing the perceived quality of the show from a fan perspective (I am actually a big Angel fan), but from the "studio suit" perspective. It was the studio that pulled the plug, feeling it was a poor performer, not Joss.

 

[Lindley]

I wasn't really up-to-speed on the politics at the time of cancellation, but my memory is that WB wanted to try out another vampire show, and---what with Angel just having passed 100 episodes---didn't think two such at the same time was a good idea.

Stupid decision, but I don't recall it being a ratings problem explicitly. I mean, it wasn't doing top numbers, but they weren't bad.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

A five-season, 110-episode run is a success in the world of TV producing. BtVS and Angel stand to Whedon's credit from a professional standpoint. It's his post-Angel career that's been shakier.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I wasn't really up-to-speed on the politics at the time of cancellation, but my memory is that WB wanted to try out another vampire show, and---what with Angel just having passed 100 episodes---didn't think two such at the same time was a good idea.

Given the expense of starting up a new show from scratch, a studio isn't going to shell out that sort of investment if they are happy with the show they have.

Stupid decision, but I don't recall it being a ratings problem explicitly. I mean, it wasn't doing top numbers, but they weren't bad.

The studio/network must've thought otherwise.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I wasn't really up-to-speed on the politics at the time of cancellation, but my memory is that WB wanted to try out another vampire show, and---what with Angel just having passed 100 episodes---didn't think two such at the same time was a good idea.

Given the expense of starting up a new show from scratch, a studio isn't going to shell out that sort of investment if they are happy with the show they have.

Stupid decision, but I don't recall it being a ratings problem explicitly. I mean, it wasn't doing top numbers, but they weren't bad.

The studio/network must've thought otherwise.

They admitted afterwards it was a mistake to cancel the show in the first place.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The ratings for Angel went up in its fifth season, but the network was hot for Dark Shadows and cancelled Angel with the intention of replacing it with DS. The cost of launching a new series is counterbalanced with the view that it's sometimes necessary to replace aging shows with new ones since one has to keep an eye on long-term prospects. Ultimately, though, the network decided not to pick up Dark Shadows, which came as a big surprise since it had been considered a lock.

I can't recall off the top of my head what they did pick up to replace Angel in its former timeslot, but I do recall that it got lower ratings than Angel did. Networks may have a rationale for their decisions, but of course that doesn't mean their decisions are always the rights ones.

 

[doubleohfive]

I wasn't really up-to-speed on the politics at the time of cancellation, but my memory is that WB wanted to try out another vampire show, and---what with Angel just having passed 100 episodes---didn't think two such at the same time was a good idea.

Given the expense of starting up a new show from scratch, a studio isn't going to shell out that sort of investment if they are happy with the show they have.

They might if it cost less to make a new show versus continue the established show. It happens.

This is why Without a Trace was cancelled, its why SciFi cancelled Stargate Atlantis in favor of Stargate Universe.

The longer shows go, the more expensive they become to produce. And if the cost of producing the show outweighs the net profit said show brings in, it becomes a clear cut business matter.

TV is a business. That's all there is to understand when trying to demystify these kinds of things.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

And lets not forget that Joss Whedon also had a fruitful Hollywood career before Buffy/Angel really put him in the limelight. He shared an Oscar nomination for his screenwriting work on Toy Story. He co-wrote Speed, although WGA arbitration denied him screen credit for it. He wrote Titan A.E. He did an uncredited rewrite on X-Men. And while he may not be proud of it, he can count Alien Resurrection on his resume.

one mediocre outing that was cancelled before it's natural end point (Angel)

Debatable. The show could have gone longer, but there's nothing particularly wrong with where it ended.

I would argue that Angel had reached its natural ending point. In fact, Angel's story reached its natural ending point all the way back in Season 2. Seasons 3-5 were more about exploring the stories of the supporting characters like Cordelia, Wesley, Gunn, Fred, & Connor. By the end of Season 5, Cordelia, Connor, & Fred were gone and I think the show had said all it needed to say about Gunn & Wesley. Season 6 might have been nice to explore more with Spike & Illyria, but they were such late additions that it really would have been a different show. And what would the format have been? They exhausted the whole Angel Investigations set-up in Seasons 1-4 and I never felt that the Wolfram & Hart storyline would last beyond Season 5 anyway.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

one mediocre outing that was cancelled before it's natural end point (Angel)

Debatable. The show could have gone longer, but there's nothing particularly wrong with where it ended.

Besides which, personally I felt it was a stronger series than Buffy.

And calling Angel "mediocre" is just dumb

Again, as I indicated when I first posted, I am not addressing the perceived quality of the show from a fan perspective (I am actually a big Angel fan), but from the "studio suit" perspective. It was the studio that pulled the plug, feeling it was a poor performer, not Joss.

Somewhat off point, but Joss didn't really have a lot of say in when Buffy ended either. I get the impression that that was mostly Sarah Michelle Gellar's decision. Without Buffy, it makes little sense to keep making a series called Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

For that matter, I recall grumblings at the time that Angel might have ended when it did anyway since David Boreanaz was eager to move on to other projects. He'd been playing Angel for about 8 years at that point and it's pretty rare that actors stay in one role for longer than that.

 

[Lindley]

I would argue that Angel had reached its natural ending point. In fact, Angel's story reached its natural ending point all the way back in Season 2. Seasons 3-5 were more about exploring the stories of the supporting characters like Cordelia, Wesley, Gunn, Fred, & Connor. By the end of Season 5, Cordelia, Connor, & Fred were gone and I think the show had said all it needed to say about Gunn & Wesley. Season 6 might have been nice to explore more with Spike & Illyria, but they were such late additions that it really would have been a different show. And what would the format have been? They exhausted the whole Angel Investigations set-up in Seasons 1-4 and I never felt that the Wolfram & Hart storyline would last beyond Season 5 anyway.

Rumor has it season 6 would have been post-apocalyptic, and may have seen the return of Seth Green as Oz. Hard to get more details than that.

I should get around to reading the copy of After the Fall I bought a few weeks back.