PDA

View Full Version : 21st birthday of Buffy TVS



TimeTravellingBunny
11-03-18, 03:50 AM
Today (well, it's already yesterday where I live and in the rest of Europe, but it's still 10th March in the Americas!) is 21st anniversary of the broadcast of the first episode of Buffy.

James Marsters has posted a nice video on his Twitter on that occasion: https://twitter.com/JamesMarstersOf/status/972656838016606208

Fool for Buffy
11-03-18, 06:08 AM
Thank you for sharing that TTB! I did one of those giddy claps for James after the vid. Well said for sure.

And if anyone has not checked out Sarahís Instagram post, take the time of day and enjoy:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BgJtFBcjKfj/?hl=en&taken-by=sarahmgellar

I only have an hour left and most of you donít anymore, but Happy Slay Day!

Priceless
11-03-18, 06:15 AM
I loved both of these remembrances, and it's great that SMG and JM are such strong supporters of the show.

flow
11-03-18, 11:06 AM
Thank you both so much ! I did not know that qoute from Hamlet, but I love it ! And I am grateful, that both actory take their time to share their own thoughts and memories with the fans more than twenty years after the show first aired. That is amazing !

flow

TimeTravellingBunny
11-03-18, 12:36 PM
Thank you both so much ! I did not know that qoute from Hamlet, but I love it ! And I am grateful, that both actory take their time to share their own thoughts and memories with the fans more than twenty years after the show first aired. That is amazing !

flow

It's from Hamlet's famous soliloquy "To be or not to be" - but James took the lines a bit out of context.

betta
12-03-18, 03:05 AM
David Boreanaz commemorating Buffy (https://twitter.com/David_Boreanaz/status/972546187805929472)

#Amgel - did he misspell Angel???

Priceless
12-03-18, 07:27 AM
David Boreanaz commemorating Buffy (https://twitter.com/David_Boreanaz/status/972546187805929472)

#Amgel - did he misspell Angel???

I thought exactly the same thing! But surely not? Did he tweet later to rectify the spelling?

TriBel
12-03-18, 12:09 PM
It's from Hamlet's famous soliloquy "To be or not to be" - but James took the lines a bit out of context.

LOL! "a bit out of context" is an understatement! :)

Angel's misspelling caused some consternation. What a shame. :D

betta
12-03-18, 04:35 PM
I thought exactly the same thing! But surely not? Did he tweet later to rectify the spelling?

No, he didn't... It's just me that think "little show" and "Amgel" shows a little contempt for BtVS?

flow
12-03-18, 04:46 PM
Some People were discussing, if he was putting Forward a new ship - Amy and Angel = Amgel ;-)

You can easily hit the wrong letter, especially if you are typing the message on a cell phone. The "Little Show" was more disturbing.

But actually it was quite nice of him, to tweet anything at all.

flow

Priceless
12-03-18, 05:07 PM
DB has said many times that he doesn't like looking backwards, so for him to tweet anything is excellent. I think the little show' comment was a joke, playing on the fact that the show is started off small but is still a huge fan favourite. The 'Amgel' was a mistake, or maybe a combination of Am Angel, as in I Am Angel . . . but is that a stretch? I much prefer SMG's insta pics and JM's video :D

betta
12-03-18, 05:26 PM
The 'Amgel' was a mistake, or maybe a combination of Am Angel, as in I Am Angel . . . but is that a stretch?

I thought that at first, too!

HardlyThere
13-03-18, 03:21 PM
DB has said many times that he doesn't like looking backwards, so for him to tweet anything is excellent. I think the little show' comment was a joke, playing on the fact that the show is started off small but is still a huge fan favourite. The 'Amgel' was a mistake, or maybe a combination of Am Angel, as in I Am Angel . . . but is that a stretch? I much prefer SMG's insta pics and JM's video :D

His big 'ol thumbs obviously hit the wrong key.

Michelle had some cute comments, too. Pictures are always better. I wish the producers would dump their set photography of Buffy like the X-Files guys did.

BAF
13-03-18, 04:03 PM
FOX Interested In Buffy Revivial With Joss

http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/929713-fox-chairman-says-there-is-talk-about-buffy-revival-frequently

FOX Chairman Says There is Talk About Buffy Revival ‘Frequently’
But it won’t happen without Joss Whedon

By Spencer Perry ON March 13, 2018

http://cdn2-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/2018/03/buffy-1.jpg

FOX Chairman says there is talk about Buffy revival ‘Frequently’

Many broadcast networks are in the business of reviving their fan-favorite TV shows from the 1990s and early 2000s, including FOX, which has revivals of The X-Files, 24, Prison Break, and the upcoming Greatest American Hero. There’s still plenty of shows that FOX could revive, however, and one that the network has thought about is Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but they have one condition.

“‘Buffy’ is probably the most ripe show we have for bringing back,” said Fox TV group chair Gary Newman at the INTV Conference (via Variety). “It’s something we talk about frequently, and Joss Whedon is really one of the greatest creators we ever worked with. When Joss decides it’s time, we’ll do it. And until Joss decides it’s time, it won’t happen.”

A follow-up to the Whedon-penned Buffy the Vampire Slayer feature film, the Buffy TV series ran from 1997 to 2003 for seven seasons. The series starred Sarah Michelle Gellar in the title role alongside Alyson Hannigan, Nicholas Brendon, Charisma Carpenter, Anthony Stewart Head, David Boreanaz, Seth Green, James Marsters, Emma Caulfield, Michelle Trachtenberg, Amber Benson, and Kristine Sutherland. Since its conclusion, the series has continued in comic book form, with some of the characters continuing their journey in the Angel spin-off series. There was previously a feature film reboot of the property in development at Warner Bros., but it failed to materialize.

Would you want to see a Buffy revival at FOX with Joss Whedon returning? Sound off in the comments below!


Buffy the Vampire Slayer Reboot Will Happen ‘When Joss Decides’

https://screenrant.com/fox-buffy-vampire-slayer-tv-show-reboot/

Fox on potential Buffy reboot: 'When Joss decides it’s time, we’ll do it'

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/fox-on-potential-buffy-reboot-when-joss-decides-its-time-well-do-it

flow
13-03-18, 07:41 PM
Whoa, that is big news. I can`t imagine it happening though. And if it is happening I can`t inagine it being worthwhile. But Joss isn`t too busy at the moment, is he ?

flow

Priceless
13-03-18, 07:52 PM
I've really mixed feelings about this. I love this show, and SMG will always be Buffy to me, but I am willing to be positive about a reboot. I'd like to see how the show would be done now and what changes would be made to make it acceptable to modern viewers. If the reboot could guarantee the same excellent writing as the original, with the same willingness to grapple difficult issues and give the characters depth and meaning beyond the usual standard tv teen show, then I'd be happy. Not too much to ask is it? :D

flow
13-03-18, 08:04 PM
Excellent writing, characters with depth and meaning.....I think, we can consider ourselves lucky, as long as the vampires don`t sparkle...I wouldn`t dare to ask for more :-)

flow

Priceless
13-03-18, 08:23 PM
Excellent writing, characters with depth and meaning.....I think, we can consider ourselves lucky, as long as the vampires don`t sparkle...I wouldn`t dare to ask for more :-)

flow

What if you became a reboot bangel? Or bangel fans found themselves becoming reboot spuffies :p

- - - Updated - - -

Actually we only got spuffy because DB had to leave because he got his own show. The reboot could just stick with Bangel for the length of its run, and there would never be a reboot-Spuffy :(

Silver1
13-03-18, 08:24 PM
Oh bring it on! If It's crap (like Star Trek Discovery imo) we can all just ignore it. :roll:

flow
13-03-18, 08:27 PM
The reboot could just stick with Bangel for the length of its run, and there would never be a reboot-Spuffy

I never thought, I would say that, but .....I`d rather have sparkling vampires....:-)

flow

Priceless
13-03-18, 08:30 PM
Oh bring it on! If It's crap (like Star Trek Discovery imo) we can all just ignore it. :roll:

I quite enjoyed Star Trek Discovery :p

- - - Updated - - -


I never thought, I would say that, but .....I`d rather have sparkling vampires....:-)

flow

Yep me too! I'm not sure I'd even watch if there were no Spuffy to look forward to :err:

TriBel
13-03-18, 08:53 PM
I've really mixed feelings about this. I love this show, and SMG will always be Buffy to me, but I am willing to be positive about a reboot. I'd like to see how the show would be done now and what changes would be made to make it acceptable to modern viewers. If the reboot could guarantee the same excellent writing as the original, with the same willingness to grapple difficult issues and give the characters depth and meaning beyond the usual standard tv teen show, then I'd be happy. Not too much to ask is it? :D

Actually, when I was rabbiting on about "recombination", "essences" etc in S12, I was going to suggest it made a good stepping off point for a reboot. You can have new characters with similar characteristics to the old ones but they don't look the same. Hell - you could even keep the old ones alive in the comics if you have a multiverse.

BAF
13-03-18, 10:05 PM
Fox Boss Addresses a Possible ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ Revival

http://collider.com/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-revival/

HardlyThere
13-03-18, 10:21 PM
Oh bring it on! If It's crap (like Star Trek Discovery imo) we can all just ignore it. :roll:

It would almost be worth just to get it over with so people would quit talking about it.


What if you became a reboot bangel? Or bangel fans found themselves becoming reboot spuffies :p

- - - Updated - - -

Actually we only got spuffy because DB had to leave because he got his own show. The reboot could just stick with Bangel for the length of its run, and there would never be a reboot-Spuffy :(

The only reason Angel was brought back from hell was to go to LA. If it weren't for AtS, he would have stayed dead.

betta
13-03-18, 11:18 PM
Well, we already know the one person who wouldn't be interested in it: David Boreanaz... so, bring it! :eviltail:

- - - Updated - - -

And forgive my confusion: hasn't Disney bought Buffy from Fox?

BAF
14-03-18, 02:24 AM
Well, we already know the one person who wouldn't be interested in it: David Boreanaz... so, bring it! :eviltail:

- - - Updated - - -

And forgive my confusion: hasn't Disney bought Buffy from Fox?

The Disney/FOX deal isn't final yet.It'll take about 18 months before it can pass government approval.During those 18 months FOX has to proceed like it's business as uaual in case the deal doesn't go through for some reason.

HardlyThere
14-03-18, 05:12 AM
Well, we already know the one person who wouldn't be interested in it: David Boreanaz... so, bring it! :eviltail:

- - - Updated - - -

And forgive my confusion: hasn't Disney bought Buffy from Fox?

Neither would SMG from everything I've read. Ever since the show ended she's made the typical talk around it comments about being the right time, the right script, never say never and so on and so forth. That gave way to the too old comments.

The only way I can see her ever returning is script approval beforehand, which I really doubt Joss would do.

Stoney
14-03-18, 02:30 PM
I agree SMG could well want script approval but that it would be highly unlikely (correctly so imo) for her to get a say on direction. I don't want to see the show rebooted, I agree with the article comment that recasting would be a mistake. So much of what was great about the show was how the different actors cast brought so much to the characters. I'd love to see a revival, a reimagining which was distinct/separate or a spin off, but I'd rather rewatch my dvds than watch a different bunch of actors try to play the same roles.

BAF
14-03-18, 05:41 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/79595

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER 2020?? Fox Chief Says If Joss Whedon Wants To Bring It Back To Televison, It’s Back On Television!!

Published at: March 13, 2018

https://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2018/hercules/buffy1_large.jpg

I am – Hercules!!

“When Joss decides it’s time, we’ll do it. And until Joss decides it’s time, it won’t happen,” Fox Television Chief Gary Newman just told attendees at Jerusalem’s INTV Conference.

The thing is, Whedon may not want to go forward without Sarah Michelle Geller, and Geller has been pretty meh about giving “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” the same treatment TV has lately given “Twin Peaks,” “Gilmore Girls,” “X-Files,” “Roseanne,” “Will & Grace,” etc. etc. etc.

“They want it until they see it and don’t like it, and then they’re like, ‘Why did you do that?! You ruined my favorite show!’ And then it all comes back down on you,” Gellar told the Huffington Post 11 months ago.

And as much as I revere The WB’s version of “Buffy,” I’m pretty sure I don’t want a revival if Whedon – who since Buffy’s cancellation has transformed himself into one of the most successful filmmakers on the planet -- isn’t running it. If Whedon co-writes the pilot then puts his sister-in-law in charge of the actual revival series, then I fear we’ll be stuck with a Buffy that’s only as good as “Agents of SHIELD” – and “Agents of SHIELD” is the first Whedon-created series I could not be bothered to acquire on DVD or Blu-ray.

A better idea to me might be a quartet of big-budget Whedon-written Netflix movies catching us up on what Giles, Willow, Xander, Spike, Faith and Oz have been up to since 2003.

Find Variety’s exclusive on the matter here.


Fox Executive Says Buffy Revival Is Discussed Frequently

https://lrmonline.com/news/fox-executive-says-buffy-revival-is-discussed-frequently/

flow
14-03-18, 07:11 PM
They can`t seriously consider, doing it with the original cast. Even if they would find a way, to explain, why Buffy is still slaying while she is approaching her 40th birthday and why Giles hasn`t retired as a watcher yet, what would they do about Angel and Spike ? Not to mention Harmony, Drusilla, Darla (is she currently dead ? undead ? alive ?) and Gunn.

The only way for a reboot would be a recast and I agree with Stoney, that it is not very likely, that you will get another cast that works so well together and works for the characters at the same time. Which leaves a new storyline with different characters, new actors and maybe a cameo appearance from Buffy, Faith, Xander or Dawn (Angel or Spike only, if they shanshued shortly after NFA) as the only option.

That could name it "Vampire Slayer, the next Generation". I am not sure, how I would feel about it.

flow

HardlyThere
15-03-18, 04:03 AM
They can`t seriously consider, doing it with the original cast. Even if they would find a way, to explain, why Buffy is still slaying while she is approaching her 40th birthday and why Giles hasn`t retired as a watcher yet, what would they do about Angel and Spike ? Not to mention Harmony, Drusilla, Darla (is she currently dead ? undead ? alive ?) and Gunn.

The only way for a reboot would be a recast and I agree with Stoney, that it is not very likely, that you will get another cast that works so well together and works for the characters at the same time. Which leaves a new storyline with different characters, new actors and maybe a cameo appearance from Buffy, Faith, Xander or Dawn (Angel or Spike only, if they shanshued shortly after NFA) as the only option.

That could name it "Vampire Slayer, the next Generation". I am not sure, how I would feel about it.

flow

You don't need any of the vampires. At the end of the show, Angel and Spike were not part of the cast. They were on Angel.

The biggest issue, assuming any of the cast or Joss himself was even interested, is that it's not really a revival if it's only cameos. People want more Buffy and the gang, not Buffy and the gang as mentors. I really don't think anyone wants a pure reboot. Then you have the idea of past slayers, but therein lies the hiccup that we know they die. The whole premise has an inherent Bomb Plot quality to it.

Speaking for myself, I don't want it done. If they're going to do anything, they should just keep making comic books, though I would not mind a reboot of those. A lot of the things that made Buffy great have now been copied to the point where it's become its own cliche. If it changed, it wouldn't be Buffy anymore. That's without getting into the climate in which it would be reborn into. It could even BE Buffy anymore because people have apoplexies about the smallest things.

Priceless
15-03-18, 10:54 AM
I cannot imagine a Buffy reboot without Spike and Angel. They are a massive part of the show and of Buffy's life and it would be ridiculous not to include them in any reboot.

HardlyThere
15-03-18, 02:52 PM
Angel was on the show 3 out of 7 seasons. Spike was a part of Buffy life for 2.

Hey, maybe we need Riley as well. And Oz. Might as well resurrect Tara and Joyce since we apparently just want the story retold again.

Silver1
15-03-18, 03:05 PM
Hang on, Spike was part of the main cast since season 4. Also appeared in 2. Angel apart from brief appearances didn't carry on after season 3.

HardlyThere
15-03-18, 03:33 PM
He was a villain in S4 to S5.5. You could say he's a part of Buffy's circle from 6-7.

The idea that Buffy, the character or show, couldn't carry on without INSERT VAMP is rather insulting. Imagine if they said the same thing after Angel left.

Priceless
15-03-18, 04:17 PM
But if we are talking about a Re-Boot, we are talking about taking the show as a whole, and that includes Angel and Spike. Without them, it's a different show. If you don't include Angel or Spike, why bother with Faith, who was only in one season, and a few other odd episodes. But of course, like the vampires, Faith showed us who Buffy really was, she is an intrinsic member of the show because of that. It's not about how long a character was in the show, but what they did and what their relationship to Buffy showed us about Buffy.

- - - Updated - - -


He was a villain in S4 to S5.5. You could say he's a part of Buffy's circle from 6-7.

The idea that Buffy, the character or show, couldn't carry on without INSERT VAMP is rather insulting. Imagine if they said the same thing after Angel left.

There are people who believe that the show ended at Season 3, and that the show went downhill from that point, mostly because there was no Angel. There are people who actually don't watch the show post Season 4 :D

betta
15-03-18, 04:40 PM
It could even BE Buffy anymore because people have apoplexies about the smallest things.

That's so true! :boom:


You don't need any of the vampires. At the end of the show, Angel and Spike were not part of the cast. They were on Angel.


I cannot imagine a Buffy reboot without Spike and Angel. They are a massive part of the show and of Buffy's life and it would be ridiculous not to include them in any reboot.

If we're talking about the finished work... and about us, old and faithful fans...

Isn't true that Angel wasn't supposed to be a vampire from the start? And that if DB hadn't got a TV show, Angel would have stayed dead? And that Spike only wasn't killed in the very beginning because of the actor who played him, and his chemistry with JL?

The story was greatly influenced by external factors, but if they wanted to go for the initial premise - just Buffy and her friends fighting evil in the Hellmouth - it could be done. I wouldn't be interested, but new viewers, who knows?.

HardlyThere
15-03-18, 04:52 PM
But if we are talking about a Re-Boot, we are talking about taking the show as a whole, and that includes Angel and Spike. Without them, it's a different show. If you don't include Angel or Spike, why bother with Faith, who was only in one season, and a few other odd episodes. But of course, like the vampires, Faith showed us who Buffy really was, she is an intrinsic member of the show because of that. It's not about how long a character was in the show, but what they did and what their relationship to Buffy showed us about Buffy.

If you're going to reboot, why tell the same story? You could use any old character to do the same as a rebooted Buffy would not be Buffy from 97-03. That's not a reboot you are describing, that's a remake. Who wants that? If you're going to do a revival, again, why tell the same story? You introduce other, new characters to show how those characters interact.

You don't need Faith, either, btw. Buffy (or Willow or Xander or any character) shows us who she is. Not the others.

This is not about Buffy at all. Can we just admit that? It's about fans of INSERT CHARACTER thinking their fav is the main character. The reason you don't omg need Riley is he's not a fan favorite, thus his impact on Buffy, just as big as Spike or Angel, is dismissed. It doesn't have a thing to do with her; it's about who gets her. They want her stuck in that box Spike spoke of.


- - - Updated - - -



There are people who believe that the show ended at Season 3, and that the show went downhill from that point, mostly because there was no Angel. There are people who actually don't watch the show post Season 4 :D

And we hold them in the highest regard, right? No, they're pretty much mocked outside of their own little circle.

- - - Updated - - -


That's so true! :boom:





If we're talking about the finished work... and about us, old and faithful fans...

Isn't true that Angel wasn't supposed to be a vampire from the start? And that if DB hadn't got a TV show, Angel would have stayed dead? And that Spike only wasn't killed in the very beginning because of the actor who played him, and his chemistry with JL?

The story was greatly influenced by external factors, but if they wanted to go for the initial premise - just Buffy and her friends fighting evil in the Hellmouth - it could be done. I wouldn't be interested, but new viewers, who knows?.

Thank you. Fandom and its factions get caught in feedback loops. The general population is what makes up the vast, vast majority of the audience, not the 3 or 4 percent that post on boards and have blogs.

Turn out a decent product and people will come, just like they did when Buffy was rebooted the first time and when Angel left and Angel the show in general.

The problem is, on that level, I don't think Joss has any more stories to tell for these characters. And there is nothing wrong with that. That's when you know to stop.

Priceless
15-03-18, 04:58 PM
So if the only character to be rebooted is Buffy . . . well that's fine, I have no problem with that. But I will put money on the fact that a Slayer will end up with a Vampire boyfriend. Not because of history, but because if you want to tell the most compelling story, that's the only way it can really go. The writers don't have to call him Angel of course.

If Buffy is to be single for the rest of her tv existence, that's great too. But relationships tell us who people really are, or who they could be, and to not give Buffy a romantic relationship just seems to be missing out on showing us a whole different side of Buffy.


And we hold them in the highest regard, right? No, they're pretty much mocked outside of their own little circle.


I so wish this were true :D

How would you reboot the show HardlyThere or would you just not?

HardlyThere
15-03-18, 06:05 PM
So if the only character to be rebooted is Buffy . . . well that's fine, I have no problem with that. But I will put money on the fact that a Slayer will end up with a Vampire boyfriend. Not because of history, but because if you want to tell the most compelling story, that's the only way it can really go. The writers don't have to call him Angel of course.

If Buffy is to be single for the rest of her tv existence, that's great too. But relationships tell us who people really are, or who they could be, and to not give Buffy a romantic relationship just seems to be missing out on showing us a whole different side of Buffy.

There are other creatures around than vampires. There are humanoid demons. There are humans. There are werewolves. Characters like Drogyn, the Immortal, or whatever an imagination can think up. Vampire/Slayer ships can be boring as well. It all depends how you tell it.


I so wish this were true :D

Are you suggesting it isn't? I know who you might be thinking of, there are certainly people that disavow post-S3 and AtS as a whole, and I could not call that viewpoint respected.


How would you reboot the show HardlyThere or would you just not?

I wouldn't at all. It's still talked about, meaning it's still relevant so there is no need to reboot.

If you mean a revival... Again, nah. I think someone not Joss might have more stories to tell but while I think he's overrated in many areas, his 90's era self is undoubtedly part of what made the show the show along with everyone else.

If you're asking how I'd like to see the verse expanded? I'd like an animated or comic series set during the shows years. Buffy, Dawn and Xander stories between 6 and 7, maybe Giles and Willow had an adventure. Stuff like that. There is plenty of story space left in the show and quite a few unanswered questions to be played on with the right talent.

Priceless
15-03-18, 06:27 PM
There are other creatures around than vampires. There are humanoid demons. There are humans. There are werewolves. Characters like Drogyn, the Immortal, or whatever an imagination can think up. Vampire/Slayer ships can be boring as well. It all depends how you tell it.


You are right, and they could certainly examine that. I just think that The Vampire Slayer has to end up with A Vampire, if they were to end up with anyone. Or a Slayer. I'm not a Faith fan, but I could definitely see Buffy and Satsu together . . . although there is a problem with rank and the fact that Buffy could perhaps be seen as her boss.


Are you suggesting it isn't? I know who you might be thinking of, there are certainly people that disavow post-S3 and AtS as a whole, and I could not call that viewpoint respected.


I have my own hang-ups and head canon about the show, so I'm not putting anyone down by saying that there are definitely very vocal fans who believe anything past Season 4 is simply not canon. They believe Buffy, from S5 is not the original Buffy, and the Buffyverse has ended and the Dawnverse is a totally different verse. There are even some people who prefer AtS to BtVS ;)


If you mean a revival... Again, nah. I think someone not Joss might have more stories to tell but while I think he's overrated in many areas, his 90's era self is undoubtedly part of what made the show the show along with everyone else.

If you're asking how I'd like to see the verse expanded? I'd like an animated or comic series set during the shows years. Buffy, Dawn and Xander stories between 6 and 7, maybe Giles and Willow had an adventure. Stuff like that. There is plenty of story space left in the show and quite a few unanswered questions to be played on with the right talent.

I think BtVS is the best thing Whedon ever did and nothing compares this this level of intelligence or creativity. I think the team of writers he gathered around him have a lot to do with that.

I would also like the comics to continue and agree that there are so many stories still to tell. I'm hopeful that will happen

betta
15-03-18, 06:49 PM
Hang on, Spike was part of the main cast since season 4. Also appeared in 2. Angel apart from brief appearances didn't carry on after season 3.

Sure, Spike (IMO) is much more essential to the (BtVS) story than Angel, whose role ended long time ago; and what keeps him "active" is the fandom.


And we hold them in the highest regard, right? No, they're pretty much mocked outside of their own little circle.

Glad to know, because I, for one, think they are really a joke, people who seem not to understand how a work of fiction... works.


There are other creatures around than vampires. There are humanoid demons. There are humans. There are werewolves. Characters like Drogyn, the Immortal, or whatever an imagination can think up. Vampire/Slayer ships can be boring as well. It all depends how you tell it.


They could combine Angel and Spike and make a very politically correct vampire fit for these days... I think it would depend on which network would pick it up, and Disney and all...

Silver1
15-03-18, 08:26 PM
If you're going to reboot, why tell the same story

Not same story but same premise. If It's meant to be Buffy then many associate that kind of set up with the series. And any remake will have those elements of quite frankly or I think It will die on It's arse.

Angel and Spike were big parts of the show by the end of the show wether some like it or not.

bespangled
15-03-18, 11:47 PM
f you're going to reboot, why tell the same story? You could use any old character to do the same as a rebooted Buffy would not be Buffy from 97-03. That's not a reboot you are describing, that's a remake. Who wants that? If you're going to do a revival, again, why tell the same story? You introduce other, new characters to show how those characters interact.

You don't need Faith, either, btw. Buffy (or Willow or Xander or any character) shows us who she is. Not the others.

Why have Buffy at all? Cleveland has a hellmouth, and more urban environment. I would happily watch a TNG show where there's another slayer - possibly two, with an older slayer as mentor. Honestly, if Dushku is available I wouldn't mind her as a watcher. Create a team that works for a different place and a different time. Keep the philosophy but bring it to a new time and place because much as I love the characters, the show is about more than them. I don't want to see Buffy as a rehashing of the original.


This is not about Buffy at all. Can we just admit that? It's about fans of INSERT CHARACTER thinking their fav is the main character. The reason you don't omg need Riley is he's not a fan favorite, thus his impact on Buffy, just as big as Spike or Angel, is dismissed. It doesn't have a thing to do with her; it's about who gets her. They want her stuck in that box Spike spoke of.

And we hold them in the highest regard, right? No, they're pretty much mocked outside of their own little circle.

Wow - what a despicable attitude toward other fans. The irony is that people who think this way tend to have their own dog in the race. I remember when this was the attitude toward Spock in ST, which was why TNG avoided vulcans at first.

Vampires are a well developed force in the B-verse. I'd like to see more of them. I'd also like to explore the demonic force which powers the slayer line, and what has been learned about since the First was defeated. Buffy fandom exists and goes on because of the philosophical underpinnings as much as anything else.



Thank you. Fandom and its factions get caught in feedback loops. The general population is what makes up the vast, vast majority of the audience, not the 3 or 4 percent that post on boards and have blogs.

Turn out a decent product and people will come, just like they did when Buffy was rebooted the first time and when Angel left and Angel the show in general.

The problem is, on that level, I don't think Joss has any more stories to tell for these characters. And there is nothing wrong with that. That's when you know to stop.

It was a reboot when Angel left? I thought that was just graduation and growing up. I can't imagine Buffy, Willow and Xander as high school students forever. Yes, some fans see breaks where the show enters a new universe, usually after seasons 3 & 5, and that 's really about personal preferences. But the show was never actually rebooted unless you define a reboot as occurring every time any show loses a character.

HardlyThere
16-03-18, 03:12 AM
Why have Buffy at all? Cleveland has a hellmouth, and more urban environment. I would happily watch a TNG show where there's another slayer - possibly two, with an older slayer as mentor. Honestly, if Dushku is available I wouldn't mind her as a watcher. Create a team that works for a different place and a different time. Keep the philosophy but bring it to a new time and place because much as I love the characters, the show is about more than them. I don't want to see Buffy as a rehashing of the original.

But that's what people claim to want. New Buffy that's the same as Old Buffy.


Wow - what a despicable attitude toward other fans. The irony is that people who think this way tend to have their own dog in the race. I remember when this was the attitude toward Spock in ST, which was why TNG avoided vulcans at first.

Vampires are a well developed force in the B-verse. I'd like to see more of them. I'd also like to explore the demonic force which powers the slayer line, and what has been learned about since the First was defeated. Buffy fandom exists and goes on because of the philosophical underpinnings as much as anything else.

Vampires, yes. Friendly vampires? No, you don't need them; they were never intended. It's not a disgusting attitude, it's the simple truth. If there was a Buffy revival/reboot without Spike, y'all wouldn't watch. If it went on with Spike and not Angel, certain others would not watch. It has nothing to do with Buffy, the character or show.


It was a reboot when Angel left? I thought that was just graduation and growing up. I can't imagine Buffy, Willow and Xander as high school students forever. Yes, some fans see breaks where the show enters a new universe, usually after seasons 3 & 5, and that 's really about personal preferences. But the show was never actually rebooted unless you define a reboot as occurring every time any show loses a character.

Yes, it was about growing up. That was the point. Buffy's life continued post-Angel and without Angel. Buffy's life could and would continue without Sunnydale or Spike. Going back to the original statement, you don't need either to continue to tell her story any more than you need her to continue theirs. If you're referring to me saying Buffy was rebooted, I was referring to the movie->TV show.



I have my own hang-ups and head canon about the show, so I'm not putting anyone down by saying that there are definitely very vocal fans who believe anything past Season 4 is simply not canon. They believe Buffy, from S5 is not the original Buffy, and the Buffyverse has ended and the Dawnverse is a totally different verse. There are even some people who prefer AtS to BtVS

Of course they do. There are people that think the Earth is flat. A respected opinion, this does not make.

vampmogs
16-03-18, 08:59 AM
I agree with HardlyThere that Angel and Spike aren't essential to a revival. The show continued fine without Angel and the show had it's most successfully rated season (S3) when Spike appeared in just 1 episode. One of the most beloved episodes of the show (The Body) didn't feature either one of them and neither appeared in significant roles for other major episodes such as Restless. I'd also point out, for what it's worth, that S8 didn't feature either of them for the vast majority of it's run (as far as we knew, anyway) and it was the highest selling season of the comics by a wide margin. I really enjoy both characters and I won't downplay the wonderful contributions both brought to the show but the fact of the matter is that the show can and has been successful without either of them. It wouldn't automatically fail if they didn't appear.

Personally, I would like for them both to appear because I'd love to see all the characters again. I'd be willing to suspend my belief at their very obvious ageing, even if it'd be kind of depressing, because at the end of the day I'd still love to see them. But you could still tell a very good story without either character. To be honest, whenever I think of a revival, I think that the most worthwhile story to tell would be what Buffy's life is is like as a 40 year old woman and the new 'demons' she'd face well into adulthood as opposed to what she went through as a teenager. It's a very obvious storyline and I think it'd be really interesting and worth telling. When I think of Angel and Spike I don't think there's such an obvious storyline. The only real interest, I guess, is what kind of role they play in middle aged Buffy's life but as their own characters I don't see such an obvious story as I do with Buffy or the Scoobies.

If they weren't to appear there'd be a lot of upset and bitter hardcore fans but there'd be also be a reemergence of a lot of casual fans/new fans coming out of the woodwork who would be very excited about the revival. At the end of the day people have to remember that what's left of the hardcore fanbase probably have very different viewpoints of the show than general fans.

Priceless
16-03-18, 09:25 AM
Vampires, yes. Friendly vampires? No, you don't need them; they were never intended. It's not a disgusting attitude, it's the simple truth. If there was a Buffy revival/reboot without Spike, y'all wouldn't watch. If it went on with Spike and not Angel, certain others would not watch. It has nothing to do with Buffy, the character or show.


I don't think this is true at all. Philosophically the only way Buffy works is if she can see Vampires and demons that are not all monsters, they they do have a capacity for emotion and feeling. Otherwise the Watchers Council and their dogma win. The whole point of Buffy as feminist show is for the Watchers Council, and their ilk, not to win. Or the show has no meaning and might as well be Charmed or Supernatural, which is what this reboot will become

vampmogs
16-03-18, 09:36 AM
I don't think this is true at all. Philosophically the only way Buffy works is if she can see Vampires and demons that are not all monsters, they they do have a capacity for emotion and feeling. Otherwise the Watchers Council and their dogma win. The whole point of Buffy as feminist show is for the Watchers Council, and their ilk, not to win. Or the show has no meaning and might as well be Charmed or Supernatural, which is what this reboot will become

Since when has the Watcher's Council's views on demons been an integral part of the show? Aside from the brief "it's not Council policy to cure vampires" we've barely even heard their opinion on creatures like Angel and Spike? :confused:

There's a lot of conflict between Buffy and the Council but Buffy's vampire boyfriends have almost never been related to it. Almost all the conflict revolved around how they viewed and treated her, not demons.

flow
16-03-18, 09:36 AM
vampmogs
To be honest, whenever I think of a revival, I think that the most worthwhile story to tell would be what Buffy's life is is like as a 40 year old woman and the new 'demons' she'd face well into adulthood as opposed to what she went through as a teenager. It's a very obvious storyline and I think it'd be really interesting and worth telling.

If we are talking about a reboot and not a remake, that would probably be the only way, to tell the story. Ignore the comics and drop Angel and Spike as characters, because the actors have simply aged. You could of course have one of them or even both as humans, but I can`t imagine, that would make an interesting story. At least not for a whole season.

I don`t know, if they would want to have NB on the set, because of his personal issues. AH has just started a new show, but if that does not work, she might join. Faith and Dawn might be an interesting addition too.

As Sunnydale is gone, we need a different Setting. We all know, Cleveland has a hellmouth. But to be quiet honest - a 40 year old Buffy, living on the hellmouth in Cleveland with her little (now in her late thirties) sister and Faith, both having slayed demons and vampires for decades now and Giles occassionaly calling from Bath, where he lives since he retired - that sounds really really depressing to me. It would be, as if Buffy has never grown, never developed as a Person. She would be stuck in an endless circle, like she was in Life Serial.

I`d rather have a spin off,like bespangled suggested, with Faith as a watcher, Buffy making a couple of cameo appearances and just a whole new crew of slayers, demons, humans and vampires.

Or do a reboot, likeHardly There said, as an animated series with the old characters still in High School in Sunnydale.

But that is not, what they have in mind, if the talk about a reboot, is it ?

I just hope, that Joss doesn`t want to or can`t come up with stories for a forty year old Buffy.........Or that SMG will never come back as Buffy.

flow

Silver1
16-03-18, 09:40 AM
I think some are underestimating how popular the vamp characters were and still are, and I think anyone who attempts a remake will realise that.

Also as much as I adore the original cast I can't see them using the original actors as age has taken It's toll with most of them, and sadly today It's all about 'youth'....that is unless they manage to write a convincing reason why for example, the vamp characters have aged so much.

Oh god, and It goes without saying ignore the damn comics. That would just confuse the general audience imo as well as show how damn bad the writing can be.

bespangled
16-03-18, 09:48 AM
But that's what people claim to want. New Buffy that's the same as Old Buffy.

I think there are a lot of different things in this thread that people claim to want.


Vampires, yes. Friendly vampires? No, you don't need them; they were never intended. It's not a disgusting attitude, it's the simple truth. If there was a Buffy revival/reboot without Spike, y'all wouldn't watch. If it went on with Spike and not Angel, certain others would not watch. It has nothing to do with Buffy, the character or show.


It may be what was intended before the series, but it isn't what was shown. The universe has developed far past Whedon's original ideas. Wanting to see specific characters has everything to do with the show - the characters and events are the show. There are fans of both vampires - just as there are fans of Willow, Xander, and Giles who would like to see them again. How Buffy interacted with them is her story - the story of a slayer with family and friends, the story of a woman who created champions. Taking one character and putting them in a new show is called a spinoff - like Angel the Series. It isn't a reboot or a revival. That said, even Angel had several characters from BTVS.

The despicable attitude is how you characterize fans who disagree with you. This is not about Buffy at all. Can we just admit that? It's about fans of INSERT CHARACTER thinking their fav is the main character. It doesn't have a thing to do with her; it's about who gets her. Loving the same show isn't enough? Everyone has to love it just like you do?


Yes, it was about growing up. That was the point. Buffy's life continued post-Angel and without Angel. Buffy's life could and would continue without Sunnydale or Spike. Going back to the original statement, you don't need either to continue to tell her story any more than you need her to continue theirs. If you're referring to me saying Buffy was rebooted, I was referring to the movie->TV show.

I see - so you picture something as similar as the movie was to the show. Basically the reboot would be taking SMG and giving her back the name of Buffy - then giving her a completely different life. I don't see that attracting a lot of new fans. SMG is over 40 so the younger crowd won't have an automatic draw. The story, as we both said, is about growing up. Buffy is an adult now, and I can't see an iteration of the B-verse that examines growing old. I'd still prefer an updated show - different characters somewhere in the B-verse.

Priceless
16-03-18, 10:46 AM
Since when has the Watcher's Council's views on demons been an integral part of the show? Aside from the brief "it's not Council party to cure vampires" we've barely even heard their opinion on creatures like Angel and Spike? :confused:

There's a lot of conflict between Buffy and the Council but Buffy's vampire boyfriends have almost never been related to it. Almost all the conflict revolved around how they viewed and treated her, not demons.

All I can say is that we are watching from a different place and seeing different things, and that's fine. For me, The Watchers Council are the ones who tell Buffy she is chosen, they are the ones who mould her and inform her of her duties, they are an integral part of who Buffy is and how she views demons. She would have no clue at all that she was The Chosen One, without the Watchers Council and their manipulations.

The WC are insidious, they inform every part of Buffy's personality and 'calling' and therefore they inform every part of relations with others, including her vamp boyfriends. It's the WC that tell her to lie to her mother and not to tell her who she really is, it's the WC who tell her all demons are evil, it's the WC who tell her she's the chosen one, who tell her she has to fight. Buffy internalises their teachings and takes them as her own.

Later, in the comics, when every slayer has been called, we see that some slayers don't follow their calling and choose not to join the fight. Buffy never has that choice because she's owned by the Watcher Council from the age of 15. I feel that the WC are essential in making Buffy who she is, and that's partly what makes it a feminist show because she slowly has to disentangle them and their teachings from her life.

vampmogs
16-03-18, 01:50 PM
All I can say is that we are watching from a different place and seeing different things, and that's fine. For me, The Watchers Council are the ones who tell Buffy she is chosen, they are the ones who mould her and inform her of her duties, they are an integral part of who Buffy is and how she views demons. She would have no clue at all that she was The Chosen One, without the Watchers Council and their manipulations.

The WC are insidious, they inform every part of Buffy's personality and 'calling' and therefore they inform every part of relations with others, including her vamp boyfriends. It's the WC that tell her to lie to her mother and not to tell her who she really is, it's the WC who tell her all demons are evil, it's the WC who tell her she's the chosen one, who tell her she has to fight. Buffy internalises their teachings and takes them as her own.

Later, in the comics, when every slayer has been called, we see that some slayers don't follow their calling and choose not to join the fight. Buffy never has that choice because she's owned by the Watcher Council from the age of 15. I feel that the WC are essential in making Buffy who she is, and that's partly what makes it a feminist show because she slowly has to disentangle them and their teachings from her life.

I mean, I don't disagree that a large part of the feminist message of the show is Buffy breaking free from the constraints of the Council and forging her own path. However, where I do disagree is your insistence that the inclusion of Buffy's vamp boyfriends make or break the philosophy of the show. Not only is it IMO wrong to give them so much credit but I think it's also a stretch because whenever I think of the Council and their mistreatment of Buffy, their viewpoints on demons would probably be the last thing I think about. As I said, we haven't seen nearly enough to suggest one way or another their feelings about Angel and Spike because the writers never explored it. Apart from their rigid stance on helping vampires in Graduation Day I we have absolutely nothing in canon to suggest they even have much an opinion on ensouled vampires or that that they share, say, the Initiative's black & white and ignorant view of the demon world. Not to mention that besides some very specific circumstances like with Angel or Spike Buffy very much shares the Council's belief that she should be slaying vampires and demons and that this is the right thing to do. The fact that she can distinguish between good and bad demons is great but there's really nothing to suggest that the Council would disapprove of this. Giles and Wesley were both Watchers and seemed more than willing to work with good demons (Giles even set the demon Shaman up with his wife as stated in Enemies).

It just strikes me as a reach, that's all. There's really little textual support one way or another to determine what exactly the Council's views on demons are other than the fact that the bad ones should be killed -- which is the whole premise of the show. There's actually far more text to support The Initiative's black & white views on the world (and they represent the hyper masculine as stated in the commentary for Restless) than there is the Council. And whilst I certainly think that the Council did represent the patriarchy and it was an empowering moment when Buffy stood up to them, I just don't credit it as being important to the show as you do when I consider that the 'Council' wasn't even referred to or created until BtVS S3 and then only ever appeared again in 3 episodes after that. Buffy quit the Council in S3 and then defied them for one last time in S5 and then... kinda moved on. It was a personal victory for her but I don't get the strong link between the Council and her vamp boyfriends or certainly that the show loses it's meaning without Angel and Spike around. Buffy can and has carried the show fine without them and I certainly don't think the feminist philosophy of the show is dependant on two male characters.

I mean, it's also worth pointing out that whilst Buffy's nurturing and belief in Angel and Spike and have certainly been positives messages and themes in the show, it's also true that the writers have at times used both Angel and Spike as obstacles Buffy must overcome to empower herself. Whether that be kicking Angel in the balls in Innocence or dumping Spike in As You Were and both literally and symbolically stepping back into the light.

TimeTravellingBunny
17-03-18, 12:23 AM
I don't understand one thing: why should it be called Buffy at all?

Buffy as a character was shaped by everything that happened to her and all the people in her life. If you want to reboot the show and not continue or remake it, so you're changing the story and other characters - you're also changing the main character's arc.

If it's just about an empowered young woman/Slayer, it could be another Slayer, not Buffy. If you really want a Slayer with basic traits like Buffy speak, humor and wit, sassy attitude, unabashed 'girlishness' combined with the physical fighting, courage and responsibility as well as a desire for normal life, friends and family and relationships - again, it can be another female character. There are in fact, plenty of fictional female characters nowadays who share some of this character traits, or were inspired by Buffy (and there are also characters that inspired Buffy, like Kitty Pryde). Why not make it about "_____ (insert name) Vampire Slayer"?

You would then also have the freedom to change the characters' ethnicity, nationality and other traits You don't have to have a white blonde Californian/American girl Buffy.

But as to the idea of a 40 year old Slayer - err, why not? That, would, in fact, be really interesting. And why exactly would a Slayer doing her calling at 40 be "depressing"? Do people stop doing their job when they reach 40?

Actually, I'd love to see a 60 year old Slayer even more, that would be even more interesting.

Silver1
17-03-18, 12:25 PM
I thought 'Passion of the Nerd's' brief take on his youtube channel yesterday rings home for me re- any kind of remake/re-boot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HXv9PoKnJk

Skip to the 23.14 min mark on the video.

Just as an aside I found this (then) live feed really interesting. Lots of nice observations on the show as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and @sosa lola there's a bit about the whole Xander hate bit at the 1.53 min mark. :)