PDA

View Full Version : OFFICIAL:Buffy Reboot - Monica Owusu-Breen: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know



bespangled
21-07-18, 03:24 AM
Monica Owusu-Breen: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
(https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/monica-owusu-breen/)

Monica Owusu-Breen has been tapped as the writer, executive producer and showrunner for the reboot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Owusu-Breen will work alongside the original series producer, Joss Whedon, who will act as executive producer.

The original ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series was based on the 1992 film which starred Kristy Swanson as Buffy. The television show ran from 1996-2003 and featured Michelle Gellar, though the reboot of the hit show is set to feature a black actress as the lead.

Owusu-Breen has worked on several hit shows, and used to keep ‘Owusu’ out of her name when applying for writing positions. Here’s what you need to know.


1. Her Name Is Tied to Dozens of Famous Television Shows, From ‘Alias’ to ‘Lost’

Owusu-Breen’s Hollywood resume is impeccable, having served as a producer on shows like ‘Lost’, ‘Alias’, ‘Charmed’, ‘Brothers and Sisters’, and most recently ‘Midnight, Texas’.

In an interview while working as a producer for ‘Brothers and Sisters’, Owusu-Breen said of the staying power of family dramas on television, “I think everyone spends a lifetime negotiating those relationships with your siblings and your parents and your children.”

Of her experience creating ‘Midnight, Texas’, she said, “I had a strangely personal connection to them because part of the reason I was itching to develop something was I had had two deaths in my family – my mother and my mother in law – within a month of each other, and I was trying to get my mind off of that. My mother in law was a small town psychic, and my mother had moved to this tiny little town in the middle of nowhere. When I read the first couple of chapters, I was like, “this is good a sign as any” and embarked on this crazy adventure.”

Owusu-Breen has yet to comment on her endeavor in recreating what has been widely accepted to be one of the best television shows of all time.

2. She’s Half Spanish, Half Ghanaian

In a conversation with NBC News about her show, ‘Midnight, Texas’, Owusu-Breen spoke about how the show’s theme of outsiders coming together struck a chord for her, personally.

“I’ve never walked into a room and felt completely like I fit in,” she said to NBC News. “There’s not very many half-Spanish, half Ghanaian women in the world, so I get this idea of feeling different and finding your tribe, finding the people who, whether or not you’re exactly the same, you get one another.”

She continued of her relationship with the rest of the set, “We all got that – feeling that you don’t fit in the regular world. We’re sitting there in Albuquerque [where the show was filmed] all of us, and we all felt that we’re the ‘midnighters’ in the middle of a world that feels different.”

3. She Was Born in Spain But Moved to Brooklyn When She Was Eight

According to NBC, Owusu-Breen was born in England, lived in Spain for the beginning of her childhood, then moved to Brooklyn when she was eight years old.

Of learning to speak English as her second language, “I was a kid who would watch television constantly — in fact, I learned how to speak English watching television, whether it was Fred Flintstone or Lucy or the Brady Bunch.”

Of the lack of diversity in television growing up, Owusu-Breen said, “Yes, I wanted to see myself reflected, but if I didn’t it wasn’t as if I didn’t understand the characters. [Things have changed in] how I’ve felt as an African-American woman in this industry from when I started until now…partially it’s because of politics and partially because there is so much media out there.”

4. She Fell Into Screenwriting Accidentally While Working Towards a Doctorate in Television & Media Studies

After graduating from Brown University, Owusu-Breen went on to a PhD program at the University of California San Diego, for a degree in television and media studies. When a friend asked her to write some scripts, they eventually became partners (they no longer are) and got their first staff job soon after, on the television show ‘Charmed’.

“When we first started, I chose to take out Owusu from my middle name, just so no one made assumptions about anything,” she said. “Now you know my writing, and you’re not going to not give me a job if I use Owusu.”

5. Owusu-Breen Is Currently Working on Another Television Show, the NBC Supernatural Drama ‘Midnight, Texas’

Owusu-Breen is currently the showrunner for ‘Midnight, Texas’ a book-to-TV adaption about a young psychic who seeks refuge in the town of Midnight and finds a community that includes a witch, a fallen angel, a demon, a vampire and a shapeshifter.

NBC notably used colorblind casting to fill the roles for the show, excluding one character who had to be white to fit his family background of white supremacy. Owusu-Breen live tweets during each show, along with anyone from the show who’s currently in Los Angeles.

Of the love she’s experienced via Twitter (there’s even been a hashtag created, #TexasTea), Owusu-Breen said, “The show itself kind of became the truth of the whole production. There was a kindness at the center of it. We watch the show and we talk to fans. Then they found each other. It feels like this spirit is kind of contagious.”

**********

We knew it was gonna happen eventually - though like everyone else I would prefer something in the same universe rather than an actual reboot. Since the other thread is focusing on what this means for the comics, I wanted a more general thread about the new series.

I've just put Midnight Texas on my watch list on Hulu. That will give me a whole lot more to go on.

So does anyone know anything about these people - other than Joss? Any predictions? Good gossip?

I have to say that MB seems to bring a lot of interesting life experience to the table. That's something I like in a producer/writer. Found family and being an outsider are real themes in her life apparently.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like this is for cable networks or streaming services - HBO, Hulu. That's gonna mean a lot fewer restrictions

TimeTravellingBunny
21-07-18, 05:42 AM
This, so far, sounds great - as good as possible when it comes to Buffy being rebooted at all. Because, for starters, as I've said before - if they are going to reboot Buffy at all, more diversity and Buffy being non-white is absolutely the way to go. It's the way to actually make it different and interesting and add something new that the original BtVS lacked (as great as it was, it was definitely very white - probably unrealistically so, going by what I know of the demographics of Southern California, which is not an awful lot, but still... Yeah, I know it's not that white by any means.) And Buffy being black is especially a great choice. I can't wait to see how they mix the casting of the other characters, and how similar or different they are going to be to the original.

Secondly, I'm relieved that Joss is not going to be too involved, because, let's face it - he's regressed as a writer and run out of ideas, especially when it comes to Buffy. His latest comics have been atrocious, as more most of his previous ideas for the comics plotlines.

Finally, while I haven't seen Midnight, Texas, I really loved most of Monica Owusu-Breen's writing on Agents of SHIELD. Especially The Only Light in the Darkness, which is still one of my favorite AoS episodes, and always struck me as very Buffyesque, in the sense that there were some interesting parallels and contrasts to some of the BtVS storylines and characters (not a rehash, but a different take on some of the similar themes), so much that I'd be very surprised if the author had not seen BtVS. I also liked most of her other episodes, which shared some of the same story/character threads - The Well, Seeds, Making Friends and Influencing People - as well as Bouncing Back, with a great character introduction, which showed her doing a good job with storyline introducing a character from a non-US, non-white culture. On the other hand, she did write A Wanted (In)human, which sucked, because it had on really bad storyline and another that rehashed her own writing from TOLITD, but overall, looking at her work on AoS, she's one of my favorite writers on the show, and I thought it was a real pity she left after season 3 to do another show. Because, while season 4 was amazing, season 5 had so many new writers which really sucked and made the last third of season 5 such a mess. It would have benefited from a writer who knew the characters and had proven able to write sensitive and emotionally complex storylines.
Plus, on Lost she got to write a quite strong episode for one of my favorite characters - who was also one of the few African characters on US TV.

More writers bringing non-US perspectives on US shows is always welcome.

The blonde valley girl cheerleader thing has been done already, perfectly well. Now it's time for something new.

A part of me thinks they should change the name and just call it _________ the Vampire Slayer". Then again, it doesn't matter - the difference will be obvious. All that matters is that the new BtVS is groundbreaking and subverts the stereotypes as much as the original one - and is as brave, risky and complex.

Stoney
21-07-18, 05:56 AM
I find it hard to summon any enthusiasm for a full reboot to be honest. :noidea:

bespangled
21-07-18, 06:16 AM
I gotta say I am finding Midnight Texas hella impressive. If I wanted to recreate a lot of the Buffy essence, this is how I would do it. There are no exact character comparisons but the characters are well drawn with some depth. Thre's a well considered universe and backstory for the overall threat - and a group of characters who confront what arises.

IMO, this is better than most supernatural shows I've watched - and damn near up there with Buffy. To early to tell about all the arcs for characters, and other BTVS gems. If anyone can manage a reboot, I think she might be the one to do it.

I gotta say I do feel better having seen some of MB's work.

ghoststar
21-07-18, 06:26 AM
It sounds like they’re assembling a good team, and I hope they live up to their potential. Unfortunately, I have my doubts about rebooting any show in the current fandom environment, let alone one of the most topical youth-oriented shows in television history. As much as I love the ships and the quips, the social messages walked a fine line between daring and bludgeon-like, made worse by the fact that the writers frequently ignored their own messages when they didn’t come in the form of speeches. (If you’re going to drop an anvil about how terrible it is that adults can wield handguns against bank robbers, maybe don’t make one of your 17-year-old hero’s awesomest moments be where she blows up the villain with a stolen rocket launcher? Likewise, if you’re going to write a tearjerking arc about the struggle to survive on minimum wage, SEND A NOTE TO COSTUMING so that your broke hero isn’t always on the cutting edge of fashion. I know she’ll look less cool if she shops off the clearance rack, but that’s an unfortunate side effect of writing a story about how poverty isn’t cool.)

If the unsuccessful attempts to meld sociopolitical commentary with everything looking awesome were an annoyance on the original, it’s likely to be ten times worse on a version produced today, because Whedon & Co. aren’t transgressive visionaries now; instead, fandom, and to some extent creation, have devolved into a rapid-fire contest to see who can be the most “woke.” People are as likely to promote a show for its representation checklist as they are for the quality of its dialogue. Giving someone a love interest after a few episodes where they don’t date is “asexual erasure.” Homoerotic subtext that doesn’t become text is “queerbaiting.” A cast full of healthy characters is “ableist.” And how on Earth can the writers addess core BtVS themes like the double standard, sexual assault, and the gendered division of labor when a sizable chunk of viewers would consider this very sentence “triggering”?

You might say that I’m just talking about a subgroup of viewers, and that the writers have greater vision. I hope they do. But I’m not holding my breath, because I’ve seen plenty of evidence that Hollywood writers have been drinking the Kool-Aid these last five years or so. Brooklyn Nine-Nine went from being hilarious to having all the humor of senior citizens’ Sunday school. (Never mind that any cop who participates in the war on drugs, regardless of how blue their state is, and regardless of how much they jabber about race and orientation, is causing a hundred times more real community destruction than even the most over-the-top, stereotypical, provincial-minded, red-state civilian with a “DON’T TREAD ON ME” tattoo and a Confederate flag shirt.) That it’s worth sitting through Sense8’s interminable sermons testifies to the exquisite development of the good[I] storylines, not to the writers’ taste in avoiding bad ones. [I]Penny Dreadful, a show where all the other storylines were straight-up Gothic horror, had a seven-episode subplot about a trans character who did nothing [I]except[I] be trans.

The airwaves are now full of creators trying to make statements, be edgy, share their message, prove their progressive bona fides. It’s hard to weave a tapestry of metaphors when anyone with a viewpoint is expected to have their actors scream it every ten minutes. And it was in those metaphors that the show’s themes usually thrived: The vampire ex-lover forcing Buffy to fight him for the world’s sake was more compelling than the human misogynist who slipped his ex a roofie, and Willow’s deals with the devil(s) were better than her shivering from magic withdrawal. There’s meaningful art, and then there are callout posts. I fear that any BtVS reboot produced before the current discontent subsides will be little more than a callout post in script format.

bespangled
21-07-18, 06:30 AM
Finally, while I haven't seen Midnight, Texas, I really loved most of Monica Owusu-Breen's writing on Agents of SHIELD. Especially The Only Light in the Darkness, which is still one of my favorite AoS episodes, and always struck me as very Buffyesque, in the sense that there were some interesting parallels and contrasts to some of the BtVS storylines and characters (not a rehash, but a different take on some of the similar themes), so much that I'd be very surprised if the author had not seen BtVS. I also liked most of her other episodes, which shared some of the same story/character threads - The Well, Seeds, Making Friends and Influencing People - as well as Bouncing Back, with a great character introduction, which showed her doing a good job with storyline introducing a character from a non-US, non-white culture.

The vampires dust when they are staked. Lots of subtle homage. .;)



The blonde valley girl cheerleader thing has been done already, perfectly well. Now it's time for something new.

A part of me thinks they should change the name and just call it _________ the Vampire Slayer". Then again, it doesn't matter - the difference will be obvious. All that matters is that the new BtVS is groundbreaking and subverts the stereotypes as much as the original one - and is as brave, risky and complex.

Well, the name does matter - but only because it's like insisting on telling the story of the blonde cheerleader with different people who aren't her and her friends.

I want a multi ethnic, multi racial and multi religious cast of varying sexuality because those are all things that make characters interesting. I would love it if this slayer was named for blonde cheerleader, and had her own story because i have already seen the original Buffy's story.

Still, give what I see in Midnight she might be able to pull it off. I will keep an open mind

Priceless
21-07-18, 07:37 AM
But is she funny? Can she bring the wit and humour that was so wonderful in the original. None of the other shows she's worked on have been particularly funny. The humour is so singular and essential for a real Buffy reboot and I worry that will be missing. The original show had a unique take on the language of the characters and I worry that the reboot won't put the effort in to make the reboot as unique or singular. But give me some funny lines and a quirky use of language within the first ten minutes of episode one and I'll stick with it.

debbicles
21-07-18, 09:26 AM
I find it hard to summon any enthusiasm for a full reboot to be honest. :noidea:

My heart sank when I saw the title of this thread.
I suspect I'm in a minority but I absolutely loathe the Star Trek reboots. And I otherwise love JJ Abrams' work. So this is the last thing I wanted to see or hear about. Almost!!!

Silver1
21-07-18, 09:39 AM
I'm sorry to sound old fashioned but anyone who was involved in Agents of Shield doesn't get my vote of confidence. I know some on here loved it, but compared to Buffy's writing it stunk.

This will all end very badly imo.

- - - Updated - - -


My heart sank when I saw the title of this thread.
I suspect I'm in a minority but I absolutely loathe the Star Trek reboots. And I otherwise love JJ Abrams' work. So this is the last thing I wanted to see or hear about. Almost!!!

Yeah 'STD' is a prime example of how not to do something. It was bloody awful and completely f*cked with the shows canon.


I want a multi ethnic, multi racial and multi religious cast of varying sexuality because those are all things that make characters interesting. I would love it if this slayer was named for blonde cheerleader, and had her own story because i have already seen the original Buffy's story.

And I just want good writing. As unpopular as this may be, I think If you start box ticking this early on you may have problems later down the line.

Sosa lola
21-07-18, 09:56 AM
I think it's too early for a reboot because BtVS still has a strong fandom. But the new show sounds too different from the original that it might work, will there be Xander, Willow and Giles or different side characters? I'll be more interested if the other characters got rebooted as well. I don't watch BtVS for just Buffy, I'd be excited to see the new versions of Xander, Willow and Giles as well and also Angel and Spike and Cordelia.... etc. Same characters but a different take with different stories.

TriBel
21-07-18, 11:09 AM
A part of me thinks they should change the name and just call it _________ the Vampire Slayer". Then again, it doesn't matter - the difference will be obvious. All that matters is that the new BtVS is groundbreaking and subverts the stereotypes as much as the original one - and is as brave, risky and complex.

At one time I thought there'd be a re-boot involving Roux or Blue from the Giles mini. My thought was Roux (who refers to herself as a watcher, slayer and a vampire) has a slave name. There's a lot of power in naming yourself. I thought she'd take Buffy's name in homage and to establish a matrilineage that blurred racial boundaries. I've read an objection elsewhere about the fact that a black slayer means they discard the blond bimbo trope central to Buffy. My argument is they replace it with this one.

SPIKE OK, these two are dead. Why? RONA (stands, dusts herself off, to Spike) 'Cause the black chick always gets it first?

I'm really excited by this. It has radical potential and - done well - can address the issues BtVS couldn't (or didn't).

HardlyThere
21-07-18, 11:26 AM
I'm sorry to sound old fashioned but anyone who was involved in Agents of Shield doesn't get my vote of confidence. I know some on here loved it, but compared to Buffy's writing it stunk.

This will all end very badly imo.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah 'STD' is a prime example of how not to do something. It was bloody awful and completely f*cked with the shows canon.



And I just want good writing. As unpopular as this may be, I think If you start box ticking this early on you may have problems later down the line.

Reasons to reboot: 0

Set the thing post-show and use it to go to Fray. Hell, use it an adaption of that. I view it with the same skepticism as the last reboot.

TimeTravellingBunny
21-07-18, 11:26 AM
The vampires dust when they are staked. Lots of subtle homage. .;)



Well, the name does matter - but only because it's like insisting on telling the story of the blonde cheerleader with different people who aren't her and her friends.

I want a multi ethnic, multi racial and multi religious cast of varying sexuality because those are all things that make characters interesting. I would love it if this slayer was named for blonde cheerleader, and had her own story because i have already seen the original Buffy's story.

Still, give what I see in Midnight she might be able to pull it off. I will keep an open mind

Now I really need to see Midnight, Texas. I've been planning to check it out since it started, I just never find the time.

vampmogs
21-07-18, 11:27 AM
I'm still hoping that wires have been crossed and that this series will be about a NEW Slayer. It wouldn't be the first time the term "reboot" has been thrown out incorrectly. Some fans pointed out that the original Deadline article does make it sound as if the series would revolve around someone new. Another article then reported it was about "Buffy" and I think it set off a chain reaction from there. I'm probably just in denial, but I'd love it if it were true.

I will say that however great a Slayer Anthology series sounded, where each season and/or episode would be about a different Slayer from the past, I can see why networks wouldn't go for it. It doesn't have the longevity of a series set in the present and it has the Slayer's inevitable death looming over every story. Whilst I completely agree with fans that there's a lot of Buffyverse backstory/slayer mythology to explore, I don't think it was a realistic pitch for any network.

A story set after Chosen with a brand new Slayer sounds a happy compromise. I do wonder if the Season 12 comics may end in a reset of some way, perhaps paving the way for a post-Chosen story full of endless possibilities. Joss did always say he'd throw out comic canon if it meant getting the show back and this may be his way of doing that.

But, meh, it's probably just a reboot *sigh*

If there's one happy thing to take away from all this is that it always amazes me just how beloved this show was/still is. Fandom discussion is so minuscule now but seeing people's dismay across a variety of sites (news sites/gaming sites/fan sites etc) and that the show was No 1 trending on twitter, warms my heart a little. There's such a fondness for this show.

bespangled
21-07-18, 11:41 AM
If someone was gonna do a demo to show me they could reboot Buffy then I would want to see this. I am not a fan of a reboot. But I am a fan of this show now. It's the first thing I have seen that doesn't have too many annoying cliches, or any really annoying characters. IMO, it's better than Lucifer, Supernatural, or Walking Dead and I like all of those. This comes closer to the B-verse mix than any of those shows.

There is a season arc with a season big bad. In Midnight Texas the veil between worlds is thin. For generations the town attracted folks with odd abilities and origins. But now the veil is thinning. That's season one - not sure if it's ongoing but I doubt the veil will go away. The battle between good and evil with characters who know they are making a stand, and choose to take the risks. There's plenty of representation but it's not an issue any more than Willow and Tara were the lesbians. The characters are flawed, they have internal logic, and they are pretty compelling. I don't hate anyone yet, and that is rare.

There's a thread of homage to Buffy that's fun for Buffy fans but explaining it here would be a list of stuff that wouldn't seem like as much fun as it is. Kinda like explaining a good Buffy scene to a complete non fan. That thread is a fun easter egg in a very layered universe which is unfolding well. There is a also a good streak of self referential humor - people know how absurd their lives are. There's good snark, and some excellent use of language. It's not an origin story - it's ensemble. The characters are adults - so no coming of age.

TimeTravellingBunny
21-07-18, 11:55 AM
But is she funny? Can she bring the wit and humour that was so wonderful in the original. None of the other shows she's worked on have been particularly funny. The humour is so singular and essential for a real Buffy reboot and I worry that will be missing. The original show had a unique take on the language of the characters and I worry that the reboot won't put the effort in to make the reboot as unique or singular. But give me some funny lines and a quirky use of language within the first ten minutes of episode one and I'll stick with it.
I haven't seen anything by her that involved much comedy. But they could hire other writers to balance that. In one of my favourite current shows, BoJack Horseman (BTW, you want to see how to address all kinds of social topics and include political and social satire in funny, witty and not at all "sledgehammery" way? Watch BoJack Horseman!), the creator and showrunner, Raphael Bob-Waksberg, seems to be good at humor and satire of Hollywood and celebrity culture, but most of the best episodes have been those more dramatic and dealing with heavy subjects, most of them written by Kate Purdy. BoJack is also a great example of how to blend drama and comedy seemlessly. It's good to have writers who balance each other out. And when you look at the list of BtVS writers who are known for writing humor, especially looking at their other work (mostly post-Buffy), I don't think I would say anyone other tjan Jane Espenson and Joss himself belong to that category (and even a lot of Espenson's post-Buffy work has been in shows that do not have much or any humor, and her scripts were in tune with that and didn't have much humor either).

- - - Updated - - -


If someone was gonna do a demo to show me they could reboot Buffy then I would want to see this. I am not a fan of a reboot. But I am a fan of this show now. It's the first thing I have seen that doesn't have too many annoying cliches, or any really annoying characters. IMO, it's better than Lucifer, Supernatural, or Walking Dead and I like all of those. This comes closer to the B-verse mix than any of those shows.


What you say about the show sounds very interesting, but the above is not a huge recommendation for me since I haven't seen Supernatural or Lucifer, and I think The Walking Dead is terrible. It started off good (though it always had its flaws), but my god, has it deteriorated more and more as seasons went on, and since at least season 7, or the back part of season 6, it's been one of the worst shows around.

Silver1
21-07-18, 12:09 PM
RE: Lucifer, very average show imo, nothing special and I've always hated Supernatural. The writing just sucked hard.

A lot of these type of shows seem to end up turning in generic CW fodder, which for me is a huuuge turn off.

bespangled
21-07-18, 12:22 PM
But is she funny? Can she bring the wit and humour that was so wonderful in the original. None of the other shows she's worked on have been particularly funny. The humour is so singular and essential for a real Buffy reboot and I worry that will be missing. The original show had a unique take on the language of the characters and I worry that the reboot won't put the effort in to make the reboot as unique or singular. But give me some funny lines and a quirky use of language within the first ten minutes of episode one and I'll stick with it.

I just watched 7 episodes in a row - it hooked me. and I am not easy to hook. Yes - the same self aware ironic humor that comes from living this kind of life. No Spike level snark - but then it is season one. I think the writing is one of the best part of the show. No Bad Eggs or Go Fish. It's all damn good. If it runs seven seasons I can see my self getting emotionally invested in this show.


At one time I thought there'd be a re-boot involving Roux or Blue from the Giles mini. My thought was Roux (who refers to herself as a watcher, slayer and a vampire) has a slave name. There's a lot of power in naming yourself. I thought she'd take Buffy's name in homage and to establish a matrilineage that blurred racial boundaries. I've read an objection elsewhere about the fact that a black slayer means they discard the blond bimbo trope central to Buffy. My argument is they replace it with this one.

SPIKE OK, these two are dead. Why? RONA (stands, dusts herself off, to Spike) 'Cause the black chick always gets it first?

I'm really excited by this. It has radical potential and - done well - can address the issues BtVS couldn't (or didn't).

There's a character in Midnight who was a slave until he sought out someone to turn him. Later on he met a gypsy who was pivotal in his life. He's not Roux, and he's not Angel but he is definitely compelling. From what I read Joss and Monica have been working on her developmental ideas for quite a while, and it shows. This is a deleted scene so it doesn't give much away.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brKXfjE8noY


Now I really need to see Midnight, Texas. I've been planning to check it out since it started, I just never find the time.

Yeah - I ignore the raves I heard until today. Hell, the show is a network show from NBC! You should be able to stream it easily. I share a Hulu acct, and it's on Hulu. I hope you like it - I know I did.

- - - Updated - - -



What you say about the show sounds very interesting, but the above is not a huge recommendation for me since I haven't seen Supernatural or Lucifer, and I think The Walking Dead is terrible. It started off good (though it always had its flaws), but my god, has it deteriorated more and more as seasons went on, and since at least season 7, or the back part of season 6, it's been one of the worst shows around.

Yeah - I watched them for a while. They were likable at first. This might turn out to be the same - but I do see it as a cut above.

I am definitely not trying to sell anyone on a reboot. I just like the show.

Priceless
21-07-18, 12:23 PM
BTW, you want to see how to address all kinds of social topics and include political and social satire in funny, witty and not at all "sledgehammery" way? Watch BoJack Horseman!), the creator and

I love Bojack Horseman, it's brilliant. Totally agree, it's got the wit, humour and pathos that a great show needs.

I've watched a few snippets of Midnight Texas on YT and it seems quite bland, predictable and unsurprising. But I'm probably being too harsh as I've not seen a whole episode. Plus it's based on the books of Charlaine Harris, so it will be a certain style.

bespangled
21-07-18, 12:27 PM
I loathed True Blood! Not a Charlene Harris fan.

KingofCretins
21-07-18, 01:39 PM
I'll reserve judgment until I see it, as I would any other reboot/sequel/continuation. Just because I've wanted the thing to happen doesn't mean I was going to mark out for anything they threw at us. I'm not sure they should even recast Willow, Xander, Angel, et al, and instead just surround their Buffy with original characters. I don't think much of the iconography of Buffy's core, essential character requires much around her that is specifically defined other than a Watcher, and that she have family (found or natural), but the rest is flexible as hell. But who knows, maybe a "built upon", read as "jackhammered and redone" mythology doesn't even have a Watcher per se, or in this case, the Watchers are purely antagonist to Buffy and have spent the generations trying to bring the Slayer to heel.

I'd seriously go into this assuming that, mythologically, we're starting with a clean sheet of paper. Maybe not only called by death, maybe not only one girl in all the world, etc, etc.

Stoney
21-07-18, 01:53 PM
Does that count as a reboot King? I would feel very differently about something that was reimagining the idea from scratch and creating new characters. I just have no interest in seeing the supporting characters I love recast, or their stories changed, not at all. I'd definitely rather it was a new slayer and not 'Buffy' too. As has been said, this idea that it is a reboot might not be what happens and personally, I'm not even sure it is clear what they would mean by it even if it is accurate. I'm possibly just being a dolt.

KingofCretins
21-07-18, 02:13 PM
Does that count as a reboot King? I would feel very differently about something that was reimagining the idea from scratch and creating new characters. I just have no interest in seeing the supporting characters I love recast, or their stories changed, not at all. I'd definitely rather it was a new slayer and not 'Buffy' too. As has been said, this idea that it is a reboot might not be what happens and personally, I'm not even sure it is clear what they would mean by it even if it is accurate. I'm possibly just being a dolt.

That would be as much of a reboot as the Abrams "Star Trek". While the presence of Nimoy nominally confirms the universe's are the same apart from the inciting time travel event, it doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. The tech feels different, the physics feels different.

I guess the answer to your question would be, does the TV show constitute a reboot of the movie? Because -- all characters different except Buffy herself (different city, different friends, different home/family situation). major changes to the Slayer and vampire mythological rules (dusting, siring, arguable change of Slayer from a reincarnating being to the death-called lineage). total redesign on the world-building (Watcher's Council replaces semi-immortal singular watcher; vampires tacitly "in public" from the end of the film vs. not at all during televised seasons.

I would say that it's reasonable to expect the new show to change as much from the old one as the one one did from the movie. It doesn't matter that all that changed on first go was Joss' original screenplay to the finished film; at the end of the day for five years "Buffy" meant the movie. The Sarahverse (I'm gonna try it!) relied on the movie's cache with viewers of a certain age to draw in viewers just as the new one will on the Sarahverse.

TimeTravellingBunny
21-07-18, 02:17 PM
Further thoughts:

I've said this before when we discussed the possibility of a Buffy reboot with a diverse cast (does anyone remember that? I don't remember if it was its own thread or in the Random Buffy thoughts thread - I think it may have been the latter.) Not only would a black Buffy be just as much of a subversion of the horror trope (in this case, 'black chick dies first'), but I really hope that her personality is very similar to SMG's Buffy. Buffy Summers was such an original character because she was simultaneously an incredibly strong, kickass snarky hero who got to play into the same heroic tropes as male heroes get, and also someone with strong ties to friends and family and unabashedly a “girly girl” who is into things like fashion, wants to date and is deeply romantic. The new Buffy being black and all of these things would also subvert another trope, that of the one-dimensional “strong black woman who needs no man” and therefore never gets to have romantic storylines or be the romantic lead.

KingofCretins
21-07-18, 02:49 PM
With apologies to Rona, Season 7 always did that trope wrong -- it's rarely if ever the black "chick" that dies first. I'm actually scrabbling to think of a single example. "Scream 2" a black chick dies second (AFTER the actual trope, the black guy dies first) and another dies much later. "I Still Know..." I don't think the black chick dies at all. Nothing leaping to mind from action/adventure.

I get where you're going, with replacing the blonde girl being the hapless, helpless victim to the horror monster with subverting the other trope, but at least the first trope was framed accurately.

Gonna add Logan Browning to the fancasting arena.

TimeTravellingBunny
21-07-18, 02:55 PM
With apologies to Rona, Season 7 always did that trope wrong -- it's rarely if ever the black "chick" that dies first. I'm actually scrabbling to think of a single example. "Scream 2" a black chick dies second (AFTER the actual trope, the black guy dies first) and another dies much later. "I Still Know..." I don't think the black chick dies at all. Nothing leaping to mind from action/adventure.

I get where you're going, with replacing the blonde girl being the hapless, helpless victim to the horror monster with subverting the other trope, but at least the first trope was framed accurately.

Gonna add Logan Browning to the fancasting arena.

You're being too literal. The point is that usually black characters get killed off early - not because the writers hate blacks or something, but for the simple fact that they are rarely main characters.

KingofCretins
21-07-18, 03:04 PM
You're being too literal. The point is that usually black characters get killed off early - not because the writers hate blacks or something, but for the simple fact that they are rarely main characters.

To me this would be like saying you could have started off the whole Slayer premise with a nebbish try-hard of a boy being the Slayer since they are equally prone to getting wiped out as helpless victims in a horror movie as the blond girl. Arguably more likely, since there is no Final Girl alternative trope for them to fall into. The distinction is not a meaningless one.

All I'm saying is let's not go fishing for tropes that don't apply as the new core subversion/central thesis of this version of "Buffy" -- because for all we know the new "Buffy" won't give a damn about subverting tropes to begin with. I don't think they are looking for some deeper literary justification of the new Buffy being black other than as an end unto itself.

debbicles
21-07-18, 03:31 PM
I think it's too early for a reboot because BtVS still has a strong fandom. But the new show sounds too different from the original that it might work, will there be Xander, Willow and Giles or different side characters? I'll be more interested if the other characters got rebooted as well. I don't watch BtVS for just Buffy, I'd be excited to see the new versions of Xander, Willow and Giles as well and also Angel and Spike and Cordelia.... etc. Same characters but a different take with different stories.
Yikes, for me the very idea of new versions of the old beloved characters fills me with horror.
There was nothing wrong with them in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -


Does that count as a reboot King? I would feel very differently about something that was reimagining the idea from scratch and creating new characters. I just have no interest in seeing the supporting characters I love recast, or their stories changed, not at all. I'd definitely rather it was a new slayer and not 'Buffy' too. As has been said, this idea that it is a reboot might not be what happens and personally, I'm not even sure it is clear what they would mean by it even if it is accurate. I'm possibly just being a dolt.

I couldn't agree with you more. But not about you being a dolt. :kiss:

a thing of evil
21-07-18, 03:39 PM
Somehow, I don't really have any strong feelings about this. If its not fun, I'll just ignore it, if it is, I'll probably watch it, especially if the cast is attractive. We knew that Buffy was ending anyway 'cause last season so...yeah.

TimeTravellingBunny
21-07-18, 04:16 PM
To me this would be like saying you could have started off the whole Slayer premise with a nebbish try-hard of a boy being the Slayer since they are equally prone to getting wiped out as helpless victims in a horror movie as the blond girl. Arguably more likely, since there is no Final Girl alternative trope for them to fall into. The distinction is not a meaningless one.

All I'm saying is let's not go fishing for tropes that don't apply as the new core subversion/central thesis of this version of "Buffy" -- because for all we know the new "Buffy" won't give a damn about subverting tropes to begin with. I don't think they are looking for some deeper literary justification of the new Buffy being black other than as an end unto itself.
I have no idea what you're even talking about here. A Slaywr as a boy?! What are on about?! :blink: Slayers are all female, but Slayers are of all sorts of ethnicities and nationalities and from everywhere in the world. And black Slayers have already existed as characters in the original BtVS (duh).

Why would there need to be a "literary justification" or any kind of "justification" for Buffy being black, any more than there needed to be a justification for Buffy being white?

KingofCretins
21-07-18, 04:35 PM
I have no idea what you're even talking about here. A Slaywr as a boy?! What are on about?! :blink: Slayers are all female, but Slayers are of all sorts of ethnicities and nationalities and from everywhere in the world. And black Slayers have already existed as characters in the original BtVS (duh).

First principles -- the concept of the Slayer was designed from the ground up around subverting a specific trope that bothered Joss. My point was that losing the important distinctions within a trope such as "the black guy dies first" is as mistaken as losing the distinctions between the blonde girl who helplessly gets preyed upon by monsters. To wit, he could have modeled the Slayer after the Evil Ed character in "Fright Night" for instance and just said "close enough", couldn't he have? Or would that have missed his mark?


Why would there need to be a "literary justification" or any kind of "justification" for Buffy being black, any more than there needed to be a justification for Buffy being white?

You tell me, as you offered a justification; it was you that asserted this was an opportunity to undermine a new trope. And trope subversion of the helpless blonde exploitation victim was the original justification for the character's general existence in general as has been well drummed by Joss for time out of mind. I'm saying that I seriously doubt that there is anything so high-minded at work here as you suggested, just, "let's make her black this go."

Indeed, I'd say that insofar as the original trope rugpull of the Buffy concept is central to the character, this change alone undermines it. Typically, black women are not routinely depicted in genre fiction as helpless naifs to be victimized, more often ending up as Sassy Black Women (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SassyBlackWoman) so the new Buffy really isn't an antidote to that cliche of the helpless woman victimized by monsters anymore either. But like I said upthread, we don't have any reason to assume that subverting tropes of any kind is what is going to get this new show out of bed in the morning.

HowiMetdaSlayer
21-07-18, 06:57 PM
As a person who's not a fan of the later seasons including (and especially) the comics, I'm fine with the idea. In fact, I think it might just be the best way to go. I think that Buffy worked best when the public was in the dark about the supernatural stuff. Besides there are so many 'verses' out there where the whole world knows about supernatural things, it'll kinda stand out more. Plus they can reset (er a 'do over') all mistakes/bad writing of the later years...

flow
21-07-18, 07:04 PM
Nicholas Brendon has twittered:

https://twitter.com/NicholasBrendon/status/1020618237850079233

flow

TimeTravellingBunny
21-07-18, 07:08 PM
First principles -- the concept of the Slayer was designed from the ground up around subverting a specific trope that bothered Joss. My point was that losing the important distinctions within a trope such as "the black guy dies first" is as mistaken as losing the distinctions between the blonde girl who helplessly gets preyed upon by monsters. To wit, he could have modeled the Slayer after the Evil Ed character in "Fright Night" for instance and just said "close enough", couldn't he have? Or would that have missed his mark?

Oh, come on. You know very well that Buffy's blondeness or Californianess or Americanness was not the main reason why that was subverting the trope. The main reason is that she was female.



You tell me, as you offered a justification; it was you that asserted this was an opportunity to undermine a new trope. And trope subversion of the helpless blonde exploitation victim was the original justification for the character's general existence in general as has been well drummed by Joss for time out of mind. I'm saying that I seriously doubt that there is anything so high-minded at work here as you suggested, just, "let's make her black this go."
No. I didn't offer a "justitification", because it was never needed. I mentioned reasons why this is interesting and the opportunities it offers.


Indeed, I'd say that insofar as the original trope rugpull of the Buffy concept is central to the character, this change alone undermines it. Typically, black women are not routinely depicted in genre fiction as helpless naifs to be victimized, more often ending up as Sassy Black Women (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SassyBlackWoman) so the new Buffy really isn't an antidote to that cliche of the helpless woman victimized by monsters anymore either. But like I said upthread, we don't have any reason to assume that subverting tropes of any kind is what is going to get this new show out of bed in the morning.
I've never seen a black female geek on Tumblr or any blogs complain about black female characters being portrayed as sassy. But I've seen them complain a lot about the fact that this "strong black woman who needs no man" is an excuse to feature those black women (especially darker skinned black women) only as supporting characters, and to never portray them as desirable or give them the role of romantic leads, while white women (or, in all-black shows/movies, lighter skinned women) are portrayed as beautiful, desirable and are typically the female lead.
A lot of people complained about what Sleepy Hollow did, for instance, reducing the importance and screentime of its black female lead in favor of the (white) wife of the white male lead in season 2. No one ever had any problem with Abbey Mills from Sleepy Hollow being strong or 'sassy', no one had a problem with Michonne on The Walking Dead being strong and a great fighter. But when Michonne became Rick's canon love interest, that was seen as an absolute triumph.

It's not the sassy nor the strong part in that trope that anyone has a problem with - it's the "always the supporting character" and "never portrayed as desirable and feminine" that people who criticize that trop seem to have a problem with.

ETA: Another reason that I've seen stated a lot by African American feminists to why this trope is hated is that the idea of black women as so "strong" and not vulnerable is used to dismiss the abuse and victimization, especially of African American women - both in the past by white slaveowners, and in the present in African American communities.
And this is very interesting in the context of Buffy, because Buffy is not a one-dimensional Strong Female Character (TM), she is also vulnerable, and undergoes so much abuse and horrible things that happen to her - and is genuinely traumatized by them, even if she eventually finds a way to endure. But the bad things that are done to her are often dismissed by some of the other characters and some of the fans, because she is expected to always be "strong" (this was sometimes the result of bad writing, as in The Pack or Go Fish, where the narrative and, in the latter, the Scoobies, ignore the fact that she did get sexually assaulted, even if she resolved the situation quickly before it got too dangerous, while other times it's intentional, as with the way the Scoobies and Joyce treat her in Dead Man's Party, or how they try to ignore her obvious depression and pain in season 6 because they don't know how to deal with it).

MikeB
21-07-18, 08:09 PM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.




* I predict this is going to be a massive flop and failure. Most want these 'nostalgia' series to be done with the original cast. Even if some of the BtVS cast may be 'too old', something animated can be done.


* "Buffy" being black adds nothing interesting and makes her NOT Buffy. The whole point of Buffy is the 'blonde girl in the alley fights and kills the monsters'.

Why even use the BtVS name?


* Joss Whedon producing is simply money for him.




The new Buffy version is being described as a “contemporary” and “richly diverse” take on the original series, building on the mythology of the original and using aspects of it to comment on aspects of the current political and cultural climates. Sources say that the reboot will cast a black actress in the titular role.

Gail Berman, Joe Earley, Fran Kazui and Kaz Kazui (producers of the film), and Sandollar Television will produce the Buffy reboot alongside Whedon and Owusu-Breen. http://ew.com/tv/2018/07/21/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot/ Barf. BtVS changed the culture. It was AHEAD of its time, not "contemporary". It didn't comment on "current political and cultural climates". As-is, there's the notion that Buffy going to war in 2002/3... A school shooter...



* The DVDs still exist. Many want Blu-Rays. BtVS is still excellent. Unless the reboot is somehow better than the original, what's the point of watching the reboot?


* The Entertainment Weekly reunion thing was LAST YEAR. A reboot says to the cast that they are too old to play their characters. And they are not enough part of the Buffyverse for an animated something to be made.



Owusu-Breen’s Hollywood resume is impeccable, having served as a producer on shows like ‘Lost’, ‘Alias’, ‘Charmed’, ‘Brothers and Sisters’, and most recently ‘Midnight, Texas’. https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/monica-owusu-breen/ Joss Whedon wrote Toy Story . This woman's resume is not comparably impressive.


https://deadline.com/2018/07/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-series-reboot-in-works-black-lead-monica-owusu-breen-joss-whedon-1202430592/

http://ew.com/tv/2018/07/21/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot/

It seems around all the commenters are against the idea of this reboot.

Silver1
21-07-18, 08:18 PM
Joss Whedon wrote Toy Story

He didn't write all of it love. But yes this other women's resume concerns me. All her listed shows look distinctly 'lower drawer' stuff.

Sosa lola
21-07-18, 10:31 PM
Yikes, for me the very idea of new versions of the old beloved characters fills me with horror.
There was nothing wrong with them in the first place.


I just have no interest watching Buffy without the Scoobies. I wouldn't mind if this Buffy is another girl, not our Buffy, and is named after Buffy Summers.

Priceless
21-07-18, 10:48 PM
He didn't write all of it love. But yes this other women's resume concerns me. All her listed shows look distinctly 'lower drawer' stuff.

I hate to say it, but I felt the same thing. There's nothing that really stands out as important. But could the same have been said about Joss before Buffy the tv show? I guess people have to start somewhere. I just hope she understands the show and what Buffy means to the fans.

DanSlayer
21-07-18, 10:55 PM
I would not call Lost lower drawer. Though she only has a supervising credit for 8 episodes in Season 3 and a co-writer credit on one episode, a stronger one. Coincidentally with the death of a black male character although the actor wanted off the show rather then it being what the showrunners had intended.

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Monica_Owusu-Breen

Priceless
21-07-18, 10:57 PM
I am looking forward to seeing the new cast. I hope, if the setting is high school, the leads don't look 27 years old :lol:

bespangled
21-07-18, 11:13 PM
6 Differences Between Reboots and Remakes (http://www.smosh.com/articles/6-differences-between-reboots-and-remakes)

Thought it might be worth looking up since NB made the distinction.

First and foremost, “remake” is a definitive title. A studio buys the rights to a movie that was already made, and they make it again. “Reboot”, on the other hand, is less clear. The Amazing Spider-Man was considered a reboot, which seems obvious, but so was Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. Neither movie was really a remake of the original movie, but both Ghost Rider movies starred Nicolas Cage. In that case, it was considered a reboot because it was a complete re-branding of the series. It mostly ignored the first, but still could have fit within its continuity. The point is, there’s never a debate as to whether a movie is remake.

Mad Max: Fury Road rebooted the Mad Max franchise, but it totally doesn’t work as a sequel. It’s not just that Max is played by a different actor, but his origin story is different. Some remakes, like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, might take a lot of liberties with the original source, but they still tell basically the same story. A group of teens goes to Texas to get massacred. There you are, go home, work is done. The Amazing Spider-Man was nothing like Spider-Man, aside from generic details like “Peter Parker is bitten by a spider”. That makes reboots more exciting than remakes — you don’t know what’s going to happen.

Good article, since I had no idea what the distinction is. Apparently a reboot is just bringing the world back to life in some way - while a remake is bringing the actual show back with changes. Not sure if that clears up a lot.

- - - Updated - - -

The Matrix reboot isn’t a remake: Here’s the difference between the two (https://www.polygon.com/2017/3/15/14935390/the-matrix-reboot-remake)

The terms remake and reboot get thrown around together, and people often assume they mean the same thing. There is a pretty big distinction between the two, however, and it’s important to note that Warner Bros. isn’t planning on remaking the original film.

A good example of a remake is the most recent version of Beauty and the Beast. Although live-action, the film tells the exact same story and features the same characters. There have been slight changes made, but the essential parts of the story have been kept the same. The 2014 Godzilla film, however, is the definition of a reboot. Although the central theme is the same — the monster, Godzilla, is attacking humanity — the majority of characters are different, as is the setting and dialogue.

To recap: A reboot is defined by those in the industry as a complete rebranding of a specific title or IP. A remake is defined as a complete retelling of the same story and characters that a studio buys the rights to

KingofCretins
21-07-18, 11:24 PM
For anything that could correctly be called a "reboot" this is virtually no chance that this version has a name other than Buffy Summers; or if it is a variant, that there certainly won't have ever been some other Buffy Summers in her story setting. I know what it is you are saying you want, but it is in no way implied by the word "reboot" (which is really just the newspeak for "remake"), and would instead be a spinoff or continuation. None of this media remotely implies they are making "Buffyverse: The Next Generation," they are making a new "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and that is who the title character will be. Welcome to the AU; wear a cup.

Am I the only one that is gonna try fancasting? For shame.

Priceless
21-07-18, 11:30 PM
Am I the only one that is gonna try fancasting? For shame.


What is fancasting?

Silver1
21-07-18, 11:50 PM
I would not call Lost lower drawer. Though she only has a supervising credit for 8 episodes in Season 3 and a co-writer credit on one episode, a stronger one. Coincidentally with the death of a black male character although the actor wanted off the show rather then it being what the showrunners had intended.

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Monica_Owusu-Breen


Oh god she did Lost? Christ this just gets worse and worse.....

KingofCretins
22-07-18, 12:16 AM
What is fancasting?

Just brainstorming who you would want to see in what roles. Casting by fans, or if you would rather, fantasy casting.

DanSlayer
22-07-18, 12:35 AM
Just a thought. With cale or streaming we're probably looking at 10-13 episodes, at max 16. So "filler" like Hush won't happen. On the other hand filler like Doublemeat Palace won't happen. Conflicted.

SpuffyGlitz
22-07-18, 12:53 AM
bespangled
To recap: A reboot is defined by those in the industry as a complete rebranding of a specific title or IP. A remake is defined as a complete retelling of the same story and characters that a studio buys the rights to

Ah. OK - this helps clarify things. I feel better now - thanks for sharing! :)

Stoney
22-07-18, 03:18 AM
Well I hope that they do mean a reboot vs a remake (thanks for that explanation bespangled), I hope it is within those parameters because a remake is definitely not what I'd like. Which is why I don't have enthusiasm for fancasting, sorry King. I don't want to see anyone else play the existing roles and desperately hope they will do new characters.

Priceless
22-07-18, 09:26 AM
Just a thought. With cale or streaming we're probably looking at 10-13 episodes, at max 16. So "filler" like Hush won't happen. On the other hand filler like Doublemeat Palace won't happen. Conflicted.

I'm amazed you think they are going to get to a Season 6 and it will be exactly the same as the original season 6. There will most likely be no Spike and no depression, if they even make it to a sixth

- - - Updated - - -


Just brainstorming who you would want to see in what roles. Casting by fans, or if you would rather, fantasy casting.

You should start a thread . . .

DanSlayer
22-07-18, 04:32 PM
I'm amazed you think they are going to get to a Season 6 and it will be exactly the same as the original season 6. There will most likely be no Spike and no depression, if they even make it to a sixth


I just picked names of a few filler episodes I liked or didn't like, not that they'd make it that far or be exact copies; just that less episodes has good and bad aspects given this is for cable or streaming and won't get the 22 episodes of the old show.

Klaus Kartoffel
22-07-18, 08:19 PM
I don't really care what it's going to be. I guess a remake could serve for cheap, ephemeral amusement? Awkward writing "correcting" the original and every here and now placing meta-textual "honorings", to placate friend and enemy, ought to be unintentually funny.

Re: reboot: As long as they keep the old premise it'll be a cow living on a withered meadow. Maybe I can see it working if the new show is going to be self-aware about being recycled (and what the massive rehashings of old material mean in context of us and society) and deliberately deconstructs itself before metamorphosing into something different. *That* would be the beginning of a progressive approach.

TriBel
22-07-18, 08:32 PM
I don't really care what it's going to be. I guess a remake could serve for cheap, ephemeral amusement? Awkward writing "correcting" the original and every here and now placing meta-textual "honorings", to placate friend and enemy, ought to be unintentually funny.

Re: reboot: As long as they keep the old premise it'll be a cow living on a withered meadow. Maybe I can see it working if the new show is going to be self-aware about being recycled (and what the massive rehashings of old material mean in context of us and society) and deliberately deconstructs itself before metamorphosing into something different. *That* would be the beginning of a progressive approach.

Given I can quite easily imagine Season 12 ending on a similar note then that would suit me fine. :lol: D'you think the world is ready for this? I'm not convinced fandom is. I can see it upsetting a lot of people.

Klaus Kartoffel
22-07-18, 09:02 PM
Given I can quite easily imagine Season 12 ending on a similar note then that would suit me fine. :lol: D'you think the world is ready for this? I'm not convinced fandom is. I can see it upsetting a lot of people.

Well, how's Star Wars fandom doing these days? :D

Seriously though, if I had my druthers -- and I wanted the show to be truly progressive and not just labeled as such -- I'd change perspective and take the story into the medium-dated future, around 30-50 years, extrapolated from the present, emphatically not a dystopian Frayverse but something utopic, yet realistic. A bit like what Star Trek was in context of Cold War. The world needs positive visions of the future more than anything else.

TriBel
22-07-18, 09:29 PM
Well, how's Star Wars fandom doing these days? :D

Seriously though, if I had my druthers -- and I wanted the show to be truly progressive and not just labeled as such -- I'd change perspective and take the story into the medium-dated future, around 30-50 years, extrapolated from the present, emphatically not a dystopian Frayverse but something utopic, yet realistic. A bit like what Star Trek was in context of Cold War. The world needs positive visions of the future more than anything else.

So...a functioning utopia rather than a true utopia - an eutopia? Interesting because I always thought that was what Whedon set out to do with Spuffy. I always read Twilight as an example of a premature utopia. This is a quote I always go back to (nicked from Terry Eagleton): "premature utopianism grasps instantly for the future, projecting itself by an act of will or imagination beyond the compromised political structures of the present. By failing to attend to those forces or fault lines within the present that, developed or prised open in particular ways, might induce that condition to surpass itself into a future, such utopianism is in danger of persuading us to desire uselessly rather than feasibly, and so, like the neurotic, to fall ill of instaunchable longing". Spuffy, I thought, "prised open fault lines" (fitting given Sunnydale disappeared into an abyss).

Bear in mind this was theoretical - I'm crap at plot and plot scenarios. :). What I think happened was RL - the world changed round him (Whedon - not Spike). And don't mention fandoms to me...I didn't know fandoms existed until 12 months ago (I've lead a very sheltered life :)).

Klaus Kartoffel
22-07-18, 11:07 PM
So...a functioning utopia rather than a true utopia - an eutopia? Interesting because I always thought that was what Whedon set out to do with Spuffy. I always read Twilight as an example of a premature utopia. This is a quote I always go back to (nicked from Terry Eagleton): "premature utopianism grasps instantly for the future, projecting itself by an act of will or imagination beyond the compromised political structures of the present. By failing to attend to those forces or fault lines within the present that, developed or prised open in particular ways, might induce that condition to surpass itself into a future, such utopianism is in danger of persuading us to desire uselessly rather than feasibly, and so, like the neurotic, to fall ill of instaunchable longing". Spuffy, I thought, "prised open fault lines" (fitting given Sunnydale disappeared into an abyss).

Hmmm, I think I mean mature utopianism then. :D It shouldn't be a world that was built on the ruins of the old like Twilight intended. Our ideas of the future -- dystopic, retropic, utopic etc. -- are governed by zeitgeist and extrapolations (interpretations) of current economic, ecological, sociopolitical (etc.) dynamics and developments. IMO, they carry lots of self-fulfilling potential. Or in other words: the walk to the future doesn't have to be a passive, deterministic process but should in large parts be understood as an organizational task. For that, we need visions (plural) on which we can form strategies. And for that we need to change the zeitgeist because it's currently dominated by retropiansim, restauration, repression, adhesion, pure fear etc. And... that never ends well.

A pretty pragmatic, utilitarian, conceptual utopianism.

Mylie
23-07-18, 04:37 AM
I'm not really for a reboot at this point, but I'm also not against it. I've always been satisfied with Buffy's ending so I never felt like I needed more. I read the comics simply because they exist and I want to know what's happening in them. So I will watch for sure and I'll probably even get excited about it, the way I sometimes do about the comics.

That said, if they are going to make a reboot, I think they're going in the right direction so far (I know we still know very little about it, but what we do know I find intriguing) to make the show current and something that can subvert a trope ("the black girl always gets it first") the way Buffy did back then. So I'm cautiously optimistic that in time it'll feel like this reboot had a reason to be.

Oh and hello to you all!

flow
23-07-18, 07:20 AM
And hello to you Mylie!

flow

Stoney
23-07-18, 08:55 AM
Hey Mylie, great to see someone new joining us again. :biggrin1:

TriBel
23-07-18, 10:42 AM
Mylie:


So I'm cautiously optimistic that in time it'll feel like this reboot had a reason to be.

Couldn't agree more!


Oh and hello to you all!

And hello to you too. Nice to see you here! :D

Priceless
23-07-18, 10:46 AM
I'm not really for a reboot at this point, but I'm also not against it. I've always been satisfied with Buffy's ending so I never felt like I needed more. I read the comics simply because they exist and I want to know what's happening in them. So I will watch for sure and I'll probably even get excited about it, the way I sometimes do about the comics.

That said, if they are going to make a reboot, I think they're going in the right direction so far (I know we still know very little about it, but what we do know I find intriguing) to make the show current and something that can subvert a trope ("the black girl always gets it first") the way Buffy did back then. So I'm cautiously optimistic that in time it'll feel like this reboot had a reason to be.

Oh and hello to you all!

Hello Mylie! It's great to have you here, hope you have fun :D

I agree, I am a little bit excited about the reboot, glad that Joss it attached, worried that Monica Owusu-Breen's work to date isn't that exciting or interesting, but then neither was Joss's when he began Buffy - everyone starts somewhere. So I guess I have mixed feelings. But I'll watch and I'm open to liking it :D

Silver1
23-07-18, 04:50 PM
everyone starts somewhere.k

Yes, but It's not like she's a newbie to the industry is it? She has a back catalog of work, and pretty unimpressive it is too sadly.

Priceless
23-07-18, 05:51 PM
Yes, but It's not like she's a newbie to the industry is it? She has a back catalog of work, and pretty unimpressive it is too sadly.

Wiki says she's been active since 2001 so she's had 17 years to produce something really good. But she's also worked on Lost, Fringe and Agents of Shield, so she has worked on some decent shows imo. I guess I'm just trying to say she might be better than those shows would have us believe :D

Silver1
24-07-18, 07:54 AM
This women's had 17 years to 'get better' and I still don't have any evidence that she's capable of that. I'd have so much more confidence in this project If somebody with a better portfolio was tackling this. But as It is, nah. :(

flow
24-07-18, 11:16 AM
James Marsters has twittered - or is it actually tweeted? - heck, he posted on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/JamesMarstersOf/status/1021191673697644545

flow

Silver1
24-07-18, 11:31 AM
Aww bless. :)

https://s33.postimg.cc/ybfv2c4rj/screenshot_02bbbb.jpg

bespangled
25-07-18, 02:17 AM
This women's had 17 years to 'get better' and I still don't have any evidence that she's capable of that. I'd have so much more confidence in this project If somebody with a better portfolio was tackling this. But as It is, nah. :(

Have any of you guys actually seen Midnight Texas? This is the show she had creative control over.

ghoststar
25-07-18, 03:24 AM
Wiki says she's been active since 2001 so she's had 17 years to produce something really good. But she's also worked on Lost, Fringe and Agents of Shield, so she has worked on some decent shows imo. I guess I'm just trying to say she might be better than those shows would have us believe :D

I actually think that’s a pretty good resume for a BtVS writer. Fringe in particular had a knack for making the characters’ arcs riveting and building suspense over plots that we all knew were stupid. LOST had a bad final season, but that’s a top-down problem, not something the staff writers were responsible for. While I only watched one episode of AoS and thought that it was terrible, it’s also doubtful that someone at her level would’ve been deeply involved in the series pilot.

Silver1
25-07-18, 09:32 AM
Have any of you guys actually seen Midnight Texas? This is the show she had creative control over.

I haven't seen anything beyond a trailer. It was shown on the sy fy channel over here, but got took off pretty early. Was It cancelled?

Stoney
25-07-18, 05:37 PM
Just seen this on Twitter which is supposed to be a copy of David Fury saying the reboot won't be a remake but it seems to be a pic/screengrab rather than a link to the source and I can't find the original tweet from him to verify it's genuine (probably just because I'm too useless on Twitter and find it a maze best avoided!!).

https://twitter.com/jamie_marsters/status/1022013880548188161

"As one who's credited with the most teleplays in the BUFFYVERSE (save for Joss himself), I'm dismayed that so many fans are not seeing this news as a thing to rejoice. I can only suspect that it's the term "reboot" that's not sitting well with them. This project is in its infancy, but I can almost guarantee the new series will be a continuation of the original universe, not a "do-over." It can just as easily be called "Daphne the Vampire Slayer" if she doesn't adopt the mantle of "Buffy" as an homage to a legend. The point is JOSS IS OVERSEEING NEW SLAYER STORIES FOR TELEVISION!! The trademark humor, social consciousness, genre-bending will all be there. It won't replace the original. It will expand the saga (and not in a comic-book form). Will any of the characters from the OS appear? Maybe. Who cares? That universe is the best. (Much better than this one.) I can't wait to watch!
Addendum: Some of you are confusing "reboot" for "remake." Reboot just means the machine's started up again, not like they are going to retell the same stories. Yeesh. C'mon, people."

TriBel
25-07-18, 05:56 PM
Just seen this on Twitter which is supposed to be a copy of David Fury saying the reboot won't be a remake but it seems to be a pic/screengrab rather than a link to the source and I can't find the original tweet from him to verify it's genuine (probably just because I'm too useless on Twitter and find it a maze best avoided!!).

https://twitter.com/jamie_marsters/status/1022013880548188161

"As one who's credited with the most teleplays in the BUFFYVERSE (save for Joss himself), I'm dismayed that so many fans are not seeing this news as a thing to rejoice. I can only suspect that it's the term "reboot" that's not sitting well with them. This project is in its infancy, but I can almost guarantee the new series will be a continuation of the original universe, not a "do-over." It can just as easily be called "Daphne the Vampire Slayer" if she doesn't adopt the mantle of "Buffy" as an homage to a legend. The point is JOSS IS OVERSEEING NEW SLAYER STORIES FOR TELEVISION!! The trademark humor, social consciousness, genre-bending will all be there. It won't replace the original. It will expand the saga (and not in a comic-book form). Will any of the characters from the OS appear? Maybe. Who cares? That universe is the best. (Much better than this one.) I can't wait to watch!
Addendum: Some of you are confusing "reboot" for "remake." Reboot just means the machine's started up again, not like they are going to retell the same stories. Yeesh. C'mon, people."

D'you know - I've read so much crap about this (not here) that it's doing my bloody head in!

I'm hoping that's genuine. If not, they should take the advice because it's common sense as far as I'm concerned. I'd still put money on it being something akin to the Giles mini.

grace
25-07-18, 05:56 PM
Here's the link to the Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/david.fury.37/posts/10160798619940531

He doesn't have a blue verification checkmark, but looks like it's him. From the post, it doesn't seem like he has any actual knowledge of what's in the works, though.

KingofCretins
25-07-18, 06:12 PM
This fatuous reboot/remake distinction doesn't side-step the fact that what fans are primarily reacting to is that the title character will be portrayed by a different actress, which on its own says pretty much everything that needs to be said. Does anybody really care if what we are talking about is new original stories or shot-by-shot recreations of "Teacher's Pet"? No. They care that this is Buffy. Deeply confused why Fury could even pretend to be confused on that point.

Stoney
25-07-18, 06:13 PM
Here's the link to the Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/david.fury.37/posts/10160798619940531

He doesn't have a blue verification checkmark, but looks like it's him. From the post, it doesn't seem like he has any actual knowledge of what's in the works, though.

Uh, I don't know then because this (https://twitter.com/TheDavidFury) was the Twitter page I found that has the blue tick for DF (and obviously I couldn't find it on). I suppose he could run two but I think it makes it seem dubious. Well done for finding the original though, sometimes I feel like such a tech moron! :D

I'm not sure what you mean King because it is exactly that which bothers me. I don't want to see the original remade, yet most other options I'd be quite excited about.

MikeB
25-07-18, 06:17 PM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.



* Monica Owusu-Breen isn't going to be a mere 'BtVS writer'--she's going to be the main writer and the showrunner for the new series. Essentially, she's going to be the 'new' Joss Whedon.

Again, The Vampire Diaries was at-most great for 2.5 Seasons. And nothing suggests this person is more talented than Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec.



* The Buffyverse viewers want something done with the original cast and something animated can be easily done as most of the main actors have done voice work.


* Thirdly, it's going to be near-impossible to have this new Slayer and new series be compelling and consequential. Is Joss going to rid of Tales of the Slayers and Tales of the Vampires ? Fray ? Melaka Fray is the first consequential Slayer since "Chosen" (B 7.22) who wasn't in "Chosen".



The Legend of Korra is arguably a smarter, better thought out, and better plotted series than Avatar: The Last Airbender . Yet few consider it the better series. Moreover, that series was done with the original writers. It's set many decades after A: TLA and much of the principals in A: TLA are important figures in TLoK and shown and used in the series.

Priceless
25-07-18, 06:25 PM
Uh, I don't know then because this (https://twitter.com/TheDavidFury) was the Twitter page I found that has the blue tick for DF (and obviously I couldn't find it on). I suppose he could run two but I think it makes it seem dubious. Well done for finding the original though, sometimes I feel like such a tech moron! :D

I'm not sure what you mean King because it is exactly that which bothers me. I don't want to see the original remade, yet most other options I'd be quite excited about.

David Fury's post was from his Facebook page, not his Twitter page. I don't think Facebook uses a blue tick (I'm not on Facebook). He uses different avs too, but I think it is a legit David Fury post

Stoney
25-07-18, 06:31 PM
David Fury's post was from his Facebook page, not his Twitter page. I don't think Facebook uses a blue tick (I'm not on Facebook). He uses different avs too, but I think it is a legit David Fury post

Oh, duh! I didn't even notice it was on a different site and not another Twitter page. Geez I'm flakey today! :redshy:

Facebook do have blue ticks (here's (https://www.facebook.com/JamesMarstersLive/) JM's official page), but that doesn't mean DF has gotten himself one. It has the same 'mustard' banner, so it might be genuine. :)

flow
25-07-18, 07:01 PM
We still have no confirmation from anyone involved in the reboot but at the moment it seems more likely that we will have a completely new Slayer called XY (maybe even called Buffy for some Buffy-related reasons) and completely new stories. And they might be rushing season12 to an end just now, because they have to rewrite the Reckoning for the new show. Buffy will prevent the Reckoning and Fray will no longer be the first Slayer to be called since Buffy died.

I have to admit, that I am getting more and more excited, as this evolves. Come on guys and girls ! We have nothing to loose. BtVS will always remain what it is. We could gét an interesting new series and new fans for the Buffyverse fandom or we might get a boring reboot but even then no one will take our Buffy away from us.

flow

HardlyThere
25-07-18, 07:14 PM
This fatuous reboot/remake distinction doesn't side-step the fact that what fans are primarily reacting to is that the title character will be portrayed by a different actress, which on its own says pretty much everything that needs to be said. Does anybody really care if what we are talking about is new original stories or shot-by-shot recreations of "Teacher's Pet"? No. They care that this is Buffy. Deeply confused why Fury could even pretend to be confused on that point.

Same reason he's pretending Joss's stock hasn't fallen considerably and saying "JOOOOOSSSS" isn't going to calm any nerves.

It's been near a week now and there still hasn't been any clarification. This to me says what people are reacting to is the truth at the time of announcement: They're rebooting Buffy with a new actress playing Buffy. If it wasn't, they would call it a continuation, a sequel, a spinoff. Does anyone call the comics a reboot? No.

KingofCretins
25-07-18, 08:16 PM
Uh, I don't know then because this (https://twitter.com/TheDavidFury) was the Twitter page I found that has the blue tick for DF (and obviously I couldn't find it on). I suppose he could run two but I think it makes it seem dubious. Well done for finding the original though, sometimes I feel like such a tech moron! :D

I'm not sure what you mean King because it is exactly that which bothers me. I don't want to see the original remade, yet most other options I'd be quite excited about.

I think the thing people are reacting to, for or against, is that the Buffy character, and some or all of the other characters, are being reimagined with new actors.

When Fury belabors the remake/reboot distinction as though he thinks the thing people care about isn't that it's a new Buffy, but that they don't want to see the new Buffy blow up the Judge with a rocket launcher and long to go to the Icecapades, I think he sounds like a freakin' idiot.

Who did that ever even occur to, anyway? That this new show with its new Buffy was going to just be a replay of the original storylines as well?


* Monica Owusu-Breen isn't going to be a mere 'BtVS writer'--she's going to be the main writer and the showrunner for the new series. Essentially, she's going to be the 'new' Joss Whedon.

Again, The Vampire Diaries was at-most great for 2.5 Seasons. And nothing suggests this person is more talented than Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec.

It was a great ride all the way through the conclusion of S3, wherein it made the dumbest mistake it ever could have possibly made.


* Thirdly, it's going to be near-impossible to have this new Slayer and new series be compelling and consequential. Is Joss going to rid of Tales of the Slayers and Tales of the Vampires ? Fray ? Melaka Fray is the first consequential Slayer since "Chosen" (B 7.22) who wasn't in "Chosen".

Won't be an issue, since there is no realistic chance that this series takes place in the extant Buffyverse, or the Sarahverse as I'm trying to make happen. Nobody, not nobody has ever explicitly said it does; in fact their reassurances sound like doubletalk to avoid confirming that it doesn't. New Buffy means new 'verse.

TimeTravellingBunny
25-07-18, 11:58 PM
I actually think that’s a pretty good resume for a BtVS writer. Fringe in particular had a knack for making the characters’ arcs riveting and building suspense over plots that we all knew were stupid. LOST had a bad final season, but that’s a top-down problem, not something the staff writers were responsible for.
Monica Owusu-Breen wrote one episode of Lost, in season 3. She didn't have a huge effect on the show, but she certainly had nothing to do with the last season.


While I only watched one episode of AoS and thought that it was terrible, it’s also doubtful that someone at her level would’ve been deeply involved in the series pilot.
No, she did not co-write the AoS Pilot. Joss did. :lol: That was the only episode of AoS he co-wrote. And it really wasn't a particularly good episode - not even in the top 10 episodes for season 1. Though I liked it better on rewatch, knowing that it foreshadows some stuff, but in n retrospect, it's certainly not a very good pilot, as it gives a wrong first impression of what the show would be like, especially after the first half of season 1. It starts off as what seems like a light-hearted procedural light on SciFi elements, and ends up being... well, the exact opposite of that.

Most of the people bad-mouthing AoS are those who never saw more than 2 or 3 early episodes, which is like saying Buffy sucked because you saw the show up to Teacher's Pet.



* Monica Owusu-Breen isn't going to be a mere 'BtVS writer'--she's going to be the main writer and the showrunner for the new series. Essentially, she's going to be the 'new' Joss Whedon.

Again, The Vampire Diaries was at-most great for 2.5 Seasons. And nothing suggests this person is more talented than Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec.

I have no idea what that has to do with the Buffy reboot, but watched the first 2 seasons of The Vampire Diaries (the supposedly 'good' seasons, according to what people keep saying), and I never found it to be anything but mediocre.

I'm sorry, but if you guys here are trying to convince me that Lost sucked but TVD was great, you have all lost your minds. :lol:

MikeB
26-07-18, 05:26 AM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.



* With the Kuzuis involved, Buffy Summers is very likely part of this series. There’s no good reason to have them involved and no good reason Joss Whedon would allow them to be involved if this wasn’t Buffy.

Even Gail Berman’s and Sandollar’s involvement directly point to this being a new Buffy.

If Joss Whedon did a Fray series and never mentioned Buffy’s name, then the Kuzuis, Gail Berman, and Sandollar wouldn’t need to be involved.

So, unless Sarah Michelle Gellar is going to show up in the new series, promote the new series, whatever, why have these people involved?


* Is Eliza Dushku still very busy? Why not have a Faith the Vampire Slayer series? Is Alyson Hannigan busy? James Marsters currently has a TV series, but does Aly? Have Faith and Willow in a series.

Having BtVS without Sarah Michelle Gellar is asinine.


____________________


* In today’s television landscape, Westworld and The Handmaid’s Tale are considered excellent series.

The opening minutes of the Reimagined Battlestar Galatica is considerably better than Westworld . Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse is at least significantly better and smarter than Westworld .

And The Handmaid’s Tale seems a reaction to a ‘what if’ if Mike Pence becomes the President of the United States. And the world-building of The Handmaid’s Tale is terrible. How is the US Economy functioning? How is the US Military functioning?

So, The Vampire Diaries is “mediocre” compared to BtVS, but that simply strengthens the argument that this new series is likely not going to be good. Monica Owusu-Breen doesn’t seem a better writer and producer than Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec.

Mrs Gordo
26-07-18, 06:34 AM
Good video on this topic:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQ0hYMaEwc&feature=youtu.be

Silver1
26-07-18, 09:11 AM
Thanks for posting that. I pretty much agree with his take on it. :)

TimeTravellingBunny
26-07-18, 12:54 PM
* In today’s television landscape, Westworld and The Handmaid’s Tale are considered excellent series.

The opening minutes of the Reimagined Battlestar Galatica is considerably better than Westworld . Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse is at least significantly better and smarter than Westworld .

And The Handmaid’s Tale seems a reaction to a ‘what if’ if Mike Pence becomes the President of the United States. And the world-building of The Handmaid’s Tale is terrible. How is the US Economy functioning? How is the US Military functioning?
Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale was published in 1985, so, no. Of course the current climate is one of the main reasons the series was made, but I believe that most of the world-building (and plot/characters from season 1) comes from the novel.

Regardless of the quality of THT, stating world-building as the reason why it's bad is weird if you're comparing it to BtVS - since world-building has always been the weakest part of Buffyverse. It was all about the metaphors - and the world-building was incredibly wonky and contradictory.



So, The Vampire Diaries is “mediocre” compared to BtVS, but that simply strengthens the argument that this new series is likely not going to be good. .
No, it doesn't strengthen it, since The Vampire Diaries and its showrunners have nothing to do with the Buffy reboot.


Monica Owusu-Breen doesn’t seem a better writer and producer than Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec
Or maybe she is a better writer and producer than Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec? You haven't provided any arguments to the contrary.

Silver1
26-07-18, 01:30 PM
Most of the people bad-mouthing AoS are those who never saw more than 2 or 3 early episodes, which is like saying Buffy sucked because you saw the show up to Teacher's Pet.


Well I managed to stagger through until about midway season 2 (maybe a bit later It's hard to tell as I found this to be terribly forgettable fare) and decided this was annoying/boring me more then entertaining me and gave up. I tried dipping for parts of episodes since then and thought It looked awful. My god the Kree!!!? WTF?

But tastes vary of course. :)

- - - Updated - - -

Oh god, really?? :lol:

https://www.change.org/p/joss-whedon-say-no-to-buffy-reboot-2018

HardlyThere
26-07-18, 01:59 PM
Being a good showrunner is a talent in and of itself. It's not all about creative ability. Aside from that, you have to be able to wrangle actors, directors, writers, set members, suits and all things in between. You have to be able to cast appropriately and hire complementary talent that appears on screen and behind it. You have to be adaptable enough to deal with change because you do not rule the universe and all the screaming in the world in the press doesn't change the quality of what's on screen.

Joss himself wasn't a great showrunner, guys, yet we still got BTVS. It was a very lightning in a bottle thing where things coalesced at the start.

American Aurora
26-07-18, 03:28 PM
From what I hear, they're extremely aware of the negative reaction to the Buffy reboot and are mulling over their options carefully. It's still at Stage O at the moment in terms of concept, so keep twittering and writing if you want to have any effect on reboot vs. new story. Seriously.

MikeB
26-07-18, 06:20 PM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.



* I considered that this new series was a ‘test run’ to see if the public would accept a reboot without the original cast literally within several hours of first learning about this new series.

And that the politically correct stuff regarding a black actress playing Buffy, the current social commentary stuff, etc. was all part of to see if doing such would be enough to get the public to accept not having to pay Sarah Michelle Gellar, James Marsters, and Alyson Hannigan a lot of money to do something with BtVS.


* Pre-Season 9, the world-building of the Buffyverse was some of the best in all of television history. Even the SuperSlayer and SuperVampire Prophecy simply points to Giles not considering Angel worthy of being the SuperVampire and Giles considering Spike was worthy of being the SuperVampire.


* Even if to simply put it on Disney’s version of Netflix, I don’t see why a Buffyverse animated something cannot be done. Young Justice is coming back for around 6 more Seasons.




TimeTravellingBunny


* I didn’t say that The Handmaids Tale is a bad TV series. I said that it’s not an excellent TV series.


Or maybe she is a better writer and producer than Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec? You haven't provided any arguments to the contrary. Kevin Williamson: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0932078/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Julie Plec: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0687096/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Monica Owusu-Breen https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044428/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

So, you consider their resumes mean nothing?

It is beyond laughable to consider that Monica Owusu-Breen has proven more talented a writer, producer, creator, showrunner, etc. than the combined forces of Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec.

You’ve never heard of Scream and Dawson’s Creek ?



HardlyThere


Joss himself wasn't a great showrunner In what world is Joss Whedon not a great showrunner? How many TV series are still beloved over 20 years after they first aired, over 15 years after they ended? How many showrunners created so many famous characters?

Buffy, Angel, Spike, Willow, Faith, and Drusilla are part of pop culture.

Joss managed to create a pop culture phenomenon and his biggest mistake is not producing a BtVS movie himself.

But Joss was the showrunner of TV series at the same time, and he managed to keep the actors’ salaries relatively low throughout the series run of those TV series.

Joss’s writing for The Astonishing X-Men essentially got him the job of writing and directing The Avengers and Marvel and now DC has tried to copy his style and ‘formula/algorithm’ ever since. Joss’s excellent work with The Avengers apparently got him a $100MM contract with Marvel to continuing working with them. Joss Whedon’s work with BtVS and AtS apparently got him a $20MM contract with 20th Century Fox.

The problems with The Avengers 2 are mostly Kevin Fiege’s fault, yet nerds somehow decided to continue worshipping Fiege and decided to hate on Joss.

The problems with The Justice League are Joss essentially had to do a patch-up job, yet nerds somehow decided to hate on Joss and demand a ‘Synder cut’.

Joss’s alleged infidelity also somehow got Joss a lot of hate, yet people are happy to dismiss the infidelities of their favorite actors, sports stars, etc.

And through all of that, BtVS viewers don’t want a BtVS without Joss Whedon being the writer (and likely showrunner) and don’t want a BtVS without the original characters.

Mrs Gordo
26-07-18, 06:35 PM
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/new-buffy-showrunner-addresses-reboot-backlash-1130011

Here is the statement from the new writer from Twitter.

"For some genre writers, it's Star Wars. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my Star Wars. Before I became a writer, I was a fan. For seven seasons, I watched Buffy Summers grow up, find love, kill that love. I watched her fight, and struggle and slay," she wrote. "There is only one Buffy. One Xander, one Willow, Giles, Cordelia, Oz, Tara, Kendra, Faith, Spike, Angel … They can't be replaced. Joss Whedon's brilliant and beautiful series can't be replicated. I wouldn't try to. But here we are, 20 years later … and the world seems a lot scarier. So maybe, it could be time to meet a new Slayer … And that's all I can say."

https://twitter.com/monicabreen/status/1022507356964278272

Priceless
26-07-18, 06:39 PM
Well that sounds like a new Buffy to me . . . 'There's only one Buffy . . . But . . . '

flow
26-07-18, 07:13 PM
He says ist time to meet a new Slayer. That means it won`t be "our" Buffy. And her friends won`t be Xander and Willow. Sounds great to me!

flow

TriBel
26-07-18, 07:20 PM
Well that sounds like a new Buffy to me . . . 'There's only one Buffy . . . But . . . '

It doesn't read that way to me Pricey. :) It reads as a continuation rather than a remake (Softly, Softly / Z Cars sort of thing! :rotf:) Either following on from the comics or from S7.

Priceless
26-07-18, 07:26 PM
It doesn't read that way to me Pricey. :) It reads as a continuation rather than a remake (Softly, Softly / Z Cars sort of thing! :rotf:) Either following on from the comics or from S7.

I hope you are right :D

Klaus Kartoffel
26-07-18, 07:30 PM
Unless it's Buffy the symbol, not the character. Sounds a bit wishy-washy and desperately denial-y to me. A standard sales strategy.

ETA: I mean re: the hollywoodreporter article and Fury's Facebook statement

Priceless
26-07-18, 07:35 PM
I think I'm having trouble visualising it at the moment. If she's a high school girl with friends and a watcher . . . well does it matter what she's called? If she's 25, works in publishing and has her own place . . . different story :p I need more deets.

TriBel
26-07-18, 07:38 PM
I hope you are right :D

Can't go wrong with Charlie Barlow and John Watt:D! Oh...right about Buffy?! Sorry...my bad!

BAF
26-07-18, 08:35 PM
http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/960779-buffy-reboot-will-follow-new-slayer-showrunner-confirms

Buffy Reboot Will Follow New Slayer, Showrunner Confirms
The black actress lead will be a new Slayer character

By Grant Hermanns ON July 26, 2018

http://cdn3-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/2018/07/buffy-reboto-2.jpg

Buffy reboot will follow new slayer, showrunner confirms

It was officially announced last week that the hit WB series Buffy the Vampire Slayer is getting the reboot treatment at Fox with a black actress leading the series! Fan reaction as mixed at first as it was initially seen as though Sarah Michelle Gellar’s portrayal would be replaced. However, new showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen (Alias) has just confirmed that the new series will not be replacing Gellar in the titular role, but rather will focus on a new slayer.

“For some genre writers it’s Star Wars. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my Star Wars,” Owusu-Breen wrote in a tweet. “Before I became a writer, I was a fan. For seven seasons, I watched Buffy Summers grow up, find love, kill that love. I watched her fight and struggle and slay. There is only ONE Buffy. One Xander, one Willow, Giles, Cordelia, Oz, Tara, Kendra, Faith, Spike, Angel…They can’t be replaced. Joss Whedon’s brilliant and beautiful series can’t be replicated. I wouldn’t try to. But here we are, twenty years later…And the world seems a lot scarier. So maybe, it could be time to meet a new Slayer…And that’s all I can say.”

Owusu-Breen’s previous credits in the TV world include the J.J. Abrams espionage thriller Alias, mystery-drama Lost and sci-fi drama Fringe, as well as the ABC drama Brothers & Sisters and Marvel series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The reboot’s network is currently unknown, given that the original series ran on The WB and UPN, both of which are now defunct, and that the rights to the franchise are owned by 20th Century Fox.

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.


So this isn't a reboot from the sound of it but a legacy sequel/revival series.A new character as the Slayer.

TimeTravellingBunny
26-07-18, 08:41 PM
* Pre-Season 9, the world-building of the Buffyverse was some of the best in all of television history. Even the SuperSlayer and SuperVampire Prophecy simply points to Giles not considering Angel worthy of being the SuperVampire and Giles considering Spike was worthy of being the SuperVampire.
Really?! Buffyverse always had pretty poor world-building. They kept retconing things and never thought about them that much. (Because it didn't matter. It was all about metaphors.)

They could never really decide what a "soul" was, or what a "demon" inside the vampire was like. (And there's also that time when the Master and Luke in season 1 talked about having 'souls'. Oops.) Once you started thinking they had it figured out and that soul was conscience (as seen with soulless vs souled vampires, Darla, Buffy in Living Conditions or the soulless boy from I've Got You Under My Skin, they threw in that about Fred's "soul" and muddled things further.

The Angel vs Angelus stuff in season 4 of AtS was a mess and contradicted every other season of AtS and BtVS, before and after.

Demons were all evil, then some were not, then they were not even really pure demons.

They never explained why vampires can smoke or be chocked if they cannot breathe (and therefore can't perform CPR). Or why they can be photographed and filmed, but not seen in the mirror.
And why does vampire clothes turn to dust together with them?

Buffy is less strong than Luke, but then later she's stronger than any other vampire, but not that much that Spike or Angel wouldn't be on equal terms on her in fight. Except when she was suddenly able to easily lift Olaf's hammer, while Spike couldn't even move it a bit. (WTF was that about?!) Olaf's hammer that was so super strong that it did not damage to Xander when Olaf hit him with it full force.

Angel's Gypsy curse is stupid in so many ways that I don't know where to begin. (Why would the people who curse him ever come up with anything like that?) It's also never explained why any other vampire couldn't be cursed the same way. Then we find out that it's possible to gain the soul another way, but Angel never tried that.

Vampires can't have children. Except sometimes they can. With each other. (Just wave it with "it's magic, whatever").

Resurrections are difficult even with magic and, even with magic, can only resurrect a person with their mind intact in special circumstances. Except... a bunch of random high school dropout morons managed to resurrect each other in The Zeppo - their bodies did keep rotting, but their minds were intact. Also, Chris managed to resurrect his brother Darryl with science in Some Assembly Required.

Sunnydale is a small town. Which has its own college and airport, among other things.

Only Slayers are equipped to deal with the vampires. "She alone can stand against the vampires, demons and forces of darkness". Except that's not true, because super soldiers can do it too; non-superpowered humans who have trained a lot can also kill vampires and demons and do it for years; and even high school kids who have hung out with a Slayer and who trained a little bit during one summer can kill 60% of vampires and survive several months fighting vampires without getting killed.

Though I guess that's a relief, since otherwise I really wonder how vampires haven't overrun the entire world, since, after all, there's usually just one Slayer. What is going on in the rest of the world? Surely there are vampires in other places as well? We know there are vampires in LA, for starters, Otherwise, no one would ever live in Sunnydale - no matter how low the real estate prices may be.

I'm particularly wondering about the Wishverse - vampires were openly running the town. What was the response of the rest of California, USA, and the world? What did the government and the military do about it?

I could go on.


TimeTravellingBunny


* I didn’t say that The Handmaids Tale is a bad TV series. I said that it’s not an excellent TV series.

Kevin Williamson: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0932078/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Julie Plec: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0687096/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Monica Owusu-Breen https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044428/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

So, you consider their resumes mean nothing?
Huh? Of course they mean something. They mean that all 3 have worked for years and have written for several fairly popular SciFi/fantasy TV shows (whose quality is a matter of opinion) and ran some of them.

It means that Williamson is best known as a creator/showrunner for two shows I was never a fan of, which I think of as examples of a a particular brand of bland mainstream US TV that does not put me off completely but that I never enjoyed (Dawson's Creek and The Vampire Diaries), while Plec worked, among other things, on a middling SciFi show/teen drama I used to watch, which was never as good as it could have been with its premise (Kyle XY), on the above mentioned TVD, and a spinoff of TVD that I haven't seen, but since it's probably similar to TVD and intended for its audience, I doubt my feelings on it would be much different.

It also means that I prefer Monica Owusu-Breen's resume by far to the resumes of the other two, since I didn't particularly like any of Williamson's or Plec's work that I have seen. I'm still to see Midnight, Texas, and sadly I never got the time to watch Fringe, but she's worked on two of my favorite shows, and been one of the (IMO) best writers on one of them. Her one episode of Lost and the majority of her episodes of AoS have had, IMO, more emotional resonance and depth than anything I've seen from the other two. Heck, even the weakest of her AoS episodes (she was a staff writer, so she often got saddled with transitional episodes, rather than the "big" episodes are usually reserved for showunners - Jed Whedon, Mo Tanchareon and Jeffrey Bell) had good dialogue, everyone in character, and a lot of good and emotionally resonant character moments. Unlike some other AoS writers, including Jeffrey Bell - who's written one of my favorite episodes of AoS (1x21) but also some very hit and miss episodes or just bad ones, with poor dialogue and OOC behavior.




You’ve never heard of Scream and Dawson’s Creek ?
LOL what? Of course I've heard of them, and seen Scream, and watched some of Dawson's Creek. I am supposed to be impressed?

The first Scream movie was a good example of a meta-aware teen slasher horror, but was never all that original and subversive (especially as opposed to BtVS - the show - or Cabin in the Woods), and the sequels got worse and worse. Which doesn't particularly speak to the ability to tell a long-term story.

Dawson's Creak was...eh, well, it was OK I guess - it wasn't the worst teen drama out there, but it sure wasn't My So-Called Life, either. I know a lot of people loved it, but it was never my cup of tea. It seemed to have some of the worst tendencies of US teen dramas: love triangles, didactic storylines, lack of humor/self-awareness (which BtVS had in spades even in season 1), and that dialogue... Yeah, I know BtVS dialogue wasn't super realistic, either, with everyone talking like Joss and spouting witty jokes and pop culture references occasionally, but at least it was fun, while the characters on Dawson's Creek always sounded like they were spouting essays they've written for their blogs.

And I've already made me feelings clear on The Vampire Diaries. Even though it was based on books that pre-date BtVS, it always seemed like BtVS-lite with no depth at all - as if someone wanted to make another BtVS, but had no clue what made BtVS great, thinking instead that it's all about pretty people in their 20s and 30s pretending to be high school kids or their parent figures, love triangles including vampires and/or werewolves, protagonist-based morality, and plot plot plot.


It is beyond laughable to consider that Monica Owusu-Breen has proven more talented a writer, producer, creator, showrunner, etc. than the combined forces of Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec.

You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Silver1
26-07-18, 08:48 PM
http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/960779-buffy-reboot-will-follow-new-slayer-showrunner-confirms

Buffy Reboot Will Follow New Slayer, Showrunner Confirms
The black actress lead will be a new Slayer character

By Grant Hermanns ON July 26, 2018

http://cdn3-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/2018/07/buffy-reboto-2.jpg

Buffy reboot will follow new slayer, showrunner confirms

It was officially announced last week that the hit WB series Buffy the Vampire Slayer is getting the reboot treatment at Fox with a black actress leading the series! Fan reaction as mixed at first as it was initially seen as though Sarah Michelle Gellar’s portrayal would be replaced. However, new showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen (Alias) has just confirmed that the new series will not be replacing Gellar in the titular role, but rather will focus on a new slayer.

“For some genre writers it’s Star Wars. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my Star Wars,” Owusu-Breen wrote in a tweet. “Before I became a writer, I was a fan. For seven seasons, I watched Buffy Summers grow up, find love, kill that love. I watched her fight and struggle and slay. There is only ONE Buffy. One Xander, one Willow, Giles, Cordelia, Oz, Tara, Kendra, Faith, Spike, Angel…They can’t be replaced. Joss Whedon’s brilliant and beautiful series can’t be replicated. I wouldn’t try to. But here we are, twenty years later…And the world seems a lot scarier. So maybe, it could be time to meet a new Slayer…And that’s all I can say.”

Owusu-Breen’s previous credits in the TV world include the J.J. Abrams espionage thriller Alias, mystery-drama Lost and sci-fi drama Fringe, as well as the ABC drama Brothers & Sisters and Marvel series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The reboot’s network is currently unknown, given that the original series ran on The WB and UPN, both of which are now defunct, and that the rights to the franchise are owned by 20th Century Fox.

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.


So this isn't a reboot from the sound of it but a legacy sequel/revival series.A new character as the Slayer.

Thank christ. Now If It turns out to be drivel It will be easy to ignore. :lol:

HowiMetdaSlayer
26-07-18, 09:42 PM
If there's a new slayer with new friends maybe in a different time (past perhaps?), or maybe a different time line?. It may be ok. As long as it's not a continuation. I really don't want to watch that! I know I'm in the minority, but I'd rather have a reboot/re-imagining of the series from the beginning. Mind you, not just a retelling of the same story with a different spin.

vampmogs
26-07-18, 09:51 PM
If it’s a new slayer then that’s fantastic. I’m fully on board. Can’t wait to see what they do with it. I also can’t wait to revisit the world again. It’ll be surreal seeing the vamp makeup back on screen/dusting etc.

BAF
26-07-18, 09:52 PM
Some more links to articles about this news.

Buffy Showrunner Addresses Reboot Concerns: It’s ‘Time to Meet a New Sl…

Buffy reboot showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen issues a statement about her love of the original series while teasing something new for the franchise.

https://www.cbr.com/buffy-showrunner-addresses-reboot-concerns-its-time-to-meet-a-new-slayer/

Buffy Reboot: Showrunner Shares Details on New Slayer After Backlash

http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/07/26/buffy-reboot-showrunner-shares-details-on-new-slayer-after-backlash

The ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ Reboot May Follow A New Slayer

https://uproxx.com/tv/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-new-slayer/

New Buffy showrunner clarifies reboot reports, says its time for ‘a new Slayer’

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/new-buffy-showrunner-clarifies-reboot-reports-says-its-time-for-a-new-slayer

HowiMetdaSlayer
26-07-18, 10:10 PM
Where's the unlike button? :( Gah - half wonder if she/Whedon caved into the backlash. Just what we need Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 13: a new slayer is called... :down: :bang: :cussing:

TimeTravellingBunny
26-07-18, 10:12 PM
Some more links to articles about this news.

Buffy Showrunner Addresses Reboot Concerns: It’s ‘Time to Meet a New Sl…

Buffy reboot showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen issues a statement about her love of the original series while teasing something new for the franchise.

https://www.cbr.com/buffy-showrunner-addresses-reboot-concerns-its-time-to-meet-a-new-slayer/

Buffy Reboot: Showrunner Shares Details on New Slayer After Backlash

http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/07/26/buffy-reboot-showrunner-shares-details-on-new-slayer-after-backlash

The ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ Reboot May Follow A New Slayer

https://uproxx.com/tv/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-new-slayer/

New Buffy showrunner clarifies reboot reports, says its time for ‘a new Slayer’

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/new-buffy-showrunner-clarifies-reboot-reports-says-its-time-for-a-new-slayer

I've just skimmed the comments on that IGN article... dear God... :fryingpan: Cherry on top is one dude who's going "If they want to make it real progressive, they should make it a male slayer." <facepalm>

- - - Updated - - -


Where's the unlike button? :( Gah - half wonder if she/Whedon caved into the backlash. Just what we need Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 13: a new slayer is called... :down: :bang: :cussing:

And changed their entire plan for the show in 3 days because of reading some online comments? :roll: I don't think so.

vampmogs
26-07-18, 10:51 PM
Where's the unlike button? :( Gah - half wonder if she/Whedon caved into the backlash. Just what we need Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 13: a new slayer is called... :down: :bang: :cussing:

Why would this be Season 13 and not Season 1 of a brand new show? How is it any different than “Angel” being it’s own series? It’ll, most likely anyway, be set at least 15 years after the original show and feature all new characters.

I’m very happy about this. I do wonder based on David Furys comments if they’re going to have this new Slayer changer her name to “Buffy” because she’s inspired by her legacy or something. That way they get to call it
“Buffy”, keep the name recognition, but also tell a story about a new character. I personally hope they don’t.

I’m really happy about this. If you asked me what I wanted more than anything it would’ve been a revival with all of the original cast. Even if it were just a miniseries. But this is the next best thing - new story set in the same world.

Mylie
27-07-18, 12:30 AM
I was already okay with the reboot but this is actually making me even more excited, it being in the same universe. I'm hoping they'll reference some stuff, not too much because it has to stand on its own, but it could be fun to have mentions of bid bads that Buffy has defeated, etc.

KingofCretins
27-07-18, 01:07 AM
Where's the unlike button? :( Gah - half wonder if she/Whedon caved into the backlash. Just what we need Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 13: a new slayer is called... :down: :bang: :cussing:

I'll be honest, that's my bet. And sometimes you cave in to fan feedback or you have no market. I think their best bet at this point is a soft-reset (i.e. retcon out part or all of the comics) and a continuation. There is only one context in which they can tell stories about Buffy the Vampire Slayer with their new Slayer who isn't Buffy without it being a Thing that they wouldn't cast a POC as Buffy, is for her stories to exist in a universe where there already is Buffy. Much smarter and welcoming to the existing fanbase. And obviously opportunes both guest appearances or maybe even a regular role for former series regulars and a chance to do a new take on "what happened next?", varied in whole or in part from the comic continuation.

Hell, just a couple hours ago I was thinking of long gone Mabus' eager and ambitious fic series "Deadwar" in which the centerpiece was that Buffy herself was killed and raised a vampire and was the main villain of the thing. I don't think I'd actually like that, but I also don't know how much I would hate it, but mostly because of the "SMG chomping on scenery as a vampire queen of some sort" potential. POINT BEING, if they have come to the immediate sense of doing this in the extant canon, than it would be foolish to think we won't get some character continuity along the way. Hell, I don't mind if SMG just wears a hoody and sunglasses and bumps into the girl dropping Mr. Pointy in her bag and walks off.

Double Dutchess
27-07-18, 01:10 AM
I was already okay with the reboot but this is actually making me even more excited, it being in the same universe. I'm hoping they'll reference some stuff, not too much because it has to stand on its own, but it could be fun to have mentions of bid bads that Buffy has defeated, etc.

Same here, old Buffy with new actors: No; new Slayer: Yes! I can't imagine loving it more than the original, but I do like the idea.

Btw welcome Mylie!

HowiMetdaSlayer
27-07-18, 01:11 AM
And changed their entire plan for the show in 3 days because of reading some online comments? :roll: I don't think so.
What rock have you been living under the last 10 years or so?! :confused: Of course it's possible, and even probable. However, even if this was her original intent. I still hate the idea with the heat of a nova! The 'canon' post season 5 sucks! Which is what we're pretty much gonna be stuck with in any kinda continuation. I'd rather they just do a reboot/re-imagining of the original concept & core scoobs. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm hoping against hope that this will be some kinda different era or better yet different timeline (like new Star Treks). One where the new (and only) slayer, watcher and friends will live in a world that's largely unaware of the supernatural (and previous Buffy seasons/era). If it's just a continuation then I highly doubt that I'll like the show. I mean, I'll try to go in with an open mind. However, the post S5 'canon' will be a HUGE dead weight to overcome. Plus, I think, if they did cave to pressure. Then I think that they'll be shackled to the 'canon' and fan's expectations. Which will just cripple them creatively. There's an old quote in sports: If you listen to the fans, you'll be sitting up there with them. Think that that applies to TV as well. Kinda ironic in a way. All these fans so acrimonious over the concept of a black buffy and change to their precious series. Saying that they might not even watch the new version. So now they've pretty much got what they wanted. However, in doing so, they may have just condemned it to an early grave/cancellation by taking away the means for the new series to thrive. Which brings up another old quote: When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers. :rain:

TimeTravellingBunny
27-07-18, 01:30 AM
What rock have you been living under the last 10 years or so?! :confused: Of course it's possible, and even probable.
I've been living on a rock called Earth, where TV projects are normally in development for a bit longer than 3 days. And no one changes their entire plan for a project over a space of 50 hours because of a few tweets.

Methinks fans whining and complaining about everything on Twitter have gotten it into their heads they're a bit more important than they are, and somehow that idea has started to catch on. :confused: Reality check - people who whine loudly about things on Twitter are usually just about 5% of the fandom and 0.5% of the general public, anyway.

bespangled
27-07-18, 01:45 AM
Dave Fury says it will have a new cast and be set in the B_verse. It could be called Daphne the vampire slayer, but the slayer will be named after Buffy - https://www.facebook.com/david.fury.37/posts/10160798619940531

Monica Breen is making the same statement - New 'Buffy' Showrunner Addresses Reboot Backlash (http://https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/new-buffy-showrunner-addresses-reboot-backlash-1130011?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%20Live%20Feed%20Alerts_now_2018-07-26%2010:01:35_lgoldberg&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_livefeed)

"For some genre writers, it's Star Wars. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my Star Wars. Before I became a writer, I was a fan. For seven seasons, I watched Buffy Summers grow up, find love, kill that love. I watched her fight, and struggle and slay," she wrote. "There is only one Buffy. One Xander, one Willow, Giles, Cordelia, Oz, Tara, Kendra, Faith, Spike, Angel … They can't be replaced. Joss Whedon's brilliant and beautiful series can't be replicated. I wouldn't try to. But here we are, 20 years later … and the world seems a lot scarier. So maybe, it could be time to meet a new Slayer … And that's all I can say."

American Aurora
27-07-18, 02:43 AM
TimeTravellingBunny:


I've been living on a rock called Earth, where TV projects are normally in development for a bit longer than 3 days. And no one changes their entire plan for a project over a space of 50 hours because of a few tweets.

That's possible. But nothing's in development at all yet - there's no date, there's no network, there's no distributor. The ink on the contracts is still wet and the show's barely a kernel in terms of concept. All that's really been purchased is the Buffy name at this point to create a bidding war. As someone who works in a similar industry (theater) and knows a few writers who work in television, I assume that most likely there's not much more written down than a one-page idea or concept and a few ideas rolling around in Whedon's head. The name alone sells the product.

It's not that they're changing their minds - they probably hadn't even decided on whether to have a direct reboot or a continuation and the strong reaction from the fans has thrown them a bit. The new showrunner's statement certainly sounds like generic corporate blather to reassure fans she's not going to ruin the show. "There's only one Buffy" sounds like it came straight out of a PR office. It's straight-up damage control speak - and I say this as someone who worked in PR for years.

At the moment, they're trying to attract network/corporate dollars by pushing the new "reboot" concept - the negative pushback by fans is detrimental to that objective. The meta-narrative is everything with a project like this - I've seen creators change their minds on a dime as the meta-narrative surrounding the show turns sour.

In the end, only money counts. And in a social media age, fans are a large component of that. The days when creators could isolate themselves from their audience is over.

TimeTravellingBunny
27-07-18, 03:15 AM
In the end, only money counts. And in a social media age, fans are a large component of that. The days when creators could isolate themselves from their audience is over.
I think they very much can isolate themselves from a tiny vocal minority complaining or making demands on Twitter on any subject, since these kinds of vocal fans who tweet angry stuff at creators or the cast are usually not representative of the public as a whole.

Fans on Twitter can run a dozen campaigns asking for Bucky Barnes to be Captain America's boyfriend rather than best friend in canon, and does Kevin Feige care?.Apparently, not in the slightest. If he thought the mohies would earn more money that way, I'm sure he would do it, but he probably thinks it's the opposite - since a bunch of fans campaigning on Twitter is not typical of world wide audiences as a whole.

Although there are cases of TV shows that did fundamentally change course due to what the creators perceived as fan wishes, but that turned out to be an awful idea - Arrow's declined ratings and loss of popularity after season 2 shows that making everything about servicing a particularly loud and rabid portion of the famdom is likely to alienate the rest of the audience.

HardlyThere
27-07-18, 03:27 AM
TimeTravellingBunny:



That's possible. But nothing's in development at all yet - there's no date, there's no network, there's no distributor. The ink on the contracts is still wet and the show's barely a kernel in terms of concept. All that's really been purchased is the Buffy name at this point to create a bidding war. As someone who works in a similar industry (theater) and knows a few writers who work in television, I assume that most likely there's not much more written down than a one-page idea or concept and a few ideas rolling around in Whedon's head. The name alone sells the product.

It's not that they're changing their minds - they probably hadn't even decided on whether to have a direct reboot or a continuation and the strong reaction from the fans has thrown them a bit. The new showrunner's statement certainly sounds like generic corporate blather to reassure fans she's not going to ruin the show. "There's only one Buffy" sounds like it came straight out of a PR office. It's straight-up damage control speak - and I say this as someone who worked in PR for years.

At the moment, they're trying to attract network/corporate dollars by pushing the new "reboot" concept - the negative pushback by fans is detrimental to that objective. The meta-narrative is everything with a project like this - I've seen creators change their minds on a dime as the meta-narrative surrounding the show turns sour.

In the end, only money counts. And in a social media age, fans are a large component of that. The days when creators could isolate themselves from their audience is over.

Exactly. There was no plan. They even say that in the original article that there was no plan other than "reboot Buffy with a POC".

- - - Updated - - -

It's better news. Though I'm not sure how they can make it work given Chosen. I suppose they could set it 15 years later and "reboot" that ending, ie, hand wave it away or pretend it never happened at all.

vampmogs
27-07-18, 08:08 AM
I don't really think this is a case of a 'vocal minority.' The response has been overwhelmingly negative. If it hadn't been then they wouldn't have felt the need to even address it at all. And remember that it was this same negative reaction that shelved the Buffy reboot movie a while back so a backlash can absolutely have an impact.

TimeTravellingBunny
27-07-18, 10:29 AM
I don't really think this is a case of a 'vocal minority.' The response has been overwhelmingly negative. If it hadn't been then they wouldn't have felt the need to even address it at all. And remember that it was this same negative reaction that shelved the Buffy reboot movie a while back so a backlash can absolutely have an impact.

Hold on a moment. Are you all here seriously suggesting that this is the most likely scenario:

- Joss and a bunch of other people come together one day and say "hey, let's make a Buffy remake! You know, all with the same characters and story, but other actors! And maybe we make Buffy black!"

- But, they are unsure how it will go with the fans and the public, and they decide to test the waters.

- Since they live under a rock and have no contact with any actual real life people ever, they decide that the best way to test the waters is to release the news about "Buffy reboot" into the public and watch the reactions. Because that's the best way these days to get your feedback. Just like they used to have test audiences etc.

- They scan Internet for reactions and go: "Abort! Abort! Our remake idea is not popular! What do we do? I know, how about a new Slayer?"

:headscratch:

I'm sorry, but that sounds entirely ridiculous to me.

How about - they've been planning that/thinking about that for a while (because no one just decides to announce something the moment they got the idea and talked about it to someone else) and they already must have some idea what people would or would not want to see and what would make sense to do, so they always intended it to be a different story about a Slayer, inspired by the original story, but never intended to be a remake. Then when they saw so many people for some reason assuming it's a remake, the new showrunner decided to answer that on her social media?

vampmogs
27-07-18, 10:46 AM
Hold on a moment. Are you all here seriously suggesting that this is the most likely scenario:

I'm suggesting that you shouldn't be so dismissive of the backlash and refer to it as being a 'vocal minority' when, IMO, it's clearly anything but, and when this exact same backlash caused the reboot movie to be shelved. History has taught us that a backlash can and has been taken seriously before - so seriously that it even stopped the project all together.

Now, I don't think that'll ever happen again. This project is going ahead in one form or another no matter what. I don't think FOX or anyone else involved would have announced anything to the media if they weren't adamant that the project was happening. They've also taken the necessary steps to try and appease fans (and the original writers & actors who were vocally against the movie reboot) by ensuring that they include Whedon. But I think you're perhaps being a little naive to think that these people don't intentionally drop tidbits into the media in hopes of gaging what kind of reception they're getting. Why do you think the Fox Exec mentioned it to the media sometime ago about how ripe Buffy was for a reboot or revival of some sort?

If they weren't interested in testing the audience reaction then they would have most likely waited to announce this when the project was a little further along. They made a point of emphasising in the original announcement that the project was in the very early stages of development and that how exactly it is going to take form is still to be decided. That leaves them with enough wiggle room to make changes without looking like they're in retreat.

My personal guess is that they were/are toying with the idea of having this new Slayer take over the mantle of "Buffy" similar to S8's The Chain, which Joss wrote, as I found David Fury's comments about the reboot a little peculiar. I don't think she'd be recruited by Buffy like the decoy Slayer was in Season 8 but that she'd name herself "Buffy" after being inspired by Buffy's legacy. His comments about her "adapting the mantle of Buffy as a homage" are way too out of left field and oddly specific for him not to know something that we don't. Whether or not they're still going with that idea or are backing away from the "Buffy" name entirely, I'm not sure.

Ahm Shere
27-07-18, 11:21 AM
I personally hate the idea of a rebooted Buffy, because, from my understanding of it all, it's a complete reboot. This is what I don't want to happen. I was so angry when I found out about it. I wouldn't mind a continuation of the original Buffy, same universe, not necessarily same characters. New Slayer? I'm down for that, Buffy couldn't be The Slayer forever. To do a complete reboot of the show though is just a smack in the face to the devoted fans of the original series. It's still relevant in today's society, I think. I can still watch it today and the storylines and topics still resonate with me.


History has taught us that a backlash can and has been taken seriously before - so seriously that it even stopped the project altogether.

I agree with this. There was a film project this month in Hollywood, that is looking extremely likely to be shelved due to a huge backlash from the transgender community (mainly). So I wholeheartedly agree. A huge amount of backlash can 100% have a project shelved. I'm not saying I'd want Buffy to be shelved unless it was a full reboot of the show. I'd be more than happy to see some form of continuation.

HardlyThere
27-07-18, 11:56 AM
I'm suggesting that you shouldn't be so dismissive of the backlash and refer to it as being a 'vocal minority' when, IMO, it's clearly anything but, and when this exact same backlash caused the reboot movie to be shelved. History has taught us that a backlash can and has been taken seriously before - so seriously that it even stopped the project all together.

Now, I don't think that'll ever happen again. This project is going ahead in one form or another no matter what. I don't think FOX or anyone else involved would have announced anything to the media if they weren't adamant that the project was happening. They've also taken the necessary steps to try and appease fans (and the original writers & actors who were vocally against the movie reboot) by ensuring that they include Whedon. But I think you're perhaps being a little naive to think that these people don't intentionally drop tidbits into the media in hopes of gaging what kind of reception they're getting. Why do you think the Fox Exec mentioned it to the media sometime ago about how ripe Buffy was for a reboot or revival of some sort?

If they weren't interested in testing the audience reaction then they would have most likely waited to announce this when the project was a little further along. They made a point of emphasising in the original announcement that the project was in the very early stages of development and that how exactly it is going to take form is still to be decided. That leaves them with enough wiggle room to make changes without looking like they're in retreat.

My personal guess is that they were/are toying with the idea of having this new Slayer take over the mantle of "Buffy" similar to S8's The Chain, which Joss wrote, as I found David Fury's comments about the reboot a little peculiar. I don't think she'd be recruited by Buffy like the decoy Slayer was in Season 8 but that she'd name herself "Buffy" after being inspired by Buffy's legacy. His comments about her "adapting the mantle of Buffy as a homage" are way too out of left field and oddly specific for him not to know something that we don't. Whether or not they're still going with that idea or are backing away from the "Buffy" name entirely, I'm not sure.

Agreed. Re-anythings are highly divisive endeavors and studios increasingly know it. They would not have used that phrase if it wasn't their intent. They put it out there to see how it would go and now they know what people don't want. It doesn't sound like anything was scrapped because there was nothing to scrap.

Have to say this using Buffy's name thing sounds absolutely ridiculous. It was high level stupid in the comics and even more stupid in this. Is "Buffy" the new "007"? Jeez, just have it be one of the called girls and do it like the MCU/AoS. Buffy and everyone else are out there somewhere, but have this series focused on one Slayer, preferably in an interesting locale.

vampmogs
27-07-18, 12:17 PM
Have to say this using Buffy's name thing sounds absolutely ridiculous. It was high level stupid in the comics and even more stupid in this. Is "Buffy" the new "007"? Jeez, just have it be one of the called girls and do it like the MCU/AoS. Buffy and everyone else are out there somewhere, but have this series focused on one Slayer, preferably in an interesting locale.

I think in the comics it worked because the Slayers were literally posing as Buffy to act as decoys. And I liked the ethical questions it raised by using such methods to put targets on other girl's backs. I just think the premise would have a lot of limitations for the TV reboot. I mean, surely it's something this new Slayer would have to outgrow eventually, right? You'd think that part of her journey of empowerment would be reclaiming her own name/identity and finding power in it. So what would they do if they named the revival/reboot "Buffy" but then somewhere down the line this new Slayer stopped calling herself Buffy at all? It seems like it's a premise that wouldn't have a lot of legs. It would also confuse a lot of casual fans who would assume it was just a reboot - if they named the show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" that is. I have no idea if they'd do that.

Klaus Kartoffel
27-07-18, 12:27 PM
Hold on a moment. Are you all here seriously suggesting that this is the most likely scenario:

- Joss and a bunch of other people come together one day and say "hey, let's make a Buffy remake! You know, all with the same characters and story, but other actors! And maybe we make Buffy black!"

- But, they are unsure how it will go with the fans and the public, and they decide to test the waters.

- Since they live under a rock and have no contact with any actual real life people ever, they decide that the best way to test the waters is to release the news about "Buffy reboot" into the public and watch the reactions. Because that's the best way these days to get your feedback. Just like they used to have test audiences etc.

- They scan Internet for reactions and go: "Abort! Abort! Our remake idea is not popular! What do we do? I know, how about a new Slayer?"

:headscratch:

I'm sorry, but that sounds entirely ridiculous to me.

How about - they've been planning that/thinking about that for a while (because no one just decides to announce something the moment they got the idea and talked about it to someone else) and they already must have some idea what people would or would not want to see and what would make sense to do, so they always intended it to be a different story about a Slayer, inspired by the original story, but never intended to be a remake. Then when they saw so many people for some reason assuming it's a remake, the new showrunner decided to answer that on her social media?

*blush* At risk of being entirely ridiculous, that actually sounds exactly like a likely scenario to me (maybe not "most" likely).

Why rehash old material in the first place? Because it's a safe, time-proved way to make money if you bother to orientate along audience's feedback; and the contemporary consuments of art are extremely conservative these days.

HardlyThere
27-07-18, 12:33 PM
I think in the comics it worked because the Slayers were literally posing as Buffy to act as decoys. And I liked the ethical questions it raised by using such methods to put targets on other girl's backs. I just think the premise would have a lot of limitations for the TV reboot. I mean, surely it's something this new Slayer would have to outgrow eventually, right? You'd think that part of her journey of empowerment would be reclaiming her own name/identity and finding power in it. So what would they do if they named the revival/reboot "Buffy" but then somewhere down the line this new Slayer stopped calling herself Buffy at all? It seems like it's a premise that wouldn't have a lot of legs. It would also confuse a lot of casual fans who would assume it was just a reboot - if they named the show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" that is. I have no idea if they'd do that.

Nah, it was stupid because A.) It would be completely ineffective in a world with locator spells and B.) Since real Buffy made no attempt to hide her bank-robbing self at all, it would never work and C.) For any of them to go along with an Andrew plan... Makes no sense. All it did was throw the character's integrity under the bus so Whedon could undo TGIQ and fap to castles and rayguns.

This would have all of that dumbness, plus, you know, it's supposed to be a POC. Thanks for reminding me why Whedon should be barred from the writer's room if this goes forward. Breen claims to be a fan so we can presume she watched the show. She's got a leg up on him already.

KingofCretins
27-07-18, 01:07 PM
Doesn't sound implausible in the slightest to me -- that first announcement was of a premise, but something that was still in the alpha, even pre-alpha stage. They weren't committed to anything content wise. Game developers do this all the time, their first trial balloon lands with a wet thud and suddenly they pivot completely into a new direction.

Here, they could even have had this storyboarded out as far as "[Slayer] and her friends [Friend1][Friend2] and her [Mentor] and she has [Parent], and they are all doing the thing", and the only thing switching from a relaunch of the title with a new Buffy to a continuation in the extant world in which Sarah is Buffy is... find+replace some names. Then probably some character details.

I don't think the show will be called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" anymore, clearly, but it will probably use a title similar to one or two others we've seen used in books of varying relevance -- "Slayer", "Tales of the Slayer", or perhaps there is something just woefully millennial they can stylize it as, etc.

flow
27-07-18, 02:00 PM
The new Slayer could be Robin`s daughter and he named her Buffy for sentimental reasons.

flow

TimeTravellingBunny
27-07-18, 02:13 PM
Doesn't sound implausible in the slightest to me -- that first announcement was of a premise, but something that was still in the alpha, even pre-alpha stage. They weren't committed to anything content wise. Game developers do this all the time, their first trial balloon lands with a wet thud and suddenly they pivot completely into a new direction.

Here, they could even have had this storyboarded out as far as "[Slayer] and her friends [Friend1][Friend2] and her [Mentor] and she has [Parent], and they are all doing the thing", and the only thing switching from a relaunch of the title with a new Buffy to a continuation in the extant world in which Sarah is Buffy is... find+replace some names. Then probably some character details.

So... it would be completely different characters with different names and backgrounds and a bunch of other things, but if the Slayer has a Watcher, some friends and at least one parent, it is so incredibly similar that it is clearly a remake? :headscratch:

- - - Updated - - -




- - - Updated - - -

Oh god, really?? :lol:

https://www.change.org/p/joss-whedon-say-no-to-buffy-reboot-2018

"139 have signed. Let’s get to 200!"

Wow... powerful force. I'm sure that will get the studio to shelve the project. :1pet:

Klaus Kartoffel
27-07-18, 02:31 PM
So... it would be completely different characters with different names and backgrounds and a bunch of other things, but if the Slayer has a Watcher, some friends and at least one parent, it is so incredibly similar that it is clearly a remake? :headscratch:

Well, kind of? It's the same premise with a new coat of whitewash. Playing things safe like a good, well-behaved service contractor should.

KingofCretins
27-07-18, 03:15 PM
That bracketed off madlib of a synopsis wasn't random -- it equally describes the basic original template from which the existing Buffyverse leapt (i.e. the most likely template for a new!Buffy remake/reboot series) and a stepping off point for Rando the Vampire Slayer, a series about a new Slayer set in that existing universe but which will obviously require supporting characters unless they are doing "The Incredible Hulk". Point was that it is demonstrably easy to switch from one track to the other at this stage of development.

bespangled
27-07-18, 11:19 PM
The new Slayer could be Robin`s daughter and he named her Buffy for sentimental reasons.

flow

OMG - Robin and Faith had a daughter while working at the Cleveland hellmouth. They named her Buffy. Robin was killed (and became the angel on Lucifer) and Faith is a single mom as well as a slayer. I can live with that.

ghoststar
28-07-18, 04:32 AM
The new Slayer could be Robin`s daughter and he named her Buffy for sentimental reasons.

flow

Why would Robin do that, though? Further, why would Buffy appreciate it? Robin conspired with her Watcher to murder one of her friends, and never apologized for it. Buffy told him she'd let Spike kill him if he tried it again, to which he reacted with shock. Robin didn't throw his support behind her when the Scoobies defected (while living in her house) in "Empty Places," played no role in the Scythe plan, and generally had minimal interaction with Buffy from "Dirty Girls" forward.

bespangled
28-07-18, 06:46 AM
Why would Robin do that, though? Further, why would Buffy appreciate it? Robin conspired with her Watcher to murder one of her friends, and never apologized for it. Buffy told him she'd let Spike kill him if he tried it again, to which he reacted with shock. Robin didn't throw his support behind her when the Scoobies defected (while living in her house) in "Empty Places," played no role in the Scythe plan, and generally had minimal interaction with Buffy from "Dirty Girls" forward.

Which is why Faith is a single parent. She named her daughter Buffy after the chosen other so she could order Buffy around. Since no slayer mom ever had a slayer kid, Buffy was also not trained - except by her mother. Buffy was discovered and a watcher was sent - with some good tension between all 3 of them.

flow
28-07-18, 08:52 AM
Ghoststar: Buffy went to Robin for advice and comfort when she thought she was pregnant. He encouraged her to have the baby and they seemed to be on very friendly terms.

flow

Priceless
28-07-18, 09:34 AM
Ghoststar: Buffy went to Robin for advice and comfort when she thought she was pregnant. He encouraged her to have the baby and they seemed to be on very friendly terms.

flow

Yet she discounted his advice.

Personally I think either Robin or Faith naming their child 'Buffy' as eye rolling and simply not believable.

- - - Updated - - -

Michelle Tractenberg tweeted this in respones to Monica Owusu Breens tweet:

MichelleTrachtenberg
I think there is "one" influential character missing from this statement. Hold on. It's DAWNing on me.....Principle Snyder. That's it. There can only ever be one. Principle Snyder. ��

:lol:

Cheese Slices
28-07-18, 09:37 AM
Poor Michelle...love her sass though.

TimeTravellingBunny
28-07-18, 11:18 AM
Yet she discounted his advice.

Personally I think either Robin or Faith naming their child 'Buffy' as eye rolling and simply not believable.

- - - Updated - - -

Michelle Tractenberg tweeted this in respones to Monica Owusu Breens tweet:

MichelleTrachtenberg
I think there is "one" influential character missing from this statement. Hold on. It's DAWNing on me.....Principle Snyder. That's it. There can only ever be one. Principle Snyder. ��

:lol:

Anya was missing from the list, too.

Obviously, it was not an extensive list, but we can take a good guess which characters weren't among her favorites, so she forgot about them when writing that tweet.

ETA: Someone has replied to Monica Owusu-Breen hat she forgot Anya, and she replied "I suck! Yes, there is just one Anya!" and used an Anya gif in another tweet.

Priceless
28-07-18, 11:33 AM
ETA: Someone has replied to Monica Owusu-Breen hat she forgot Anya, and she replied "I suck! Yes, there is just one Anya!" and used an Anya gif in another tweet.


Didn't she put Xander first on the list . . . so she may have been working backwards :D

KingofCretins
28-07-18, 01:56 PM
In an extra sleight to Dawn or Anya, there have in fact been two Willows and three Xanders.

I'm buying the Faith/Wood set-up right up until either of them name their kid Buffy. A) neither of them actually would do this. B) There is no reason for either of them to do so. The girl doesn't have to be named Buffy at all if she isn't being put forward as the new James Bond edition of the Buffy character.

vampmogs
28-07-18, 02:02 PM
Yeah I must say that no matter how good of a relationship Buffy may have eventually formed with Faith I can't find any believable reason that Faith would ever call her child "Buffy" unless - and even then I'm not too sure - Buffy has died in between Chosen and the remake. And I definitely don't think they'd kill Buffy offscreen.

I also don't really like the idea of Faith's daughter being a Potential/Slayer. The way I've always understood it is that the girls are practically chosen at random. I'm not sure I like the idea of Slayer's child becoming a Slayer as well as if it's genetic or something. There's millions of girls all over the world. It'd be a crazy coincidence that Faith's daughter would also just so happen to be a Slayer. What are the odds?

Sosa lola
28-07-18, 03:00 PM
I'd rather the girl herself was not the daughter of an existing character we know and that her real name isn't Buffy but that she was inspired by the real Buffy and changed her name to Buffy or asked others to call her Buffy.

Priceless
28-07-18, 04:16 PM
I'd rather she wasn't called Buffy at all, and had her own name and identity. I'm still thinking they may simply disregard BtVS and made this new slayer The Chosen One, and if they also call her Buffy, we it might as well be a reboot

TimeTravellingBunny
28-07-18, 05:52 PM
I'd rather she wasn't called Buffy at all, and had her own name and identity. I'm still thinking they may simply disregard BtVS and made this new slayer The Chosen One, and if they also call her Buffy, we it might as well be a reboot

Every Slayer is the Chosen One, by definition.

Cheese Slices
28-07-18, 06:01 PM
If they set it up after the BTVS timeline, and if they do make references to Buffy & co, I really hope those will be inconsequential : easter eggs, small jokes, etc... and not the occasion to make significant changes to the show canon or characterisation...that would majorly piss me off :s

KingofCretins
28-07-18, 06:25 PM
Yeah I must say that no matter how good of a relationship Buffy may have eventually formed with Faith I can't find any believable reason that Faith would ever call her child "Buffy" unless - and even then I'm not too sure - Buffy has died in between Chosen and the remake. And I definitely don't think they'd kill Buffy offscreen.

I also don't really like the idea of Faith's daughter being a Potential/Slayer. The way I've always understood it is that the girls are practically chosen at random. I'm not sure I like the idea of Slayer's child becoming a Slayer as well as if it's genetic or something. There's millions of girls all over the world. It'd be a crazy coincidence that Faith's daughter would also just so happen to be a Slayer. What are the odds?

Pretty astronomical to the point of triteness, but it's exactly the sort of endearing triteness that fans will lap up in spite of themselves if it's what they are actually handed. I mean, little Joyce would have the same, even more, emotional cache at least among those that ever heard of her.

Priceless
28-07-18, 06:34 PM
Every Slayer is the Chosen One, by definition.

You're right :D She may be The Chosen One of Thousands and not just The Chosen One of One.

HardlyThere
28-07-18, 06:59 PM
Yeah I must say that no matter how good of a relationship Buffy may have eventually formed with Faith I can't find any believable reason that Faith would ever call her child "Buffy" unless - and even then I'm not too sure - Buffy has died in between Chosen and the remake. And I definitely don't think they'd kill Buffy offscreen.

I also don't really like the idea of Faith's daughter being a Potential/Slayer. The way I've always understood it is that the girls are practically chosen at random. I'm not sure I like the idea of Slayer's child becoming a Slayer as well as if it's genetic or something. There's millions of girls all over the world. It'd be a crazy coincidence that Faith's daughter would also just so happen to be a Slayer. What are the odds?

Yeah, it's too fanficcy. Their best bet is a completely different group of characters in a completely different location--not friggin' Cleveland, either.

The problem, I suppose, is coming up with a connective title that places it in the Buffy universe without any hints of Buffy. I wonder if Whedon now regrets not calling it Slayer like some of the suits wanted. Now that they're not recasting her, there is no not lame explanation for the character to be called that. Me, I think they should just call the show "Chosen". You get the theme of the show and the tie-in to the BTVS all in one.

flow
28-07-18, 07:53 PM
Yeah, but you could also call it Waltraud the Vampire Slayer, if you want to. It just takes some guts. The old fans will easily make the connection to Buffy, the Vampire the Slayer and for the new fans the connection isn`t important anyway.

flow

I picked Waltraud randomly. It could of course be any other name...

Cheese Slices
28-07-18, 08:36 PM
What name is Waltraud, though ? :confused:

Priceless
28-07-18, 10:28 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjN8afOX4AEGRjy.jpg:large

By comic artist Stephen Byrne

Double Dutchess
28-07-18, 11:01 PM
That is awesome! I also loved that great Buffy animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bnbxP6HHMY) he made.

Priceless
28-07-18, 11:17 PM
That is awesome! I also loved that great Buffy animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bnbxP6HHMY) he made.

I've seen this before but didn't realise it was done by the same guy! Isn't it great? I'd have loved to see this used as an intro to a real animated series.

vampmogs
28-07-18, 11:42 PM
That art is amazing!!

I think they should just call it "[insert name] the Vampire Slayer." I agree with flow that it's the easiest way of linking the new series up with the original show but also still setting it apart at the same time.

TriBel
29-07-18, 12:05 AM
:lol:I looked and thought - "Bloody hell - that's a big pencil in her bag!"....then realised it's the end of the scythe! :rotf:

Other than the pseudo-pencil - I love it!

HardlyThere
29-07-18, 03:44 AM
Yeah, but you could also call it Waltraud the Vampire Slayer, if you want to. It just takes some guts. The old fans will easily make the connection to Buffy, the Vampire the Slayer and for the new fans the connection isn`t important anyway.

flow

I picked Waltraud randomly. It could of course be any other name...

See, that's just too on the nose for me. If you want to make it it's own thing and not just a Buffy sequel, you have to kinda shy away from direct correlations both in name and in style. Like the Faith spinoff was premised to be a kinda proto-Supernatural/Kung Fu sort of thing. No recurring metaphors, you know? No high school = hell, no hellmouths and stuff like that. If you go that route, you're just redoing Buffy. I'd like to see something with a slayer but completely different. I mean, you take Byrne's art there and it looks nice...but it's just the cover for one of the old Buffy comics.

Priceless
29-07-18, 08:42 AM
See, that's just too on the nose for me. If you want to make it it's own thing and not just a Buffy sequel, you have to kinda shy away from direct correlations both in name and in style. Like the Faith spinoff was premised to be a kinda proto-Supernatural/Kung Fu sort of thing. No recurring metaphors, you know? No high school = hell, no hellmouths and stuff like that. If you go that route, you're just redoing Buffy. I'd like to see something with a slayer but completely different. I mean, you take Byrne's art there and it looks nice...but it's just the cover for one of the old Buffy comics.

I disagree about the art, I think it's wonderful. But I do agree that if they call it 'Whatever The Vampire Slayer' and set it in high school, you might as well do a reboot because that's what it's going to be, with all the school is hell metaphors. I'm still thinking they are going to wipe out everything Buffy-related, because I don't think a new slayer being one of thousands is interesting as a story and she has to be the only one.

TriBel
29-07-18, 09:12 AM
See, that's just too on the nose for me. If you want to make it it's own thing and not just a Buffy sequel, you have to kinda shy away from direct correlations both in name and in style. Like the Faith spinoff was premised to be a kinda proto-Supernatural/Kung Fu sort of thing. No recurring metaphors, you know? No high school = hell, no hellmouths and stuff like that. If you go that route, you're just redoing Buffy. I'd like to see something with a slayer but completely different. I mean, you take Byrne's art there and it looks nice...but it's just the cover for one of the old Buffy comics.

Take your point but the old format worked well so - if it's not broken, why fix it? There are a lot more people out there who haven't seen BtVS than established fans. If I was an exec, I'd keep as much as I could (not necessarily mirror the story lines) but update it and move it into an urban setting (easier to accommodate multiculturalism).

In fact - and no-one's explained to me why this isn't feasible - why not take the Giles mini as a starting off point? I thought this was a possibility at the time of its release. There was no crossover with BtVS or Angel (just Will's voice). If we work on the presumption that we keep young Giles (I'm sure there's something S12 is not telling us) then you have a conduit for the past. The comics become part of the mythology and Giles can drip feed enough of it into the present to ensure there's no major conflict. It enables occasional visits (the opening of temporary portals etc) from any of the characters left alive at the end of 12. If Harmony is right and Xander/Dawn are both still in this dimension, they can feature (on a variable basis) in the new. Hell, Giles could even be working on a way to bring characters back. They could - if the actors were available - bring the old vamps back (it only needs them to have been in a dimension where they've aged). Make the right sort of connections with the past and it could boost sales of the original comics and add to the audience of any new ones. In addition - prompt the release of a blu-ray of both the old series.

I think it's genius - and Roux is exactly what's needed for the Trump era. As watcher/slayer/vampire she blurs boundaries (which is what the comics AND the original series were working towards). She's rooted in a real history. She may be bi. Hell - they could temporarily send her into the future where she becomes Will's girl friend (making sense of Will's cryptic remark at the end of S11 about a lesbian vampire with a soul. Ha...Harmony said Will was lonely - make Will less lonely and perhaps she doesn't go dark). In this timeline, she's Giles' girl-friend - nice twist on the love triangle.

Pricey - just tweet Disney - tell them it's sorted.:xd

DeepBlueJoy
29-07-18, 09:38 AM
I've been living on a rock called Earth, where TV projects are normally in development for a bit longer than 3 days. And no one changes their entire plan for a project over a space of 50 hours because of a few tweets.

Methinks fans whining and complaining about everything on Twitter have gotten it into their heads they're a bit more important than they are, and somehow that idea has started to catch on. :confused: Reality check - people who whine loudly about things on Twitter are usually just about 5% of the fandom and 0.5% of the general public, anyway.

If you're faced with a million dollar investment going down in flames, you do what you must.

If you are faced with bad press to the point where you have active opposition of your core, inbuilt fanbase -- a fanbase that is probably more rabid at this point than the Star Trek fanbase was 15 years after that show went off the air. We have the internet. They had zines and 'tiny conventions' (that grew) -- we have a complete SYSTEM of fandom and active communities worldwide. We can make headlines within days. We can launch change.org petitions online. When Angel was in danger of being canceled, the net was (compared to now, anyway) in its infancy, and it did make a difference with the campaign they ran, mostly offline. At this point, we have organized communities online with thousands of fans -- and more in the wings who aren't quite as active, but who still have very definite opinions. These are the people the finance guys are hoping will come aboard and feed excitement about the new series.

We can be heard by the new show creators, the old show creators AND those FINANCING any future endeavor.

There has been universal negativity about the reboot/rehash whatever it was/is/might be/might have been. Before a series is actually in production, a lot can change. They don't have a cast. They don't have scripts. Financing will still be in flux and it is my theory that the financial folks made a difference to the original series too... tempering Whedon with 'reality' and reining in his 'crazy', something I believe he needs.

Regarding changes, Buffy itself made an original first episode, and between that episode and the first episode broadcast, they recast Willow and made other significant changes. This isn't unique. NCIS the show that we got had a very different cast and look compared to the back door pilot created in JAG. You could see familiar flavors, but the meal was quite different.

No, fans won't ever be able to get everything they want (partly because many of us want different things anyway). The tendency to ignore us is there... but we only have to look at 'me too' to realize that sometimes an idea is ready to catch fire. That idea was around in one form or another for a while. Then 'suddenly' it went viral. Pissed off women are a thing right now! And who is the majority of our fanbase? Women. Mostly women young enough to be computer savvy, but old enough to be resourceful. Some of us have money we might not have had when the show was on. Buying power matters. The kids some of us have that are coming to an age where they might want a new female hero who isn't living in a gladiator society (hunger games). Buffy the next gen as a family friendly but edgy activity is just the thing!

People who know I'm a Buffy fan have been contacting me about the fan reaction over the new series -- people who don't give a fig about Buffy. So it is getting attention outside the fandom. If random people are noticing, you can be sure that the FINANCIERS are noticing. They want to make money. It's part of why they agreed to this idea in the first place. If they have a built in fury of the fans they were counting on drawing in, they know they will be pushing a boulder up a hill, with a fanbase millstone tied around their necks. The truth is that MOST new shows fail and fail spectacularly. Why make a show that is derivative if you KNOW that nearly all the 'built in' fandom will hate it?

If it were my money, I'd be making phone calls to the show runners and suggesting that they rethink their plans. If they do, they will have TWO things in their favor:

1) They will be seen to have listened to the fans and fans love being listened to.
2) They will give the built in fans what they wanted for years... there's a pent up store of goodwill for that continuation that never happened. Right now, the bad publicity is fueling attention. If they do the 'right thing'? That will be solid gold.

Why fight us when they can cash in? Why NOT be lazy?

If they respect the original shows, they also have the potential support and participation of the original participants... if those people start speaking glowingly (instead of thru gritted teeth) and some of them can excite fans by tiny cameos (I love the idea of Buffy dropping Mr. Pointy into the back of the 'new girl'.) suddenly there's a groundswell of support in all corners for the return of the Buffy idea.

Blue

Edit: and no, I have no actual idea what is actually happening with the whole business. I didn't state any of my thoughts as fact, just possibility. I know as much as everyone else, which is whatever they put out there in the 'news'. All I am saying is that it is possible for us fans (sorry and irrelevant people that the handful of us are) to make an impression on the powers that be.

KingofCretins
29-07-18, 12:31 PM
In fact - and no-one's explained to me why this isn't feasible - why not take the Giles mini as a starting off point?

Because than the show starts off with a target audience the size of a fairly robust D&D campaign?

I mean, that's a book that seems to have self-evidently been elbowed into the wall by other comics, I'd say it's the least likely of any of them to find its central plot as a fingerhold for the property's return to television.

Find it much more likely that the entirety of what we just spent 11 years reading is going to be bounced, comparatively speaking. There might be some broad summary version of it that "happened" in order to set this Slayer up as being once again a very rare example (i.e. something undoes empowerment spell, or it fades, etc -- something ludicrously arch and polemic in its attempts most likely), but without any characters present and regular from the prior series to this one, there wouldn't be anyone to exposit it, or in fact anyone to exposit it to.

TriBel
29-07-18, 12:38 PM
Because than the show starts off with a target audience the size of a fairly robust D&D campaign?

I mean, that's a book that seems to have self-evidently been elbowed into the wall by other comics, I'd say it's the least likely of any of them to find its central plot as a fingerhold for the property's return to television.

Find it much more likely that the entirety of what we just spent 11 years reading is going to be bounced, comparatively speaking. There might be some broad summary version of it that "happened" in order to set this Slayer up as being once again a very rare example (i.e. something undoes empowerment spell, or it fades, etc -- something ludicrously arch and polemic in its attempts most likely), but without any characters present and regular from the prior series to this one, there wouldn't be anyone to exposit it, or in fact anyone to exposit it to.

But in essence the mini doesn't HAVE a plot (or at least not one people can easily follow). It's not as if the Buffy film went down well with the critics. Ideologically/aesthetically, she's right on the button.

And...if you mean "elbowed" by S12...we still don't know how that'll be resolved.

TimeTravellingBunny
29-07-18, 01:03 PM
If you're faced with a million dollar investment going down in flames, you do what you must.

If you are faced with bad press to the point where you have active opposition of your core, inbuilt fanbase -- a fanbase that is probably more rabid at this point than the Star Trek fanbase was 15 years after that show went off the air. We have the internet. They had zines and 'tiny conventions' (that grew) -- we have a complete SYSTEM of fandom and active communities worldwide. We can make headlines within days. We can launch change.org petitions online. When Angel was in danger of being canceled, the net was (compared to now, anyway) in its infancy, and it did make a difference with the campaign they ran, mostly offline. At this point, we have organized communities online with thousands of fans -- and more in the wings who aren't quite as active, but who still have very definite opinions. These are the people the finance guys are hoping will come aboard and feed excitement about the new series.

We can be heard by the new show creators, the old show creators AND those FINANCING any future endeavor.

There has been universal negativity about the reboot/rehash whatever it was/is/might be/might have been. Before a series is actually in production, a lot can change. They don't have a cast. They don't have scripts. Financing will still be in flux and it is my theory that the financial folks made a difference to the original series too... tempering Whedon with 'reality' and reining in his 'crazy', something I believe he needs.

Regarding changes, Buffy itself made an original first episode, and between that episode and the first episode broadcast, they recast Willow and made other significant changes. This isn't unique. NCIS the show that we got had a very different cast and look compared to the back door pilot created in JAG. You could see familiar flavors, but the meal was quite different.

No, fans won't ever be able to get everything they want (partly because many of us want different things anyway). The tendency to ignore us is there... but we only have to look at 'me too' to realize that sometimes an idea is ready to catch fire. That idea was around in one form or another for a while. Then 'suddenly' it went viral. Pissed off women are a thing right now! And who is the majority of our fanbase? Women. Mostly women young enough to be computer savvy, but old enough to be resourceful. Some of us have money we might not have had when the show was on. Buying power matters. The kids some of us have that are coming to an age where they might want a new female hero who isn't living in a gladiator society (hunger games). Buffy the next gen as a family friendly but edgy activity is just the thing!

People who know I'm a Buffy fan have been contacting me about the fan reaction over the new series -- people who don't give a fig about Buffy. So it is getting attention outside the fandom. If random people are noticing, you can be sure that the FINANCIERS are noticing. They want to make money. It's part of why they agreed to this idea in the first place. If they have a built in fury of the fans they were counting on drawing in, they know they will be pushing a boulder up a hill, with a fanbase millstone tied around their necks. The truth is that MOST new shows fail and fail spectacularly. Why make a show that is derivative if you KNOW that nearly all the 'built in' fandom will hate it?

If it were my money, I'd be making phone calls to the show runners and suggesting that they rethink their plans. If they do, they will have TWO things in their favor:

1) They will be seen to have listened to the fans and fans love being listened to.
2) They will give the built in fans what they wanted for years... there's a pent up store of goodwill for that continuation that never happened. Right now, the bad publicity is fueling attention. If they do the 'right thing'? That will be solid gold.

Why fight us when they can cash in? Why NOT be lazy?

If they respect the original shows, they also have the potential support and participation of the original participants... if those people start speaking glowingly (instead of thru gritted teeth) and some of them can excite fans by tiny cameos (I love the idea of Buffy dropping Mr. Pointy into the back of the 'new girl'.) suddenly there's a groundswell of support in all corners for the return of the Buffy idea.

Blue

Jesus. You wrote all that, and even started talking about MeToo (because that has so much to do with this issue?! The comparison is something you think makes sense?!) just to justify the idea that they definitely were planning a remake 3 days ago (we know it, from our crystal ball) and changed their minds in 70 hours because of a bad fan response? (Including that change.org petition that was signed by less than 140 people last time I checked.) Because they apparently don't live on Earth and wouldn't have already realised that it would be a bad idea and that no one would like it, so they needed to test it on the Internet to get any idea what humans of Earth like?

If you want to believe that, as the more likely scenario rather than the one where it was never meant to be a remaje (especially since no one ever said it was), go on. It's not like there is proof either way.

Priceless
29-07-18, 01:24 PM
But in essence the mini doesn't HAVE a plot (or at least not one people can easily follow). It's not as if the Buffy film went down well with the critics. Ideologically/aesthetically, she's right on the button.

And...if you mean "elbowed" by S12...we still don't know how that'll be resolved.

I agree so much about Roux. Giles S12 is basically a character study, and what a character. Roux ticks all the boxes, she is slayer, watcher, vampire and girl. She is the prologue to this new Slayer I think, she is the history of black women that leads to this new black slayer.

I don't think it matters if none of the viewers know anything about Buffy, or it shouldn't, if it's well written. Those of us who do will 'get' the little nods to the old BtVS but they will be things that new viewers won't even notice I would think. As such, I would love the new slayer to be called Blue

- - - Updated - - -


Find it much more likely that the entirety of what we just spent 11 years reading is going to be bounced, comparatively speaking. There might be some broad summary version of it that "happened" in order to set this Slayer up as being once again a very rare example (i.e. something undoes empowerment spell, or it fades, etc -- something ludicrously arch and polemic in its attempts most likely), but without any characters present and regular from the prior series to this one, there wouldn't be anyone to exposit it, or in fact anyone to exposit it to.


I'm afraid I agree with this. I think Buffy will be wiped out and the new slayer will start at Episode 1 as just that, the newly called Chosen One. They can say it's not a reboot because they won't use Buffy's name or re-write the old scripts, but I have a feeling that it will begin in a similar way. One girl in all the world starts high school and meets a watcher who tells her she's the slayer.

I'm hopeful that if they even give a single damn about fans of the comics they will move the current Buffy et al into another dimension. But they might just ignore the comics completely. But . . . until we learn anything concrete, I am going to believe the new slayer will be Blue from the Giles comic . . . Roux will either be her watcher or vampire ancestor or vampire lover, or a combination of such, and it doesn't matter if only 3 people in the whole world know where these characters began.

Silver1
29-07-18, 02:46 PM
But . . . until we learn anything concrete, I am going to believe the new slayer will be Blue from the Giles comic . . . Roux will either be her watcher or vampire ancestor or vampire lover, or a combination of such, and it doesn't matter if only 3 people in the whole world know where these characters began.

Now there's optimism for you.


But they might just ignore the comics completely.

Oh personally I think thats a given. :lol:

HardlyThere
29-07-18, 04:04 PM
Oh personally I think thats a given. :lol:

We don't even know that is *isn't* a reboot at this point. It could just as well be one, they just won't recast Buffy or include the gang. For all we know it could be about whatever slayer was called in the wishverse. Or it could be a world where Buffy never existed. Expanding the world could mean anything.

TimeTravellingBunny
29-07-18, 04:07 PM
The whole continuity issue/being or not being in the same universe doesn't have to mean an awful lot.

Look at Marvel TV. Runaways is supposed to be a part of the MCU. Does anything in the show actually point out that it is? The Netflix shows, Cloak and Dagger, even Agents of SHIELD after season 2, only tend to establish that fact with a few references, and then go on to tell their own stories.

Or, for that matter - look at the Dark Horse comics and then vague references to After the Fall - which still left people on this forum arguing if ATF is canon, if it is canon in full, or if just parts of it are canon.

The show Constantine kind of became a part of Arrowverse after the fact... maybe. It's still murky. Black Lightning is not a part of it, but they could easily make it. All the alternative Earths in the Arrowverse would make that very easy.

And that's not even bringing up the Fox-Marvel universe, and its bunch of different timelines that allow the movies and shows to start from scratch.

KingofCretins
29-07-18, 08:25 PM
Wait, this Roux character was a vamped Slayer and witch all at want? Middle name wasn't Mary, was it?

At this point I'd probably go double-or-nothing on my student loans that the best, the very very best you could ever hope for here is that they repurpose a character name from the mini-series. Maybe even a bit of the character design. But it wouldn't be that character, it would be an homage of sorts. The way that "Star Wars: Rebels" recanonized Grand Admiral Thrawn but it obviously is a different character because... well, it simply is. It's a redesign of a character that can't actually exist anymore to be a close approximation of it in a story in which he can exist. But I find it much more likely that the mini-series won't even be referenced again in the outgoing comic series than that they will be any part of the source material for the new TV show.

- - - Updated - - -


The whole continuity issue/being or not being in the same universe doesn't have to mean an awful lot.

Look at Marvel TV. Runaways is supposed to be a part of the MCU. Does anything in the show actually point out that it is? The Netflix shows, Cloak and Dagger, even Agents of SHIELD after season 2, only tend to establish that fact with a few references, and then go on to tell their own stories.

Or, for that matter - look at the Dark Horse comics and then vague references to After the Fall - which still left people on this forum arguing if ATF is canon, if it is canon in full, or if just parts of it are canon.

The show Constantine kind of became a part of Arrowverse after the fact... maybe. It's still murky. Black Lightning is not a part of it, but they could easily make it. All the alternative Earths in the Arrowverse would make that very easy.

And that's not even bringing up the Fox-Marvel universe, and its bunch of different timelines that allow the movies and shows to start from scratch.

It matters enough; I mean, it matters that in Jessica Jones and Daredevil, if Tony Stark were to show up (which he won't), it would manifestly need to be Robert Downey, Jr. for the same reason that if the Secretary of Defense were to come over to watch the game, it would be James Mattis -- because that is the coherent universe in which our otherwise unconnected stories are set.

Sure, this show could have nothing to do with the characters or settings of the original but if it's the same continuity/same universe (with the big caveat of possibly wiping some comics) then... the rules of the thing will still work basically the same way, vampires live and die the same way, the Council is either no longer a thing or is rebuilding from this time they violently exploded, etc.

Vampire in Rug
29-07-18, 09:35 PM
King, Roux wasn’t a Slayer. At least I don’t think so. She did seem to have powers to control two minions and some shit that made her skin glow... or something. It was never explained.

I don’t get the fascination with the character at all. Even the handful of people who like her (TriBel and Priceless basically) won’t be able to tell you anything about this character. She’s a non-character, we don’t really know a damn thing about her, and I’m at a loss to why we should care.

Does she have a soul? Well seeing as how the mythology of the whole premise kinda hinges on that, and that’s the defining reason why it is or isn’t ok to kill vampires, Roux having a soul or not should be a pretty clear “yes or no” answer. Instead it’s like, speculated and then never touched again.

Her whole mission was about protecting the girl in blue. Why? Who knows!

She’s a bunch of questions piled on top of each other to (I guess) trick the audience into thinking the writing is clever?

Pretty sure we won’t see or hear about her again. Not in season 12, not in the Boom comics, not in a reboot.

Priceless
30-07-18, 03:37 AM
King, Roux wasn’t a Slayer. At least I don’t think so. She did seem to have powers to control two minions and some shit that made her skin glow... or something. It was never explained.

I don’t get the fascination with the character at all. Even the handful of people who like her (TriBel and Priceless basically) won’t be able to tell you anything about this character. She’s a non-character, we don’t really know a damn thing about her, and I’m at a loss to why we should care.

Does she have a soul? Well seeing as how the mythology of the whole premise kinda hinges on that, and that’s the defining reason why it is or isn’t ok to kill vampires, Roux having a soul or not should be a pretty clear “yes or no” answer. Instead it’s like, speculated and then never touched again.

Her whole mission was about protecting the girl in blue. Why? Who knows!

She’s a bunch of questions piled on top of each other to (I guess) trick the audience into thinking the writing is clever?

Pretty sure we won’t see or hear about her again. Not in season 12, not in the Boom comics, not in a reboot.

The whole point of Roux was that she was everything and nothing. She is the history that informs our new slayer as much as Buffy's history informs her. Through Roux we see the whole of African American female history. She is a vampire, and she watches Blue, she not just kills to eat or to enjoy the violence but to protect those she cares about and the world she inhabits, and she is also a girl who feels things deeply and falls in love with Giles. I don't think it really matters if she has a soul or not, that isn't what is important about her.

I think to say 'we don't know a damn thing about her' is very telling, and works on so many levels. She was a black slave so of course we know nothing about her because her history wasn't recorded and she was treated as 'less' than even male slaves. In America, Roux was the lowest of the low, considered less than human when she was human, she has always been the outsider, the other, a 'thing'. Knowing nothing about her is part of her character.

But of course, reading the comic teaches you what you need to know about her, as you see her through many stages of American history, which absolutely fascinates me. And why we should care? Because Roux was a slave, because her history matters and shouldn't be forgotten and we can look at what's happening in America today and see that a lot of the issues stem from the history between blacks and whites in that country. It's this political world that is informing Joss and why we are not getting a black slayer.

I agree that we probably won't see Roux again, but personally I loved her, so I shall live in hope. She was more than a character, she was the embodiment of black female history. I can understand why, if you read the Giles mini at face value, Roux wouldn't work, but I think there was so much more going on there then simple story and character. It was clever and I really enjoyed it.

Vampire in Rug
30-07-18, 12:27 PM
The whole point of Roux was that she was everything and nothing.

This sentence is a bunch of meaningless buzz words. I don’t mean to be rude, but “[x character] was everything and nothing.” What on earth does that even mean?? Couldn’t you use that kind of pseudo-intellectual description to describe pretty much any character?



She is the history that informs our new slayer as much as Buffy's history informs her.

Uh, no. Roux’s history doesn’t inform any other character. Certainly not the reboot Slayer if that’s what you are referring to here.


Through Roux we see the whole of African American female history.

No, through Roux we see her own history, briefly. She’s not the first ever literary depiction of an African American slave. We don’t see the “whole” history of African American females through this character. Frankly, I find that idea to be prettty ridiculous.



She is a vampire, and she watches Blue,

Why?


she not just kills to eat or to enjoy the violence but to protect those she cares about and the world she inhabits,

Okay, so we’ve just randomly got a good vampire who doesn’t kill for enjoyment. How does that make her a good character?



and she is also a girl who feels things deeply and falls in love with Giles.

After knowing him for what, a day?


I don't think it really matters if she has a soul or not, that isn't what is important about her.

Actually, that completely matters. The lack of a soul is why Buffy can kill vampires on sight and how the whole species can be blanketed as being completely evil. The soul is why we can have exceptions like Angel and Spike. So the fact that Roux is just this vampire who is randomly good, without an explanation of her having a soul flies in the face of the entire vampire mythology. It undermines the whole show. If she does have a soul, that would explain why she is good, but it begs the question of how she got her soul. If she doesn’t have a soul, then she’s pissing all over the show’s mythology. The fact that they didn’t explore this any further goes to show how poor the writing for the miniseries was.


I think to say 'we don't know a damn thing about her' is very telling, and works on so many levels. She was a black slave so of course we know nothing about her because her history wasn't recorded and she was treated as 'less' than even male slaves. In America, Roux was the lowest of the low, considered less than human when she was human, she has always been the outsider, the other, a 'thing'. Knowing nothing about her is part of her character.

Nope, her being a former slave is not an excuse for her being a shallow character. There have been plenty of slave characters in literature who still had personalities, motives and characterizations. After four issues, the only attribute to her character is “she watches over the girl in blue for... reasons.” She’s not the first slave character to be depicted in a story ever. It’s not good writing to say that she’s a former slave, and that’s why after four issues she still has zero character exploration.

[/quote]But of course, reading the comic teaches you what you need to know about her, as you see her through many stages of American history, which absolutely fascinates me.[/quote]



The most interesting thing about her is her origin story, which can be summed up in a couple of sentences.


And why we should care? Because Roux was a slave, because her history matters and shouldn't be forgotten and we can look at what's happening in America today and see that a lot of the issues stem from the history between blacks and whites in that country. It's this political world that is informing Joss and why we are not getting a black slayer.

So just because she’s faced oppression, that makes it quality writing?


I agree that we probably won't see Roux again, but personally I loved her, so I shall live in hope. She was more than a character, she was the embodiment of black female history.

What makes her experiences more valid than the next female black historical character?


I can understand why, if you read the Giles mini at face value, Roux wouldn't work, but I think there was so much more going on there then simple story and character. It was clever and I really enjoyed it.

I don’t wanna give you a hard time for enjoying something I clearly didn’t. But I just feel that Roux, kinda like Billy before her, was manufactured so that the audience would feel obligated to give a crap, even though there was no nuance to her character. I feel that all the qualities you like about her are what you’ve projected onto the character, rather than being there in the writing. And I don’t know where TriBel gets this bizarre notion that Roux might be important to the Buffyverse going forward.

Priceless
30-07-18, 03:31 PM
This sentence is a bunch of meaningless buzz words. I don’t mean to be rude, but “[x character] was everything and nothing.” What on earth does that even mean?? Couldn’t you use that kind of pseudo-intellectual description to describe pretty much any character?




Uh, no. Roux’s history doesn’t inform any other character. Certainly not the reboot Slayer if that’s what you are referring to here.



No, through Roux we see her own history, briefly. She’s not the first ever literary depiction of an African American slave. We don’t see the “whole” history of African American females through this character. Frankly, I find that idea to be prettty ridiculous.




Why?



Okay, so we’ve just randomly got a good vampire who doesn’t kill for enjoyment. How does that make her a good character?




After knowing him for what, a day?



Actually, that completely matters. The lack of a soul is why Buffy can kill vampires on sight and how the whole species can be blanketed as being completely evil. The soul is why we can have exceptions like Angel and Spike. So the fact that Roux is just this vampire who is randomly good, without an explanation of her having a soul flies in the face of the entire vampire mythology. It undermines the whole show. If she does have a soul, that would explain why she is good, but it begs the question of how she got her soul. If she doesn’t have a soul, then she’s pissing all over the show’s mythology. The fact that they didn’t explore this any further goes to show how poor the writing for the miniseries was.



Nope, her being a former slave is not an excuse for her being a shallow character. There have been plenty of slave characters in literature who still had personalities, motives and characterizations. After four issues, the only attribute to her character is “she watches over the girl in blue for... reasons.” She’s not the first slave character to be depicted in a story ever. It’s not good writing to say that she’s a former slave, and that’s why after four issues she still has zero character exploration.

But of course, reading the comic teaches you what you need to know about her, as you see her through many stages of American history, which absolutely fascinates me.[/quote]



The most interesting thing about her is her origin story, which can be summed up in a couple of sentences.



So just because she’s faced oppression, that makes it quality writing?



What makes her experiences more valid than the next female black historical character?



I don’t wanna give you a hard time for enjoying something I clearly didn’t. But I just feel that Roux, kinda like Billy before her, was manufactured so that the audience would feel obligated to give a crap, even though there was no nuance to her character. I feel that all the qualities you like about her are what you’ve projected onto the character, rather than being there in the writing. And I don’t know where TriBel gets this bizarre notion that Roux might be important to the Buffyverse going forward.[/QUOTE]

It really surprises me that you can watch a show that is built of metaphor, for 7 years, and have issues with Roux. Everything in BtVS was a metaphor, a symbol, an allegory and a parable. Every character was a metaphor for someone/something else. Witches, demons, other slayers, monsters, shadow-selves, all added a depth of meaning that helped make the show important, yet Roux is beyond your understanding. I think it's simply a case that you did not like the comics and therefore refuse to see any depth in it, and insist it has to be taken at face value.

So I say look at the writers. Joss has become incredibly politicised over the last few years, if social media is anything to go by. America is in the throws of a socio-political crisis, we have the Black Lives Matter and the Me Too movements at the forefront of that. Joss is a part of that, pushing the liberal agenda for all he's worth.

The other writer, perhaps the main writer is Erica Alexander, a black actor and activist. Oh, and a woman. What she wants to write about ,and what is interesting to Joss right now, is the lives of black women in particular, how they slavery has formed and informed them. This comic is so on the zeitgeist, it's amazing - it's about the black woman in America. That's what Roux is, a metaphor, symbol, emblem, for the black female experience in America. On face value, a black female slave is nothing, a thing, but in this comic she is everything , in that she is the central character and the central theme, she is black female America right now. It's powerful stuff.

As a symbol, of course Roux informs all black American women, that's what she is and that's how she informs the new Slayer. The new slayer is black, she is who she is because of slavery, because of the women who came before her and inform who she is and how she feels and what she thinks. On face value, maybe Roux won't appear in the show, or be seen again, but that's not the point imo, and it's why her having a soul is open to debate. She

She watches Blue, imo, because symbolically, she is the mother, grandmother, the slave ancestor to so many young black American women, she is the history that informs the present, that is ever-present. She watches so the youth don't forget. It's at its heart a political message I think. Though of course I should say all of this is endlessly debatable, which is another reason I enjoyed the Giles comic so much.

I'm no saying the Giles comic is full of quality writing, but it is offering us an education into the history of black women, and African-American history in general. I wonder too if that's why it was published when it was, because the idea of a new black slayer was already being discussed, and Joss wanted to push the idea, to politicise it, and he used Roux as a vehicle for that? I don't know, but as I say, I enjoy discussing the ideas.

TriBel
30-07-18, 06:55 PM
King, Roux wasn’t a Slayer. At least I don’t think so. She did seem to have powers to control two minions and some shit that made her skin glow... or something. It was never explained.

I don’t get the fascination with the character at all. Even the handful of people who like her (TriBel and Priceless basically) won’t be able to tell you anything about this character. She’s a non-character, we don’t really know a damn thing about her, and I’m at a loss to why we should care.

Does she have a soul? Well seeing as how the mythology of the whole premise kinda hinges on that, and that’s the defining reason why it is or isn’t ok to kill vampires, Roux having a soul or not should be a pretty clear “yes or no” answer. Instead it’s like, speculated and then never touched again.

Her whole mission was about protecting the girl in blue. Why? Who knows!

She’s a bunch of questions piled on top of each other to (I guess) trick the audience into thinking the writing is clever?

Pretty sure we won’t see or hear about her again. Not in season 12, not in the Boom comics, not in a reboot.

Apologies King but all bets are off! I can't stake my student loan fees because I’m old enough not to have paid fees for my (UK) undergraduate degree and fortunate enough that subsequent degrees were funded. Sorry!


Even the handful of people who like her (TriBel and Priceless basically) won’t be able to tell you anything about this character. She’s a non-character, we don’t really know a damn thing about her, and I’m at a loss to why we should care.


Here's what I do know, what I don't know and why I know it (or don't know it) and why I care.

Roux, like Buffy, has an idiosyncratic name. Unlike Buffy, I don't know who named her. I don't know who her parents were. I don't know her age (I'm presuming 16/17 since she’s in a high school) so I don't know when she was born (I'm guessing circa 1800). I could put this down to Roux being an uninteresting or badly constructed character or I could put it down to the real conditions of slavery (you forgot to mention in your original post that Roux was turned as a slave). Still, Frederic Douglass didn't know his own date of birth and his paternity was alleged so she's in illustrious (real life) company. She may have been born at "Remy Plantation, Owen County, Louisiana - upriver" (that's where she first died. I think it’s a fictional composite - though the writer could be making a comment on how authentic culture has becomes kitsch IDK.) or, she could have been born elsewhere (including Africa) and sold to the plantation as a child (chattel slavery and the importation of slaves was still legal).

I know when she dies in 2018 she's buried at sea. This is a fate she shares with the 1.8 million who died on the Middle Passage. The difference being her grave is marked: “Roux lives”. 33.736061. The figures are the latitude coordinates for San Pedro. Sad person that I am, I’m still on the lookout for the longitude. What it means beyond being a reference to the diaspora, I don’t – as yet - know. The season is framed as a detective story and I’m still sifting clues. She's connected throughout to water. There's plenty of writings on the relationship between slavery and water. I won't bore you with this. I’ll just mention Mami Wata, Ethiopian / Egyptian in origin and linked to ancient African culture, spiritual belief systems, and folklore. The Ethiopian words “mama” indicated wisdom or truth while “uat-ur” meant ocean water. There’s other indications of a link to Ethiopia in Cassiopeia (I think there’s a frame of her wearing a jacket bearing Cassiopeia’s symbol).

When she’s murdered, she's shown in the company of a man and two (younger?) women. She refers to them as "family". However, I can’t reconcile the meaning of the term with either kinship of friendship because the Slave master/owner dictated family relationships. At the time, marriage was a civil right; a legal contract available only to free people. There were no paternal rights for male slaves and female slaves were recognized as “mothers” only to perpetuate the system by ensuring their children were also slaves. Slaves couldn’t marry legally but custom allowed them to do so – with the permission of their owners. It wasn’t “until death do us part,” (though often it did) but “until distance parts us.” There was no entitlement to co-habitation, each spouse could have a different owner, miles apart.

I know she's "a Buddhist, activist vampire...a mash-up". I know she lives in a de-luxe apartment (Giles tells us this). She listens to rap on vinyl (there's a copy of Mac Miller's “Dang” in her room. Dang's from his album The Divine Feminine, I found this really significant). Wiki on the album: “According to Miller, the album was not about love (romantic), but rather about learning from women throughout his life and what those experiences mean to him”. Could we apply this sentiment to Giles and what he learns from his various associations with Jenny, Buffy and Roux? I think so. The lyrics to Dang are also quite interesting. I should say in relation to the mini, there are intimation of gender fluidity so gendered pronouns can sometimes be ignored.

She speaks French (could be a recent acquisition - a comment on multiculturalism - or she could be Creole).

I know Roux is sired by a vampire called Baldwin. Why Baldwin? Do names matter? They obviously mattered to Angel, who mulls over the significance of Darla’s name. Baldwin made Roux. Could other Baldwins have also “made” her? Two come to mind: Roger Sherman Baldwin who, in 1841, defended the rights of the Africans of the Amistad (Spielberg made the film). The other was the African American writer James Baldwin. Raoul Peck’s award winning documentary I Am Not Your Negro was released in 2016. Narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, it’s an exploration of the history of racism in the US through Baldwin's recollections of civil rights leaders Medgar Evers, MLK Jnr and Malcolm X. It’s based on James Baldwin's unfinished memoir, Remember This House. Roux not only recalls her slave “house” (hovel, shack, call it what you will) she also asks Giles to remove his shoes (she keeps her own on - why?) because “I’m my own housekeeper”. I could play about all day with the significance of “house” – not least the fact that the body “houses” the soul. I could compare it to the symbolism of house in BtVS in general. This tells me more about her but relax - I'm not doing it here.

What else do I know about Roux? I know she loves Giles and I know it's reciprocated. In fact, I know she changed Giles’ perceptions through “making” him “feel the very real nightmare” she’d “dropped” him into. Could I say Roux “turns” Giles? I think I could. The man who tried his best to keep his slayer away from vampire lovers falls in love with a vampire. What's not to like?


She did seem to have powers to control two minions The Sheffield Twins? Not really minions. She's "bound" to them. They "shadow" her: a "gift" or a "nightmare" from Baldwin, her sire. They're bound because of their sin. Which is what? Being black? Working with/for the bondsman? Baldwin re-creates them and she hates them. Why? I’m not sure yet. They’re associated with protection (policing) and prohibition. I think there’s a possibility it’s a reference to the Sheffield !Two" and the Sheffield Declaration - which leads us directly to a critique of the Declaration of Independence. It's worth googling the former.
.

shit that made her skin glow... or something. It was never explained.

Since when has every metaphor in the ‘verse carried an explanation with it? The idea that “history is marked on the body” is a common trope. Her skin colour encodes history – just as white skin encodes a white history. Giles presumes they're victims. Roux never confirms or denies. They're regrets and perhaps (and this has just occurred to me) her body IS her soul (she literally has a black soul). I can work with that.


She’s a bunch of questions piled on top of each other to (I guess) trick the audience into thinking the writing is clever?

Possibly – although it could be the writing is rooted in writing which is, in itself, clever. That aside, the whole mini is an interrogation of “clever”: of where knowledge comes from, of the relationship between knowledge and (socio -) economic systems and the barriers to the acquisition of knowledge. It could be she raises more questions than answers simply because there are no easily ascertainable answers.

Do I feel duped? No. I feel inadequately informed. Not by the text but by the education system – ironic since I’m part of it. Take it as read that I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer but nor am I the dullest. To my mind, it's - for the most part - clever writing.

As Churchill said "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest." In this case, the key is probably American national interest and the extent to which that reflects a black American interest. Have you read Du Bois?



Does she have a soul? Well seeing as how the mythology of the whole premise kinda hinges on that, and that’s the defining reason why it is or isn’t ok to kill vampires, Roux having a soul or not should be a pretty clear “yes or no” answer.

That actually made me laugh aloud since the presence/absence of a soul plays a key part in the rationalising of slavery. One of the justifications for chattel slavery was that Africans were sub-human: animals who, by definition, didn’t have a soul. Others (for instance, Bishop William Meade of Virginia) believed slaves had souls but they were being punished for unspecified sins committed in this life in order to secure their souls in the afterlife.

Let’s see what Roux has to say about souls: "Slavery binds flesh and conceals its wounds. The outside may survive, but the soul, if it has good sense, will run for its life". The implication being that whatever “qualities” or “characteristic” the soul confers on a being (free will, choice) are not available to slaves. The discourse and practice of slavery does not sustain them.

Apologies here because I’m possibly quoting myself: What we find with Roux is being turned gives her agency, a power she’d never had in life. The power to choose. How does she exercise her first taste of power? By remaining underground, literally in the earth. In self-imposed isolation, (like Angel), eating bugs (like Spike). Unlike Buffy, she isn’t pulled from the grave by friends (there’s no indication she has friends. How does a slave develop long-term friendships when friends and family are sold or killed on a whim?). Instead, she thinks. She “ruminates”. Instead of eating people, she chews over things (literally and metaphorically). Perhaps she broods – IDK. She does all the things as an unsouled vampire that Angel/Spike do as souled vampires. She rises voluntarily and what’s her first act as a vampire? She can’t kill her family (like Angel), they’ve already been killed. She can’t turn her mother (like Spike) because her mother doesn’t feature. Instead, she returns to the only life she knew and works. She remains a slave – but not a slave to her animalistic urges – a slave to her past. She’s a slave to slavery.

In answer to your question, I’m guessing Roux considers herself to be sans soul and that’s why she’s a Buddhist. Buddhism has a "no-soul or no-self” doctrine (I wonder if Oz has a soul? Are the Buddhist monks we see in S8 actually demons?). I think it’s likely she has a “soul” – just not a soul that’s easily aligned with previous definitions of a soul. This is why it’s not mentioned again. They’re working round it. She refers to herself as a reincarnation. Perhaps that's another way of expressing it.

As for the verse mythology, I understand why people care but I don't - let them shake it up. Most of it comes from white, middle-class men (or vampires). Why should the experiences of a black female slave be the same as theirs? I could go on but I don’t have the time or the patience and I’m boring myself. Take it as read that I take a similar stance to Priceless on this. In fact, just read her answer – it’s far more succinct.

Spike Lee’s new film comes out in August. n relation o the current political situation he says: “The whole foundation of this country is wack...It’s bullshit. If you go to the constitution it is written that slaves were counted as three-fifths of a human being, chattel, like cows or chickens. Unless we can come to grips with how this nation was formed and be honest about it we will never go forward.” https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/29/spike-lee-interview-blackkklansmen-film

I think Whedon probably shares this sentiment.

TBH, I don’t know why you’re getting so angry. As for “my bizarre notion”, there’s nothing bizarre about it. It was obvious to me as soon as the mini came out that a reboot with a black central character was on the cards – I said so at the time. Such a move is in keeping with the logic of the text (the direction it's been moving in) and the zeitgeist. I can’t see any reason for it not being Roux et.al. but, at the same time, it wouldn’t surprise me if she disappeared without a trace. I'm not losing sleep over a fictional character. It's a first world problem - and too much like work for me.

KingofCretins
30-07-18, 07:05 PM
Spike Lee and Joss would both be wrong (I could do 5k words on how genuinely painful that level of ignorance of the 3/5ths compromise is, but if someone wants it they can ask in Boiler Room), but that is irrelevant in context; they would also both be commercially suicidal to chase that parked car in a new series.

But that aside -- having a black central character and having a black central character derived from a spinoff miniseries to an already very niche market main comic title, said miniseries having been met with an almost unanimous shrug, are not the same thing, one does not follow from the other.

Priceless
30-07-18, 07:17 PM
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the tv show, came from a pretty average 1992 movie staring Kristy Swanson (Currently rated 33% on RT) Think most people shrugged at the movie too.

Vampire in Rug
30-07-18, 08:51 PM
I’d wager that at the time between the 1992 movie and when the show came out, more people had seen/heard of the movie, as opposed to the people now who have read/heard of the Giles miniseries.

Even now, more people are aware that an old Buffy movie exists, than the fact that Giles had his own miniseries where Roux was introduced.

As for the 33% on RT, if a similar mainstream site existed for comics, I have to wonder how the Giles mini would score...

betta
30-07-18, 10:35 PM
I liked the Giles mini; and the more I read Priceless 's and TriBel's posts, the more I appreciate what it had to present.

vampmogs
31-07-18, 01:00 AM
Characters have to be more than just symbols or they’re not really a character at all. Buffy’s a symbol - she’s also a fully fleshed out character. We know her strengths and weaknesses, her ambitions, that she likes cheese, that she has an ice-skating obsession, that she has father issues, her taste in men, we know what kind of friend and daughter she is etc. We know it all.

If all this Roux is, is “a symbol” then she’s not a character at all.

KingofCretins
31-07-18, 01:22 AM
Indeed, if all Buffy Summers was was a subversion of the victimized naif, then they could have just stopped the series with Darla being the "real" monster and not bothered.

Priceless
31-07-18, 06:47 AM
Characters have to be more than just symbols or they’re not really a character at all. Buffy’s a symbol - she’s also a fully fleshed out character. We know her strengths and weaknesses, her ambitions, that she likes cheese, that she has an ice-skating obsession, that she has father issues, her taste in men, we know what kind of friend and daughter she is etc. We know it all.

If all this Roux is, is “a symbol” then she’s not a character at all.

I agree, and to me Roux was a character, just a character with an amazing back story and she was also a symbol for that history. I liked her, and I liked the Giles comic. I understand not everyone feels the same.

TriBel
31-07-18, 12:45 PM
King of Cretins


having a black central character and having a black central character derived from a spinoff miniseries to an already very niche market main comic title, said miniseries having been met with an almost unanimous shrug, are not the same thing, one does not follow from the other.

I think the fact that she's appeared in the comic is, from one perspective, immaterial. Her back story can be drip-fed as Angel and Spike's stories were and the comic need never be referred to again. The mini was, IMO, too ambitious. I could produce a 20,000 word paper on it because of the way it draws on a black literary tradition/black aesthetic. This needn't be part of a TV series (but hopefully it would. There are vampire myths/legends outside the European tradition).

Roux - I think - describes herself as "vampire, a watcher and a slayer". She's - first and foremost - a vampire. She's a vampire because she was turned into a vampire but she defies Giles' expectations of what a vampire is - she leads him to question "nature" (in general and his own). She's a watcher because she watches a character called "Blue" and she's a slayer* because she slays. She slays demons and she slays humans. She does this to protect her friends - actually, to protect Blue and Giles (and historically Ebba). She doesn't seem to have too many friends. I'm not sure how she feeds. Together with Giles, she detects. In fact, the more I think about it, the more she's becoming Angel and the more the generic premise of the two shows are combining. Throw in an element of Sci-Fi (there's a reason Addy's connected to NASA and String Theory. He's also a friend of dubious character from Giles' past - Ethan Reigns anyone?) and you have your basic genres.

What I liked about the mini was the blurring of boundaries. Man/Woman, Hunter/Hunted, Human/Monster. It did this more overtly than was done in the early BtVS and it roots the story in history and the socio/techno-economic (I thought the absence of this was a failing in the original). In fact, throw in elements of Haley's Roots. Explore Roux/Blue's African (or Caribbean) past. Keep young Giles, and tell Ripper's story (Giles makes explicit reference to his own teenage years in #1) and flashback to BtVS. Do away with the isolation of Sunnydale and exchange local for global (Buffy might save the world a lot but her world always seemed very small). Stay in multicultural San Pedro and leech off the symbolism of space (of bridges, docks and coast).

*When he turns Roux, Baldwin makes reference to her strengths "You are weak in life but no more. You are stronger than death. You are stronger than men, You always were." I tend to read this as referring to hidden strengths related to being a black woman. However, I know someone posed the question of whether she was a Slayer (or a potential) before she was made a vampire. That would be a nice twist. The other thing that made me think the mini was functioning as a "pilot" was a) it had a soundtrack and b) Giles explicitly created a screen for the flashbacks.

I'm NOT saying the next slayer will be called Blue or Roux or that Giles will remain. I am saying there's more to the mini than symbolism and ideology and it's well situated to be both continuous and discontinuous with what went before.

Priceless
01-08-18, 05:23 PM
https://www.bustle.com/p/why-the-buffy-reboot-news-has-original-show-star-emma-caulfield-so-conflicted-9954433

Here's what Emma Caulfield thinks of the reboot . . .

Why The 'Buffy' Reboot News Has Original Show Star Emma Caulfield So Conflicted
ByEMMA CAULFIELD
an hour ago

As the saying goes, "everything old is new again." I think about this every time I Botox my forehead, or when I put new covers on my pillows, or when I get my teeth whitened. I also think about it whenever I hear of yet another reboot in the works for a movie or television show. Unlike the former examples, these reboots tend to elicit negative responses from me: “Ugh, why?” “It was perfect before.” “Seriously? I know writers who have great new ideas. Why not make a show about those?” “Man, Hollywood is the worst.” “They're remakinge Mary Poppins?! And Ghostbusters?! And Dirty Dancing?! And Footloose?! Whatʼs next? A reboot of Buffy The Vampire Slayer?" "Haha, that will never happen.... (wait, theyʼre what?!)"

Yup, a Buffy reboot (or at least a show set in the same universe, with a new slayer) is happening, and as an actor on the original show, I have mixed feelings, to say the least. Upon first hearing the news in July, I responded with, perhaps, a stronger opinion than I have with other reboots. After all, little information about what the series would look like was given at the time, so I had only my general feelings on reboots and my personal history to go on — and my history with Buffy, of course, runs deep, since I played Anya on the series.

Buffy is part of my past — my very "hands on, I actually helped to make it" past. I view that show as a sort of perfect circle: itʼs not perfect, perfect, as perfect circles are nearly impossible for humans to make without assistance, but I think Buffy got as close as a series could get. And look, I could understand remaking, re-imagining, re-tooling, or re-f**king-with a show whose concept was awesome but which fell apart in its execution; take Battlestar Galactica for example, a show from the '80s that became way better when it was remade in the early 2000s. But Buffy is no OG-BSG, and as such, a reboot just isn't necessary.

Is it impossible for me to be objective when it comes to Buffy, though, because I was on the show? Perhaps. After all, I myself am not a perfect circle, but instead a human being with an ego and a trunk full of memories. But if I lack objectivity, I am aided by the litany of “Best Ofʼs and “All Timeʼs” and other accolades from critics worldwide that Buffy received during and after its run. Buffy was a beloved show, and for an actor, being part in a show so applauded is a pretty freakin' cool thing — and not something to be messed with.

So perhaps quite selfishly, I want Buffy to remain like a fly encased in amber. I donʼt need Buffy Park to open on a private island, so the world can see cloned Buffys come to life. It might seem like a good idea at the time — "Buffy and the Scooby Gang are back, kids, and this time itʼs even better, because there's HD and 'skip the intro' and gluten free snacks!" — But instead of Buffy and Co. going primal and eating the tourists, Hollywoodʼs greed and lack of imagination will slowly devour their souls.

But alas, the reboot is moving forward. And, as new information comes to light, like the tweet from the show's writer about not replacing the original characters, I'm trying to check my emotions and focus more on facts. As a result, I have had new, more rational thoughts circulating in my mind grapes. They go something like this: “Joss "Near-Perfect Circle" Whedon is involved, so itʼs probably going to be great." And: “Trust and verify Emma. Calm down.” And, of course: “Too bad Anya died, cause TV show money is no joke. HA. Thatʼs such an Anya thing to say! You can take the Anya out of the Emma, but you canʼt take the Emma out of the Anya! Or is it the other way around?"

And then there are these thoughts: “Would I ever reprise my character if asked? Wait, why ask yourself a question like that, Emma? No one is asking you to come back!” And: “It looks like the new Buffy is to be a sequel! James Cameronʼs Aliens was a sequel! Aliens is my all time favorite movie! Go sequels!" And: “It would be refreshing to see people of color in a nearly all white Buffy-Verse!” And: "Maybe new blood in the institution that is Buffy would garner new appreciation for a timeless classic?”

As the saying goes, “time will tell”. I am proud of my past work on Buffy, and it will forever remain a gem in my creative endeavors. Every now and then, I will do a convention and get reminded of the impact I made on fans, playing Anya on a brilliant show named Buffy. No matter what happens with the reboot, I will continue to perfect my own circle. Iʼll never tell how far off I am.

Silver1
01-08-18, 06:36 PM
They go something like this: “Joss "Near-Perfect Circle" Whedon is involved, so itʼs probably going to be great."

Blimey, she's got a lot more trust in him then a lot of other people out there, myself included sadly.

HardlyThere
01-08-18, 08:43 PM
Especially for someone that asked to be killed off so she wouldn't be involved again.

BAF
02-08-18, 02:59 AM
https://www.slashfilm.com/spike-in-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot/

James Marsters Says He’d Happily Play Spike Again in the ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ Reboot [TCA 2018]

Posted on Wednesday, August 1st, 2018 by Fred Topel

https://d13ezvd6yrslxm.cloudfront.net/wp/wp-content/images/spike-in-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-700x300.jpg

/Film was on the set of Marvel’s Runaways with the Television Critics Association and will have a full report on season two of the Hulu show. But speaking with James Marsters (who plays Chase’s father Victor Stein) after the Runaways panel led to talk of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot announced last month.

Marsters played Spike in the original Joss Whedon show, an antagonist who ultimately got implanted with a chip that prevented him from hurting humans. He grudgingly became a part of Buffy’s Scooby gang since he couldn’t be a monster anymore, and ultimately fell in love with her, albeit unrequited. They did have an unhealthy fling, but Spike moved to L.A. to be in the final season of Angel without her.

“I am open to whatever Joss has in mind,” Marsters said. “Whether that’s playing Spike or something else, I told him a long time ago. Joss’s mind is always surprising so I’m open to playing Spike if Joss is involved.”

It’s been 14 years since Marsters played Spike. He’s still in great shape, but Spike was a vampire who never aged for centuries. To have him play Spike now might require some Marvel de-aging visual effects, but those might not be out of the question.

“I think we’d have to get some really good lighting together to sell Spike, but they are doing more and more and more, both with actor health and with special effects,” Marsters said. “What would be great is if he comes back and he’s like, ‘Buffy, you look terrible. I still love you of course.’ That would be fun.”

Whedon is executive producing the reboot. Monica Owusu-Breen developed the idea of an African-American slayer show and has since clarified on Twitter that there would be all new characters and that his isn’t a straightforward remake.

Whether he is invited back or not, Marsters supports the idea of a new slayer for a new generation.

“I think it is fabulous,” Marsters said. “I saw a tweet by the woman who sold the idea that she wants an entirely new slayer within the universe established by Buffy. So she’s not going to be Buffy the vampire slayer. It’s going to be Sabrina or whatever it is and I think that’s a great way to go. I’m very excited about it. I think that the world very much needs a new slayer right now.”

Marsters returns on season 2 of Marvel’s Runaways, due on Hulu later this year or early 2019.

flow
02-08-18, 09:16 AM
Ah...the things he‘d do for money...

I still love him though:wub:

flow

Silver1
02-08-18, 09:39 AM
https://www.slashfilm.com/spike-in-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot/

James Marsters Says He’d Happily Play Spike Again in the ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ Reboot [TCA 2018]

Posted on Wednesday, August 1st, 2018 by Fred Topel

https://d13ezvd6yrslxm.cloudfront.net/wp/wp-content/images/spike-in-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-700x300.jpg

/Film was on the set of Marvel’s Runaways with the Television Critics Association and will have a full report on season two of the Hulu show. But speaking with James Marsters (who plays Chase’s father Victor Stein) after the Runaways panel led to talk of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot announced last month.

Marsters played Spike in the original Joss Whedon show, an antagonist who ultimately got implanted with a chip that prevented him from hurting humans. He grudgingly became a part of Buffy’s Scooby gang since he couldn’t be a monster anymore, and ultimately fell in love with her, albeit unrequited. They did have an unhealthy fling, but Spike moved to L.A. to be in the final season of Angel without her.

“I am open to whatever Joss has in mind,” Marsters said. “Whether that’s playing Spike or something else, I told him a long time ago. Joss’s mind is always surprising so I’m open to playing Spike if Joss is involved.”

It’s been 14 years since Marsters played Spike. He’s still in great shape, but Spike was a vampire who never aged for centuries. To have him play Spike now might require some Marvel de-aging visual effects, but those might not be out of the question.

“I think we’d have to get some really good lighting together to sell Spike, but they are doing more and more and more, both with actor health and with special effects,” Marsters said. “What would be great is if he comes back and he’s like, ‘Buffy, you look terrible. I still love you of course.’ That would be fun.”

Whedon is executive producing the reboot. Monica Owusu-Breen developed the idea of an African-American slayer show and has since clarified on Twitter that there would be all new characters and that his isn’t a straightforward remake.

Whether he is invited back or not, Marsters supports the idea of a new slayer for a new generation.

“I think it is fabulous,” Marsters said. “I saw a tweet by the woman who sold the idea that she wants an entirely new slayer within the universe established by Buffy. So she’s not going to be Buffy the vampire slayer. It’s going to be Sabrina or whatever it is and I think that’s a great way to go. I’m very excited about it. I think that the world very much needs a new slayer right now.”

Marsters returns on season 2 of Marvel’s Runaways, due on Hulu later this year or early 2019.


Now I think this is out of the question because he's aged too much, BUT, If they'd Shanshued him or something, and he was a human or there was some daft reason why souled vamps age, I'd be up for it. :lol:

Stoney
02-08-18, 09:46 AM
P*ss poor summary of Spike across the series, couldn't control my urge to complain. Agree that he's aged too much now sadly. Although depending on the end of S12 it might not be impossible. Being lost in a hell dimension with Angel would no doubt age them both so much it would be outwardly visible even if they remained immortal. :lol: Could allow for a cameo with the whole gang again then.

Priceless
02-08-18, 10:41 AM
In my dreams James Marsters is a regular in the reboot, playing the new Watcher :D Or playing anybody really, I'd watch the hell out of the new show if he were in it :happydance:

Silver1
02-08-18, 11:22 AM
Yeah, in my fantasy remake he would have made an 'interesting' Watcher imo so much so years ago I banged out this image. :lol:

https://s33.postimg.cc/z1qrjh1hr/spikewh.jpg

Priceless
02-08-18, 12:26 PM
Wow Silver1 I love it! You should definitely do more art, this work is really inspiring. You make me want to do my own version of JM as Watcher. I'm thinking they probably wouldn't want to bring Spike back, but JM as a totally original character would be amazing. He could keep the English accent too :D

Silver1
02-08-18, 12:29 PM
Wow Silver1 I love it! You should definitely do more art, this work is really inspiring. You make me want to do my own version of JM as Watcher. I'm thinking they probably wouldn't want to bring Spike back, but JM as a totally original character would be amazing. He could keep the English accent too :D

Thanks. I used to do tons of art back in the day. :)

Yeah, the thing with JM is he's very recognisable, and so having hims as new character just wouldn't work sadly imo.

Priceless
02-08-18, 12:33 PM
Thanks. I used to do tons of art back in the day. :)

Yeah, the thing with JM is he's very recognisable, and so having hims as new character just wouldn't work sadly imo.

You should really get back into the art. Is there nothing that inspires you at the moment? Buffylover has set a great challenge in the fanart forum and you should really give it a go.

You are probably right about JM being too recognisable, but a girl can dream :D

Silver1
02-08-18, 12:47 PM
You should really get back into the art. Is there nothing that inspires you at the moment? Buffylover has set a great challenge in the fanart forum and you should really give it a go.

You are probably right about JM being too recognisable, but a girl can dream :D

Sadly my ongoing illnesses and the med I have to take seems to fry my brain. I find creating in Photoshop a bit taxing these days, to nothing of the fact I suspect I've said all I have to say art wise regarding the Buffyverse.

You never know though, maybe I'll manage to get my sh*t together and create something new.

Stoney
02-08-18, 04:24 PM
A watcher who is a distant relative of William Pratt, why not?? :D

Priceless
02-08-18, 04:34 PM
A watcher who is a distant relative of William Pratt, why not?? :D

I want it! :heart: :lol: We should mass tweet Monica Owusu-Breen with the idea :D

Nebula1400
02-08-18, 05:47 PM
Perhaps Spike became a real boy, since Angel signed away his right to Shanshuing, and has aged as a result. His experience could make him an able watcher.

I'm really game for a new slayer series.

Stoney
02-08-18, 06:20 PM
We've had seasons since the end of AtS 5 though and that didn't happen. They'd have to reset it all the way back to the shows and change things (which they might), or do something similar at the end of S12. I'd prefer that it isn't Spike though tbh. A lot depends on how they end S12.

I feel a lot more positive about the new series now that it isn't redoing/overwriting the old. Only time will tell with all of it though. They might change their minds again. :lol:

MikeB
02-08-18, 09:44 PM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.




* James Marsters used Alyssa Milano’s wanting him to be in Charmed as a point of leverage for negotiations regarding his staying in TV BtVS.

He clearly now has options if Runaways wants to and/or tries to ‘lowball’ him.

I consider he’d prefer to stay in Runaways , but he may have a bigger financial payoff if he’s in the possible new TV BtVS.

Of course, what if the new series doesn’t film in Los Angeles? Is James now willing to move?

BAF
03-08-18, 06:37 PM
https://www.eonline.com/news/956987/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-update-fox-boss-says-it-s-a-great-take-on-the-show

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Reboot Update: Fox Boss Says It's a "Great Take on the Show"

by Chris Harnick | Thu., Aug. 2, 2018

https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2018626/rs_1024x759-180726113952-1024-smg-buffy-vampire-slayer.ct.072618.jpg

That Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot, remake, continuation...might not be happening any time soon. Speaking at the 2018 Television Critics Association press tour, Gary Newman, chairman and CEO of Fox Television Group, said the project is still very early in development.

"There actually is no script to see," Newman said when asked if he's read the project. "We've sat down with the creators and have had conversations with them about it. It's a very exciting prospect. It's still fairly early, we haven't pitched it to any possible licensees yet. All that is still to come."

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. veteran Monica Owusu-Breen is the lead on the project, which was reported to be an inclusive reboot, with series creator Joss Whedon also involved.

"We're thrilled that Joss has engaged," Newman said. "Monica Breen, who Joss worked with on one of his other series, is the person who would be day-to-day on the show, she's got a great take on the show, which if I told you I'd have to slit your throat, probably. It's not on an incredibly fast track, but we're hopeful that this one will come to pass."

When the news of the project was came out, it was that the series would be a reboot of Buffy, and fans spoke out. The series, which aired for seven seasons across the now-defunct The WB and UPN, starred Sarah Michelle Gellar and still has a loyal following.

Following the online uproar, Owusu-Breen posted a note on Twitter.

"For some genre writers it's Star Wars. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my Star Wars," she wrote. "Before I became a writer, I was a fan. For seven seasons I watched Buffy Summers grow up, find love, kill that love. I watched her fight, and struggle and slay.

"There is only one Buffy. One Xander, one Willow, Giles, Cordelia, Oz, Tara, Kendra, Faith, Spike, Angel…They can't be replaced. Joss Whedon's brilliant and beautiful series can't be replicated. I wouldn't try to.

"But here we are, twenty years later…And the world seems a lot scarier. So maybe, it could be time to meet a new Slayer…And that's all I can say," she concluded


- - - Updated - - -

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/david-boreanaz-no-plans-controversial-buffy-reboot-just-let-lend-support-afar-144158282.html

David Boreanaz has no plans to be in controversial 'Buffy' reboot: 'I just let it be and lend my support from afar'

Ethan Alter
August 3, 2018

Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans may be torn about the recently announced reboot of Joss Whedon‘s groundbreaking TV series, but the show’s first — and arguably best — undead heartthrob is all in favor of injecting fresh blood into the dormant franchise.

“I think it’s great,” says David Boreanaz, who played the ensouled vampire Angel on Buffy for three seasons before graduating to his own self-titled spin-off. “I’m sure they’ll find the right storylines and the right people to fill shoes of whatever characters they want to portray. It was great to be a part of it when it first started, and now to see it being revived is just another testimony to the hard work that we did. I congratulate that, and applaud that.”

To be fair, fans also applauded the idea of more Buffy when the news was revealed at San Diego Comic-Con last month. The promise of a more diverse cast, including an African-American star, drew more claps. But it was the word “reboot” that inspired clapbacks, as it seemed to imply that the new series — which will be directly overseen by Monica Owusu-Breen, with Whedon serving in an advisory capacity (when he’s not working on his new HBO series, that is) — would be rewriting the show’s much-loved mythology from the ground up. The intensity of the backlash led Owusu-Breen to issue a statement on social media promising “there is only one Buffy,” and teasing the introduction of a “new Slayer” — potentially one who exists in the same universe as her predecessor.

For his part, Boreanaz indicates he’s unlikely to appear in the new series, no matter what form it takes. “For now, I just let it be and lend my support from afar,” he remarked when Yahoo Entertainment asked him whether he’d reprise his role if asked.

In fact, unlike Buffy fans, the actor doesn’t sound perturbed at the notion of someone else donning’s Angel’s signature leather jacket, should that be the direction Owusu-Breen chooses to go. “[Angel] doesn’t age, so it’s not like he’s not around! Whatever they want to do with the character, it’s such a wide, huge universe, you can really go anywhere with characters. I think the storylines will somehow reflect what the characters were about in the past. It’s all bloodline, so to speak. Ironic that I called it that! There’s always a bloodline somewhere, right?”

It’s not as if Boreanaz has copious free time to revisit his vampire roots anyway. His present job as the star and producer of the CBS military procedural SEAL Team — which returns for its second season on Oct. 3 — is practically a 24/7 proposition. When we caught up with him, he was preparing for a shoot that would stretch well into the evening and involve lots of water work by his alter ego, SEAL Team leader Jason Hayes. “We’ve been shooting Episodes 1 and 3 at the same time, and this Friday we’ll start Episode 2,” he reveals, adding that actor availability was one of the reasons for the nonsequential production order. Boreanaz’s workday frequently extends into the weekends, when he meets with his longtime acting coach, Ivana Chubbuck, to dig into Jason’s troubled psyche rather than just his physicality. “With Season 1, we were feeling him out and seeing how he ticks. His vulnerability is a little more raw going into the first five episodes of Season 2, and I’m looking forward for people to see that,” he said.

He’ll be plumbing the depths of Jason’s vulnerability with some new creative collaborators this year; creator Benjamin Cavell and showrunner Ed Redlich departed SEAL Team between seasons, and John Glenn is now running things behind the scenes — albeit with plenty of input from Boreanaz, who directed the penultimate episode of the first season. “It’s been easy and collaborative — not to say it wasn’t that way in Season 1,” the actor says of the handover to Glenn, who inherited a show that wrapped up its freshman season with its central team scattered. “John has been fantastic and adjusted extremely well. The most exciting part for us going into Season 2 will be exploring how all these characters will have to find the resolve in order to go back to the team. If not, there’ll be a lot of destruction that’ll happen.”

Boreanaz points to the 10th episode of Season 1 — which comes out on DVD on Aug. 14 — as the one where the series really found its voice as, as he describes it, “ER for the military workplace.” Directed by ER veteran Chris Chulack, the story took place largely in a single setting, which allowed for the kind of intense character work that the actor says will be an even bigger part of the show’s sophomore season. “I look at Episode 10 as a big breakthrough for us,” he says now. “The show has that ER pulse that is rapid-fire. And I know going into Season 2, you will see a storyline you’ve never seen before on TV, and I’m proud to be a part of that.”

The first season of SEAL Team will be available on DVD on Aug. 14; Season 2 premieres Oct. 3 at 9 p.m.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/david-boreanaz-gives-the-buffy-reboot-and-possibly-recasting-angel-his-blessing

David Boreanaz gives the Buffy reboot, and possibly recasting Angel, his blessing

http://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/styles/1140x640/public/2018/08/david_boreanaz_buffy_angel.jpg

Matthew Jackson
Aug 3, 2018

No matter which side you fall on, it's easy to see the reaction to the upcoming reboot/revival of the beloved supernatural series Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been...mixed. Some fans applauded the promise of a more diverse cast, a new showrunner, and even the clarification that the show will focus on a new Slayer rather than a recast Buffy.

Others didn't see the point at all, while still others simply shrugged and considered the show yet another cog in the nostalgia profit machine. Now that the fans have weighed in, the original stars of the Buffyverse are beginning to react themselves, and for his part David Boreanaz is happy to see the franchise move into a new era.

Speaking to Yahoo! about the reboot news, Boreanaz gave the show his blessing in no uncertain terms, framing the eventual new series as a tribute to the impact of the original show, rather than a replacement for it.

“I think it’s great,” he said. “I’m sure they’ll find the right storylines and the right people to fill shoes of whatever characters they want to portray. It was great to be a part of it when it first started, and now to see it being revived is just another testimony to the hard work that we did. I congratulate that, and applaud that.”

Boreanaz got his big break on Buffy when the show debuted in 1997 as the mysterious vampire with a soul known as Angel, and actually ended up playing his character longer than Sarah Michelle Gellar played Buffy Summers. After co-starring on Buffy for three seasons, the character left Sunnydale and Boreanaz got his own spinoff, Angel, which ran for five seasons before its cancellation in 2004. Though he's since moved on to other successful shows like Bones and his current series SEAL Team, Boreanaz will forever be identified with Angel, which of course begs the question: How would he feel if another, younger actor stepped into those immortal shoes?

“[Angel] doesn’t age, so it’s not like he’s not around! Whatever they want to do with the character, it’s such a wide, huge universe, you can really go anywhere with characters," he said. "I think the storylines will somehow reflect what the characters were about in the past. It’s all bloodline, so to speak. Ironic that I called it that! There’s always a bloodline somewhere, right?”

We still don't know exactly what form the return of Buffy will take, only that it's more of a revival of the show's mythology rather than a full-on remake of the original series. Just this week, Fox executives noted that they're happy to take their time with the project for now, and that there's not even a script available yet, so it's not clear when we'll learn more. It's always possible that classic Buffy characters and the actors who played them could be asked to come back to the show in some way, but at the moment Boreanaz isn't concerned with that.

“For now, I just let it be and lend my support from afar,” he said.

So, at least in its early stages, the return of Buffy carries the David Boreanaz seal of approval, and that has to mean something to trepidatious fans.

TriBel
03-08-18, 07:21 PM
Is it just me or is does Angel look REALLY creepy in that picture? I'm not surprised she's edging away from him. :err:

Silver1
03-08-18, 07:34 PM
Is it just me or is does Angel look REALLY creepy in that picture? I'm not surprised she's edging away from him. :err:

No, just you. :lol:

TriBel
03-08-18, 08:29 PM
No, just you. :lol:

:D I think it's the angle I've got on the lap-top screen (serves me right for lounging in my chair). He looks "death by botox" and just a bit uncanny. A cravat - he's missing a cravat. :)

Silver1
03-08-18, 08:44 PM
Well that was back in the early days of the show, when DB had kinda more 'cut' features going on and he actually had cheekbones. :lol:

TriBel
03-08-18, 09:13 PM
Well that was back in the early days of the show, when DB had kinda more 'cut' features going on and he actually had cheekbones. :lol:

It's his make-up! Too much blusher and the wrong colour lipstick. He looks like a corpse after an encounter with an over-enthusiastic undertaker. I don't like it! :err:

TimeTravellingBunny
14-08-18, 06:37 PM
If someone was gonna do a demo to show me they could reboot Buffy then I would want to see this. I am not a fan of a reboot. But I am a fan of this show now. It's the first thing I have seen that doesn't have too many annoying cliches, or any really annoying characters. IMO, it's better than Lucifer, Supernatural, or Walking Dead and I like all of those. This comes closer to the B-verse mix than any of those shows.

There is a season arc with a season big bad. In Midnight Texas the veil between worlds is thin. For generations the town attracted folks with odd abilities and origins. But now the veil is thinning. That's season one - not sure if it's ongoing but I doubt the veil will go away. The battle between good and evil with characters who know they are making a stand, and choose to take the risks. There's plenty of representation but it's not an issue any more than Willow and Tara were the lesbians. The characters are flawed, they have internal logic, and they are pretty compelling. I don't hate anyone yet, and that is rare.

There's a thread of homage to Buffy that's fun for Buffy fans but explaining it here would be a list of stuff that wouldn't seem like as much fun as it is. Kinda like explaining a good Buffy scene to a complete non fan. That thread is a fun easter egg in a very layered universe which is unfolding well. There is a also a good streak of self referential humor - people know how absurd their lives are. There's good snark, and some excellent use of language. It's not an origin story - it's ensemble. The characters are adults - so no coming of age.

I've started to watch Midnight, Texas. I saw the first 2 episodes last night, and I'm enjoying it.
I wanted to check it out earlier, but the fact it is based on Charlaine Harris' books gave me pause, because of True Blood... But this indeed feels somewhat like True Blood - if True Blood was good (and didn't have incredibly ill-thought out mixed metaphors about vampires from the start, even when it seemed decent and hadn't deteriorated into an utter mess).

I think I've noticed a Buffy homage in episode 1...
Bigoted cop: She's a witch... or maybe a lesbian.
Manfred: Why not both?

BTW, I'm pretty sure this witch is not a lesbian, going by the vibes between her and Bobo. :)

Silver1
14-08-18, 07:14 PM
It's his make-up! Too much blusher and the wrong colour lipstick. He looks like a corpse after an encounter with an over-enthusiastic undertaker. I don't like it! :err:

Surely being a re-animated corpse an all, thats the point? :lol:

TriBel
14-08-18, 07:56 PM
Surely being a re-animated corpse an all, thats the point? :lol:

It occurred to me later that he looked too theatrical and he reminded me of someone (not looked like but reminded me). It was this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRjFWDGs1g


Note: not a criticism of Freddie - no one does theatricality better than Freddie! :D

Silver1
14-08-18, 08:29 PM
Recorded If I remember correctly, the year Freddie was diagnosed with Aids.

TriBel
14-08-18, 09:48 PM
Recorded If I remember correctly, the year Freddie was diagnosed with Aids.

I think so - yes. But I wasn't implying that had anything to do with it! :)

Sigh...I had tickets for the Queen concert at Maine Rd 16th July 1986 and had to let them go because my twins were due around then. They arrived two months early - I've never forgiven them for it. :mad:

flow
15-08-18, 03:24 PM
I had a ticket for May 5th 1982. Not being pregnant, there was nothing that stopped me from going. It was the best night of my life :)

flow

Priceless
15-08-18, 09:46 PM
I had a ticket for May 5th 1982. Not being pregnant, there was nothing that stopped me from going. It was the best night of my life :)

flow

flow that is so funny, you made me laugh out loud :lol:

BAF
21-08-18, 01:06 AM
https://www.cbr.com/alyson-hannigan-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot/

Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s Alyson Hannigan Weighs in on Reboot

Buffy the Vampire Slayer alum Alyson Hannigan has weighed in on the series' impending reboot

by Eric Bartsch

https://static1.cbrimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-willow-header.jpg?q=35&w=984&h=518&fit=crop

was announced last month that Buffy the Vampire Slayer would be revived for a new treatment under the guiding hand of creator and Avengers director Joss Whedon. The original cast may appear lukewarm to any sort of revival or reunion, but Alyson Hannigan, who played nerd-turned-witch Willow Rosenberg, offered her opinion on the update.

The actor was positive about the prospect of a new Buffy, but only if Whedon is involved. “As long as Joss is involved it will be good, I’m sure,” she said in an interview with E! News.

https://www.eonline.com/shows/daily_pop/videos/276336/what-alyson-hannigan-knows-about-the-buffy-reboot

Hannigan added Buffy was ahead of its time and still hears a lot from fans about how good and timeless the show is. “I feel like the old show would still hold up,” said Hannigan. “At least that’s what people keep telling me.”

Buffy became one of those shows the original viewers watch years later. “Now the fans of the show, their children are watching so we have a whole other generation,” Hannigan said, also quipping that reruns would work today in primetime.

Hannigan admits she has no insider details, but she looks forward to seeing if the new Buffy lives up to the storied legacy of the show. “But I don’t know I just hope the reboot is as good as ours was,” she said.

The jury is still out on if Hannigan will return to the role of Willow for Joss Whedon’s next televised iteration of Buffy, which producer and Whedon collaborator Monica Owusu-Breen assured fans via Twitter wouldn’t be a full reboot
.

The E! link is a video interview

Klaus Kartoffel
22-08-18, 03:56 PM
Very diplomatic. :)

KingofCretins
23-08-18, 12:48 AM
Diplomatic but clearly seemed to be of a mind that they could have just brought the squad back and done as well or better as the new thing will. And she might be right. I really do think that if they are keeping the continuity/setting that they need *some* sort of recurring character from back in the day. Hell, even Sarah herself showing up would be pretty amazing as a mid-season or season finale type play. She could be Luke Skywalker in "The Last Jedi" except for she wouldn't be a sucky mismanaged waste of our hopes and dreams. But Aly/Willow could just as easily be the char that parachutes in every now and then like Nimoy did in the Abrams' Trek movies. Or Tony. Sadly I'd believe just about anybody but either Nick (personal problems) or Michelle (think she's left all this in the rearview life/career wise).

MikeB
23-08-18, 01:26 AM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.



* While Sarah Michelle Gellar is the reason BtVS ended in BtVS S7 and hers distancing herself from BtVS and Buffy until relatively shortly after Joss Whedon no longer needed her (after The Avengers and his other projects), it's still grossly insulting that they are again trying to do a BtVS without SMG.

SMG during her People Choice Awards win reminded everyone that she is Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

SMG and Alyson Hannigan still dye their hair color the hair color of Buffy and Willow, respectively.

SMG, Alyson Hannigan (now seemingly confirmed), and James Marsters would all reprise their roles. David Fury and Jane Espenson seem available.

This reboot frankly seems Disney trying to be as cheap as possible by not wanting to pay the compensations of SMG, Aly, and Marsters.

Even though it still seems SMG prefers Buffy/Angel, the continuation of BtVS could still have Buffy/Spike and maybe eventually Spike gets with someone else and the series ends with Buffy/Angel or really Spike/Buffy/Angel (David Boreanaz could show up occasionally or in the series finale).

HardlyThere
23-08-18, 01:49 AM
Diplomatic but clearly seemed to be of a mind that they could have just brought the squad back and done as well or better as the new thing will. And she might be right. I really do think that if they are keeping the continuity/setting that they need *some* sort of recurring character from back in the day. Hell, even Sarah herself showing up would be pretty amazing as a mid-season or season finale type play. She could be Luke Skywalker in "The Last Jedi" except for she wouldn't be a sucky mismanaged waste of our hopes and dreams. But Aly/Willow could just as easily be the char that parachutes in every now and then like Nimoy did in the Abrams' Trek movies. Or Tony. Sadly I'd believe just about anybody but either Nick (personal problems) or Michelle (think she's left all this in the rearview life/career wise).

Michelle has said she writes now. Sarah has her baking company and is unofficially retired from acting. David is long-since distanced himself from Angel.

The only biggies that they stand to get are Aly and Tony. Aly at least still has a relationship with Joss.

KingofCretins
23-08-18, 04:56 AM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.

My friend, absolutely nobody ever gave a moment's thought to the possibility that you were speaking for anyone but yourself. Not an insult. No idea why you think this disclaimer is necessary or whose confusion it would be clearing up. This describes literally every post on this forum.


This reboot frankly seems Disney trying to be as cheap as possible by not wanting to pay the compensations of SMG, Aly, and Marsters.

Naw, fam, to do it targeted at its natural YA target demo without a bunch of people none of those kids have ever heard of or relate to. All these folks went and got old. You are probably also seriously overestimating what any of them would command as a per-episode rate I think. Alyson is by far the most proven TV commodity of the bunch but she's hardly going to be like some sort of million-per-ep ask or anything. Having any of them on as guests -- not regulars -- would mostly be a come on for viewers of the original series to draw them in and to also make the new story feel more grounded in that reality.


Even though it still seems SMG prefers Buffy/Angel, the continuation of BtVS could still have Buffy/Spike and maybe eventually Spike gets with someone else and the series ends with Buffy/Angel or really Spike/Buffy/Angel (David Boreanaz could show up occasionally or in the series finale).

To be honest, Spike and Angel are the two probably least likely to return. Their characters no longer credibly match the actors, because the characters are forever in their early-mid 20s and the actors... aren't. I'm going to politely ignore the likelihood that even a passing thought for this show will be spared to service Buffy and her vampire 'ships.

Priceless
24-08-18, 09:05 AM
https://www.thewrap.com/buffy-reboot-marti-noxon-joss-whedon-monica-owusu-breen/

When news of Joss Whedon and Monica Owusu-Breen’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” reboot broke last month, there were pretty much two responses from a very divided fanbase.

The first was an outraged “how dare you?” and the second was an optimistic “let’s wait and see.”

And while Marti Noxon was initially a member of the former group, the prolific TV producer — who served as showrunner on Season 6 of Whedon’s cult series starring Sarah Michelle Gellar — has since joined up with the latter.

“I’ll be honest, initially I was like, ‘Nooo! Don’t touch the sacred text!'” Noxon told TheWrap. “But the more I learned about it, the more excited I got.”

Last month, the plans for a “Buffy” reboot were revealed, with Whedon on board and Owusu-Breen set as showrunner for the series, which will feature a black lead character.

The “don’t touch ‘Buffy'” backlash was so strong it prompted Owusu-Breen to take to Twitter to reassure fans “there is only one Buffy” and that Whedon’s “brilliant and beautiful series can’t be replicated.”

“I wouldn’t try to,” she wrote. “But here we are, 20 years later … and the world seems a lot scarier. So maybe, it could be time to meet a new Slayer … And that’s all I can say.”

Noxon, for one, thinks it’s “a great concept.”

“I’m excited that there is a female showrunner and that she’s a woman of color writing about a woman of color,” Noxon told TheWrap. “So I’m actually really pumped for it.”

As for whether or not Noxon would sign on for the reboot, she says she’s been “kind of busy” doing her own thing (see: HBO’s “Sharp Objects” and AMC’s “Dietland.”)

“So if they ask — I don’t know what I’d say,” Noxon said. “It depends on what I was doing. But I think they’ve got it covered (laughs).”

Klaus Kartoffel
24-08-18, 10:34 AM
Man, I'm way too cynical. :mmph: All I see is phrasemongering which is as calculating as formulaic as pathologically inoffensive as vacuous. Then she concludes that people of color writing about people of color is a great "concept"... :ohwell:

BAF
21-09-18, 07:20 PM
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/james-marsters-very-happy-to-see-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-getting-a-reboot

James Marsters 'very happy' to see Buffy the Vampire Slayer getting a reboot

Matthew Jackson

https://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/styles/1140x640/public/syfywire_blog_post/2018/09/Spike-buffy-vs-angel-and-spike-4907705-1182-1202.jpg

James Marsters, who played the villainous-turned-heroic vampire Spike on six seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and one season of its spinoff Angel, has weighed in on the upcoming new Buffy series, and his feelings are surprisingly uncomplicated.

The new series, announced back in July, will be created by showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen, and will focus on a Slayer played by a woman of color. Original Buffy creator Joss Whedon is on board as an executive producer, and while that news was reassuring to many, fans of classic Buffy were initially very nervous about the idea of someone rebooting their hero. Those anxieties led Owusu-Breen to clarify that the show will not necessarily be a new take on Buffy Summers, but will instead focus on a "new Slayer," perhaps even one who emerges from the same universe that Buffy walked into more than two decades ago.

Since then, it seems that everyone anyone who was involved with the original Buffyverse is interviewed for anything, they're asked to weigh in on the reboot, from stars David Boreanaz and Alyson Hannigan to writer Marti Noxon. This week it was Marsters' turn. Speaking to TV Guide while promoting the Hulu series Runaways, Marsters gave the new series his blessing, with the caveat that it continues to focus on one of Buffy's most potent themes.

"I like the idea of making a new slayer in that universe that's not Buffy, whole new deal," he said. "I think Joss [Whedon] being involved means it's going to be good... But I'm very happy that that theme of "don't give up" [which] basically is, I think, the theme of the show at the end of the day, I'm glad for that theme to keep getting played."

Marsters' remarks echo what's become a common sentiment among Buffy alums when discussing Owusu-Breen series: That if Whedon has leant his name to the show, it's going to be OK. While it's certainly too soon to know for sure at this point, Whedon's involvement with the show is good news, as is the news that Fox is willing to take its time with development on the show. Hopefully with time and patience, this show can grow into something special, and it sounds like Marsters will be ready to watch when it is.

Josh
21-09-18, 07:42 PM
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/james-marsters-very-happy-to-see-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-getting-a-reboot

James Marsters 'very happy' to see Buffy the Vampire Slayer getting a reboot

Matthew Jackson

https://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/styles/1140x640/public/syfywire_blog_post/2018/09/Spike-buffy-vs-angel-and-spike-4907705-1182-1202.jpg

James Marsters, who played the villainous-turned-heroic vampire Spike on six seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and one season of its spinoff Angel, has weighed in on the upcoming new Buffy series, and his feelings are surprisingly uncomplicated.

The new series, announced back in July, will be created by showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen, and will focus on a Slayer played by a woman of color. Original Buffy creator Joss Whedon is on board as an executive producer, and while that news was reassuring to many, fans of classic Buffy were initially very nervous about the idea of someone rebooting their hero. Those anxieties led Owusu-Breen to clarify that the show will not necessarily be a new take on Buffy Summers, but will instead focus on a "new Slayer," perhaps even one who emerges from the same universe that Buffy walked into more than two decades ago.

Since then, it seems that everyone anyone who was involved with the original Buffyverse is interviewed for anything, they're asked to weigh in on the reboot, from stars David Boreanaz and Alyson Hannigan to writer Marti Noxon. This week it was Marsters' turn. Speaking to TV Guide while promoting the Hulu series Runaways, Marsters gave the new series his blessing, with the caveat that it continues to focus on one of Buffy's most potent themes.

"I like the idea of making a new slayer in that universe that's not Buffy, whole new deal," he said. "I think Joss [Whedon] being involved means it's going to be good... But I'm very happy that that theme of "don't give up" [which] basically is, I think, the theme of the show at the end of the day, I'm glad for that theme to keep getting played."

Marsters' remarks echo what's become a common sentiment among Buffy alums when discussing Owusu-Breen series: That if Whedon has leant his name to the show, it's going to be OK. While it's certainly too soon to know for sure at this point, Whedon's involvement with the show is good news, as is the news that Fox is willing to take its time with development on the show. Hopefully with time and patience, this show can grow into something special, and it sounds like Marsters will be ready to watch when it is.



Even though I love Whedon because of Buffy, I don't agree with the notion that just as long as he's involved it will be good. It can be good even without him as he's done a lot of things that are not so good in the many years after Buffy ended. I love the guy but he's not perfect and I really believe other people can create a show about a Slayer and make it amazing. Some people think that Whedon should stay away from the show and while I'm not entirely up with that statement, I can see why people say that.

BAF
04-10-18, 09:44 PM
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/david-boreanaz-chimes-in-on-buffy-reboot-at-nycc-im-all-for-it

David Boreanaz chimes in on Buffy reboot at NYCC: 'I'm all for it'

https://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/styles/1140x640/public/syfywire_blog_post/2018/10/walkingdead_negan_boreanaz.jpg

Contributed by

James Comtois

Don Kaye

Actor David Boreanaz said at New York Comic Con that he hopes the upcoming reboot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is "huge and successful."

In a Q&A session with the former Buffy and Angel star, Boreanaz told attendees that the reboot — the mention of which was met at first with resounding boos during the actor's talk — was "embracing something new" and that he was "all for it."

Boreanaz played the mysterious vampire known as Angel on Buffy when the show debuted in 1997. He then continued to play the role in his spinoff series, Angel, which ran for five seasons before its cancellation in 2004. In August, Boreanaz gave the recently announced revival of the show his blessing, saying he thinks "it's great," and seeing it get revived "is just another testimony to the hard work that we did.”

The actor echoed those sentiments during his NYCC chat with Entertainment Weekly editor-at-large Lynette Rice, telling the initially negative audience that it was a "good thing":

"I'm very happy for them. It's embracing something new. Things move on. Stories evolve. Times change. I'm all for it. Good for them. I hope it becomes huge and successful."

Boreanaz's generous comments turned the boos into applause and he further lightened the mood by joking that he was happy not to wear the Angel makeup anymore. He also noted that with so many different people playing iconic characters like Batman or Superman, why couldn't the same be done for Buffy and company?

Since his time as Angel, Boreanaz has starred in the hit shows Bones and SEAL Team, which means the 49-year-old actor has pretty much been working in television non-stop since the late '90s. (The gap between the Angel finale and the Bones premiere was something like 16 months.).

SEAL Team just launched its 2nd season on CBS-TV, and after a clip from the show was screened, Boreanaz explained why he thought promoting a military drama at an event heavily about sci-fi, fantasy and superheroes was appropriate:

"I consider these guys true superheroes...There's no green screen, no fake blood. They go on missions and risk their lives to keep this country safe."

In other highlights of his talk with Rice, Boreanaz was asked to sing "Mandy" — a reference to a beloved karaoke scene from Angel — but politely declined, and also recalled the moment he found out he got the role on Buffy: "I was just walking my dog in West Hollywood," he explained, when he thought someone was cruising him and looking to pick him up.

The fellow turned out to be his manager (who was in the audience) with the news that would change the course of the actor's career: "The role was for a 245-year-old vampire with a soul...he was like Joe Lewis, you couldn't keep him down." That's what hooked Boreanaz: "Vampire? Didn't care. But heart of a boxer? I was in."

Priceless
05-10-18, 07:29 AM
https://people.com/tv/sarah-michelle-gellar-supports-buffy-reboot-amid-fan-backlash/


Sarah Michelle Gellar Supports Buffy the Vampire Slayer Reboot Amid Fan Backlash


Sarah Michelle Gellar is here for the much-talked-about Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot.

The upcoming Joss Whedon-produced show was first confirmed in July with a black actress in the starring role of Buffy Summers, which Gellar made famous for seven seasons until 2003.

Following the announcement, the Buffyverse has become a divided fanbase as many continue to share mixed reactions over the reboot that will not feature Gellar in the titular role.

“At the end of the day, it’s all about great storytelling,” Gellar, 41, tells PEOPLE. “If a story lives on, then I think it should be told in any incarnation it can be told in.”

Gellar’s positive comments about the Buffy reboot came hours after her former costar David Boreanaz addressed a packed room of Buffy fans at New York Comic-Con, where rounds of audible boos were reportedly heard when the reboot was discussed.


“Come on, guys. It’s a good thing. Let’s just embrace [it]. I’m very happy for them. They want to embrace a new generation, something new. … I’m all for it. I think it’s fantastic. Good for them. I hope that it becomes huge and successful,” Boreanaz said at a panel moderated by Entertainment Weekly‘s Lynette Rice, according to multiple outlets.

And Gellar agrees with Boreanaz, telling PEOPLE: “I’m with David.”

BAF
06-10-18, 03:38 PM
https://uproxx.com/tv/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-cast-support/

The ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ Reboot Has The Support Of The Original Show’s Cast

BY: Josh Kurp
10.05.18

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/buffy-angel.jpg

When the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot, with a black actress as the new Slayer, was mentioned during a panel with David Boreanaz at New York Comic-Con on Thursday, people reportedly started booing. But despite the public reaction to the series, which is being overseen by Joss Whedon and Monica Owusu-Breen, both Buffy and Angel have given their blessings to the reboot.

“Come on, guys, it’s a good thing,” Boreanaz said. “Let’s just embrace [it]. I’m very happy for them. They want to embrace a new generation, something new… Everybody wants old, they want to go back, which I can understand. You want to see us back in these roles. It’s great, it’s cool, [but] things move on, stories evolve, times change. I think it’s a great opportunity for a reboot like this to show where we are with society now, what you can do with technology. How you can explore those relationships with the same kinds of metaphors. I’m all for it. I think it’s fantastic. Good for them. I hope that it becomes huge and successful, and does what it does.” He added, “If someone can step in my shoes and play my character, ****, go ahead! I think that’s great, because I ain’t putting on that makeup anymore.” Maybe the Angel puppet is available.

Sarah Michelle Gellar agreed with Boreanaz’s comments, telling People, “At the end of the day, it’s all about great storytelling. If a story lives on, then I think it should be told in any incarnation it can be told in.” If anyone’s going to be protective about Buffy the Vampire Slayer‘s legacy, it’s Gellar (she is the only winner of the Class Protector Award, after all). So her support is a positive sign.

Meanwhile, no one cares what Riley thinks about, well, anything.

pic.twitter.com/Sdz4oKh3gM

— monicaowusubreen (@monicabreen) July 26, 2018

(Via The Hollywood Reporter and People)


- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cbr.com/buffy-reboot-sarah-michelle-gellar-interview/

Sarah Michelle Gellar Is Completely Into the Buffy Reboot

Former Buffy the Vampire Slayer star Sarah Michelle Gellar says she's happy with the upcoming reboot.

by Nicole Sobon

https://static2.cbrimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sarah-michelle-gellar-alyson-hannigan-buffy-the-vampire-slayer.jpg

It has been over 20 years since Buffy the Vampire Slayer hit the small screen, and yet, even now, the show continues to be a cultural phenomenon. So, it’s not entirely surprising that in a time when old favorites are being rebooted, a Buffy reboot is (finally) in the works. Unfortunately, the reception to the reboot news has been rather divisive, with many feeling a reboot is far from necessary. However, there’s one party that is on board with the project — and her opinion probably carries more weight than most: Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Talks of a Buffy reboot have circulated for years now, however, it wasn’t until this past July that anything came of those reports. The rebooted series, which will hail from 20th Century Fox Television, will see series creator Joss Whedon team with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. writer Monica Owusu-Breen to tell a new Buffy story that will feature a black actor in the lead role this time around.

has been over 20 years since Buffy the Vampire Slayer hit the small screen, and yet, even now, the show continues to be a cultural phenomenon. So, it’s not entirely surprising that in a time when old favorites are being rebooted, a Buffy reboot is (finally) in the works. Unfortunately, the reception to the reboot news has been rather divisive, with many feeling a reboot is far from necessary. However, there’s one party that is on board with the project — and her opinion probably carries more weight than most: Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Talks of a Buffy reboot have circulated for years now, however, it wasn’t until this past July that anything came of those reports. The rebooted series, which will hail from 20th Century Fox Television, will see series creator Joss Whedon team with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. writer Monica Owusu-Breen to tell a new Buffy story that will feature a black actor in the lead role this time around.

It remains to be seen what happens with the new reboot, however, Owusu-Breen, who will serve as showrunner on the potential series, has confirmed it won’t necessarily be a full-blown reboot. Maybe we’ll see a new generation of slayers that follows the original show’s series finale? Anything is possible. For now, though, the original cast just wants to see fans give the new iteration a chance.

https://www.cbr.com/david-boreanaz-chastises-nycc-audience-booing-buffy-reboot/

David Boreanaz Chastises NYCC Audience for Booing Buffy Reboot

Former Buffy the Vampire Slayer star David Boreanaz revealed he supports the series reboot after NYCC attendees booed it.

by Mira Jacobs

https://static0.cbrimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/david-boreanaz-batman.jpg

While some fans are less than thrilled about the planned reboot of Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it has full support from actor David Boreanaz, who played Buffy’s vampire boyfriend Angel in the original series.

Boreanaz appeared on a panel at New York Comic Con on Thursday and made his opinions clear when the topic of the reboot came up, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The audience booed at the idea of a new Buffy, which is being developed by Monica Owusu-Breen with input from Whedon, but Boreanaz answered their negativity with: “Come on, guys…It’s a good thing. Let’s just embrace [it].”

Aside from Buffy herself (Sarah Michelle Gellar), Angel was the most influential character in the original WB series, having appeared in its very first episode in 1997 and departing after the third season to star in the spinoff Angel, which ran for five seasons. Since then, Boreanaz spent 12 years in a starring role in Bones, and can now be found on CBS’s SEAL Team. However, some fans will always remember him for his breakout role and don’t wish to see him replaced. Boreanaz acknowledged this in his panel.

“Everybody wants old, they want to go back,” said Boreanaz. “Which I can understand: You want to see us back in these roles. It’s great, it’s cool [but] things move on, stories evolve, times change. I think it’s a great opportunity for a reboot like this to show where we are with society now, what you can do with technology. How you can explore those relationships with the same kinds of metaphors. I’m all for it. I think it’s fantastic. Good for them. I hope that it becomes huge and successful, and does what it does.”

This perspective is not only supportive but realistic, as the original series had various limitations due to its budget and the special effects possibilities of the time. Vampire characters like Angel had the additional complication that they were meant to be immortal, which is harder to ignore after the actors have aged 20 years. Boreanaz seems to have accepted this: “If someone can step in my shoes and play my character, f–k, go ahead! I think that’s great, because I ain’t putting on that makeup anymore!”

Currently, the new show is in its earliest stages, but Owusu-Breen has clarified that it will be a new version of Buffy’s universe rather than a continuation of the old series. The reboot will have a diverse cast, with a black actress in the titular role, but preserving the spirit of the original show is clearly a priority.

While fans may have their doubts, it appears that the project has the support of the original cast, as well as Whedon himself.

BAF
02-02-19, 06:18 PM
https://screenrant.com/buffy-sarah-michelle-gellar-reboot-not-starring/

Sarah Michelle Gellar Says She Won't Be in the Buffy Reboot

by Eric Trigg
– on Feb 01, 2019

Sarah Michelle Gellar will not be participating in the upcoming reboot of Joss Whedon's beloved Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series. Gellar starred as the titular character in the original series, which ran for seven seasons from 1997 to 2003, and even spawned a spin-off series, Angel. A reboot of the series was announced last summer, instantly dividing fans who felt that the show's legacy should remain untouched.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer follows a teenage girl named Buffy (Gellar) who discovers that she is the Chosen One in a long line of female warriors whose purpose is to battle supernatural beings. Over the course of the series, Buffy struggles to balance her life-or-death Slayer duties with normal, everyday life. Now, nearly 16 years since the series finale aired, Fox is looking to bring the Slayer back to the small screen. Whedon will return to executive produce the reboot with Monica Owusu-Breen serving as the showrunner; and though no plot details have been revealed yet, the current plan is to introduce an African-American Slayer. Unfortunately, though no official casting has begun, fans shouldn't hold out hope for Gellar returning to dust more vampires.

During a recent interview with The Wrap, Gellar stated that she would not be in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot. Believing she has already told enough of Buffy's story, she explained that she would rather step back and let the series develop without her. Gellar also added that she knows nothing about the upcoming project, but gave it her blessing. She said:

“I don’t know anything about it, honestly. I think that it’s a great story and I’m glad that it will get retold and hope that people will watch it. But, you know, I’ve told my story with it.”

Though official details have yet to be revealed, Owusu-Breen explicitly stated that her take on the series won't be retelling Whedon's story, but adding to the Slayer mythology. It will take place roughly 20 years since the original series and will focus on a completely brand new Slayer. Owusu-Breen assured fans that Whedon's series will not be tampered with. Several other actors from the original series, like Alyson Hannigan, expressed confidence in the new series, while David Boreanaz, who starred as one of Buffy's many love interests, has given the show his stamp of approval.

While devoted fans of Gellar might have hoped she'd have some part to play in the new show, the series has the opportunity to move forward and develop its own identity without using its source material as a crutch. However, an appearance from Buffy would still be welcomed if Gellar were to become involved, even in a small capacity. With no real concrete direction on the series, fans should expect more news regarding the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot soon rather than later.

TimeTravellingBunny
02-02-19, 06:37 PM
"Buffy's many love interests"?! :blink:

ghoststar
02-02-19, 06:48 PM
"Buffy's many love interests"?! :blink:

"There've only been four-- I mean, three!"

Stoney
02-02-19, 09:11 PM
We'll see what actually happens in the end, but I'm really happy that it seems to be sticking to the idea of deliberately placing it a distance from the original. I'm also pleased it seems it may be far enough forward that it also avoids overlapping to the comic continuation for anyone who keeps the entire offering of seasons in mind. Following a future slayer would be great, new characters to invest in and it gives the chance to draw the new modern perspective and cultural representation in too of course. I'm just wary because it seems so ideal. :lol:

BAF
03-05-19, 12:24 AM
https://screenrant.com/flash-buffy-reboot-jessica-parker-kennedy/

Flash Actress Wants to Play Buffy in the Reboot

by Jamie Gerber
– on May 02, 2019

The Flash actress, Jessica Parker Kennedy, is hoping to become the next Chosen One and portray Buffy Summers in the upcoming reboot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She has played Nora West-Allen, the time-traveling daughter of Barry and Iris, since season 4. Kennedy is already the superhero known as XS in the CW series, but it appears that she’d like to add "Slayer" to her resume as well.

Last summer, it was announced that Buffy the Vampire Slayer would be getting the reboot treatment with a black actress in the titular role. Joss Whedon will be an executive producer, while Monica Owusu-Breen is to act as showrunner. The fan response was quite divided, with many excited for a new iteration of the Buffyverse, while others felt that it was best to leave the series intact as it was. Owusu-Breen was quick to clarify that the intention is not to replace the original. The planned reboot is to feature an entirely new cast of characters, including a different slayer. However, since then, there have been no real updates on the highly anticipated project.

During an interview with The Tomorrow Show, Jessica Parker Kennedy announced that she would like to throw her hat in the ring to play the new slayer. The actress stated, "I can't even speak on it because all I want in my life is just Buffy to be a big, big part of my life, so I'm very excited it's coming back. Obviously I think I should be Buffy. I hope I get to audition for it as many times as possible, even if I need to crawl my way into that audition room.” Kennedy went on to say that the call stating her interest in the role had already been made, because she “would love that so, so, so much.” The actress revealed herself to be a Buffy the Vampire Slayer superfan, adding, “I have a night shirt that I sleep in that's a Buffy shirt, and it says 'I Slay,' and in the morning I wake up and I stretch and I go, 'Ughhh, Buffy!' and then I start my day.” Kennedy also excitedly admitted that when her character on The Flash does something cool, she quietly mutters “Buffy!” under her breath. She also referred to Buffy as her “spirit animal."

Despite the mixed fan reactions to the reboot news, the reception from the former cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been largely positive. Alyson Hannigan feels confident about the project and David Boreanaz voiced his support of both the show and the potential recasting of his character. Sarah Michelle Gellar also had encouraging words for the series, although she did reveal that she will not be reprising her role. James Marsters even expressed interest in returning, although he did acknowledge the inherent difficulties of playing a character who doesn't age so many years after originating the part.

If viewers learned anything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it’s that just because you can resurrect something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. That being said, choosing to create another cast of characters is the best approach. This new slayer deserves to be measured by her own merits, and while comparisons are inevitable, the show will have an easier time standing on its own without desperately clinging to what it once was. Many fans would love to revisit the Buffyverse, but not at the price of seeing all of these now iconic characters reimagined. The world has changed a lot since Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s groundbreaking pilot aired over twenty years ago, so it’s definitely time for some new stories to be told.

GoSpuffy
03-05-19, 12:40 AM
I hope it is a new slayer and characters and stories. Way better idea than what boom is doing IMO.

betta
03-05-19, 12:57 AM
https://screenrant.com/flash-buffy-reboot-jessica-parker-kennedy/

Flash Actress Wants to Play Buffy in the Reboot

by Jamie Gerber
– on May 02, 2019

The Flash actress, Jessica Parker Kennedy, is hoping to become the next Chosen One and portray Buffy Summers in the upcoming reboot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She has played Nora West-Allen, the time-traveling daughter of Barry and Iris, since season 4. Kennedy is already the superhero known as XS in the CW series, but it appears that she’d like to add "Slayer" to her resume as well.

Last summer, it was announced that Buffy the Vampire Slayer would be getting the reboot treatment with a black actress in the titular role. Joss Whedon will be an executive producer, while Monica Owusu-Breen is to act as showrunner. The fan response was quite divided, with many excited for a new iteration of the Buffyverse, while others felt that it was best to leave the series intact as it was. Owusu-Breen was quick to clarify that the intention is not to replace the original. The planned reboot is to feature an entirely new cast of characters, including a different slayer. However, since then, there have been no real updates on the highly anticipated project.

During an interview with The Tomorrow Show, Jessica Parker Kennedy announced that she would like to throw her hat in the ring to play the new slayer. The actress stated, "I can't even speak on it because all I want in my life is just Buffy to be a big, big part of my life, so I'm very excited it's coming back. Obviously I think I should be Buffy. I hope I get to audition for it as many times as possible, even if I need to crawl my way into that audition room.” Kennedy went on to say that the call stating her interest in the role had already been made, because she “would love that so, so, so much.” The actress revealed herself to be a Buffy the Vampire Slayer superfan, adding, “I have a night shirt that I sleep in that's a Buffy shirt, and it says 'I Slay,' and in the morning I wake up and I stretch and I go, 'Ughhh, Buffy!' and then I start my day.” Kennedy also excitedly admitted that when her character on The Flash does something cool, she quietly mutters “Buffy!” under her breath. She also referred to Buffy as her “spirit animal."

Despite the mixed fan reactions to the reboot news, the reception from the former cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been largely positive. Alyson Hannigan feels confident about the project and David Boreanaz voiced his support of both the show and the potential recasting of his character. Sarah Michelle Gellar also had encouraging words for the series, although she did reveal that she will not be reprising her role. James Marsters even expressed interest in returning, although he did acknowledge the inherent difficulties of playing a character who doesn't age so many years after originating the part.

If viewers learned anything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it’s that just because you can resurrect something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. That being said, choosing to create another cast of characters is the best approach. This new slayer deserves to be measured by her own merits, and while comparisons are inevitable, the show will have an easier time standing on its own without desperately clinging to what it once was. Many fans would love to revisit the Buffyverse, but not at the price of seeing all of these now iconic characters reimagined. The world has changed a lot since Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s groundbreaking pilot aired over twenty years ago, so it’s definitely time for some new stories to be told.


When Jessica appeared on The Flash playing a teenager I thought "I'm sure I know her from some other show!" Well, it was from Black Sails where she was far from being a teenager. The actress is like 32 years old, I think...

34, actually. It's like the actress who played Kendra, they don't get old.

BAF
03-05-19, 01:21 AM
I've really enjoyed her on The Flash.I remember when she played Plastique on Smallville in season 8.

Priceless
03-05-19, 06:58 AM
She could play Buffy's mum, but she's too old for Buffy.

flow
03-05-19, 08:39 AM
Parker AND Kennedy? That does not bode well....

flow

Stoney
03-05-19, 10:26 AM
She could play Buffy's mum, but she's too old for Buffy.

Well if they stick to the intention of it being a new slayer/new characters then she could just be an older slayer. Obviously Buffy's story through all twelve seasons had consistent running themes about identity and self development, but the exploration within the context of a world where she wasn't the chosen one any longer because of the S7 spell was all within the comics. It stayed heavily focused on her personal sense of duality and responsibility in being the slayer of course and as much as I'd expect identity to be involved still with a new slayer, a totally new character who came into their powers in a different context than Buffy experienced, could give the scope to build it, or focus it significantly, around something else too. As I remember they were considering setting it in the future post S7. I have ten years in mind but no idea where I've got that from, I may be misremembering. This would allow for them to avoid the existing canon entirely but there still be the possibility that there could be cameos from the original cast. To be honest I think it running separately within the same universe is just a great idea and whilst cameos or just tips of the hat to the original continuity would be lovely to have, creating a good degree of independence to the original is a great choice. I hope it happens. I'd love to get a show that was for new characters in the same verse.

DanSlayer
14-05-19, 04:51 PM
Just thought this should go here as Hulu will likely be the streaming home of a Buffy reboot:

https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/2019/05/14/disney-full-control-hulu-streaming/

Disney has total control of Hulu effective now.

Comcast will still own 33%, but will have no say in its operations

The agreement says that Comcast can sell its 33% stake in 2024 at which time Hulu will have a floor valuation of $27.5 billion (meaning that if Comcast sells its stake in 2024 Comcast and Disney have agreed to value all of Hulu at a minimum of $27.5 billion), if Hulu is worth more that $27.5 billion at that time then a reevaluation will be conducted

(For context when AT&T sold its 10% stake in Hulu last month for $1.5 billion Hulu was valued at $15 billion- this means that Disney and Comcast expect Hulu’s value to nearly double in just 5 years time)

Comcast will no longer have to contribute money to Hulu if it doesn’t want to - remember Hulu is still unprofitable and has been relying on its owners to keep afloat - however if Comcast doesn’t contribute money then its stake will dilute to a minimum of 21% (the floor valuation of $27.5 billion listed above is still in place)

In regards to content: NBCUniversal content will remain on Hulu until 2024 at a minimum, at which time normal contract negotiations will happen like with other content deals. Comcast gets to right to add NBCUniversal content to get upcoming streaming service next year

Disney gets right to bundle Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ in the US.

With Disney+ launching Stateside in November the rest of the world will likely shortly get a "Disney+Hulu" deal shortly afterward similar to how Amazon Video went global in 2016. Sports rights is too complex so probably no ESPN globally.

All Disney/Former Fox/FX adult leaning stuff will go on Hulu as will probably a Buffy show since it's not exactly family-friendly in tone. We'll likely get global release of things like the 5 animated Marvel shows and upcoming Helstrom and Ghost Rider.

Current stuff like Handmaid's Tale already has international holders for each country (in Canada Bell Media plays it on Bravo for television and their streamer Crave) so it won't be on Global Hulu anytime soon.

GoSpuffy
30-05-19, 04:28 AM
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a27628611/buffy-reboot-air-date-cast-plot-trailer/

An interesting read.

Stoney
30-05-19, 04:54 AM
They've pulled together quotes from over the past year or so and done a bit of a recap rather than offered anything new there I think. It's interesting it's felt to be something waiting in the wings that they're wanting to flash back up though. It gives a sense perhaps of the anticipation. I really do hope it goes ahead.

GoSpuffy
30-05-19, 05:06 AM
Me too. I like the idea of a brand new story set in the buffyverse rather than taking the original characters and using them to tell a new story. Nothing can top the original and the boom comics just feel like bad fan fic to me. I hate that they are changing my buffy.

Priceless
30-05-19, 02:26 PM
Thanks for posting GoSpuffy. I'm not a fan of New Buffy fighting the President for a start. That's just silly CW nonsense and won't ground the show in any sense of reality. It's very 'comic book-y' . . . and has actually been done in the comics already :D I liked the Buffy had a small universe and was very self contained, so I hope they don't go too big and just keep New Buffy a teenage girl in a small town.

I've never seen Jessica Parker Kennedy act, but if they are setting Buffy is high school, then she's too old to play her. Though there are other roles I am sure she could play, perhaps as Watcher, teacher or mother. Though I totally understand her rush to want to be in this show :)

I really do with they'd announced more details about he new show. It feels like we heard about it years ago and still we don't know if they've even go a script or actors or anything! Hurry up people! :D

TriBel
30-05-19, 02:53 PM
It's very 'comic book-y' . . . and has actually been done in the comics already

Meh...that's why I thought. Though I'd be quite happy if it's revealed he's a demon. :lol:

Priceless
30-05-19, 02:57 PM
Meh...that's why I thought. Though I'd be quite happy if it's revealed he's a demon. :lol:

I think we already know he's a demon, no big reveal there :D