Movie News

BUFFY Producers ‘Reach Out’ To Whedon For The Movie!! His Response? ‘I Think That's Something Better Left Untouched By Me!!’

Published at: June 12, 2009, 1:47 a.m. CST

I am – Hercules!!

After news of a new, Whedon-free “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” movie was greeted by howls of outrage from fans of the franchise, the big-screen project’s producers did “ultimately reach out” to franchise mastermind Joss Whedon, Whedon reveals to Entertainment Weekly. Busy with both “Cabin in the Woods” movie post-production and preparing a second season of “Dollhouse,” Whedon apparently indicated he had little or no interest in what is expected to be a reboot free of such beloved characters as Willow, Xander, Giles, Angel, Oz and Spike. “I think that's something better left untouched by me,” Whedon tells Entertainment Weekly. “So I wish them luck.” An EW poll reveals that 3% of respondants would see a Whedon-free “Buffy.” One wonders what percentage of EW readers were aboard when Paramount announced J.J. Abrams would be taking over the "Star Trek" franchise. I love The “Buffy” TV series above all others, but I believe I’ll wait for the reviews before I consider seeing a new movie. Find the update at the bottom of this EW exclusive.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 12, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST

    So it better not get made then

    by Aloy

    why bother?

  • June 12, 2009, 1:20 a.m. CST

    Third!!

    by jackson healy

    Joss is wise.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Terminator all over again

    by nivbrook

    This is the same site that got excited about a McG-led Terminator movie. Every franchise destroyer seems to get a free ride until the reviews actually come out, then they pretend they were skeptics the entire time.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:28 a.m. CST

    JJ Abrams Trek is not so hot worldwide..

    by CeejayNightwing

    It's kicking up a storm in the US for being a good popcorn movie with simplified Star Trek-lite elements to its reboot. But worldwide it's not had even turning heads. If they're gonna do the same thing to Buffy then it will set a trend of making dumbed down versions of popular genre shows in order to make them resalable for mass appeal. What ever happened to integrity and originality?

  • June 12, 2009, 1:31 a.m. CST

    Herc has hardly

    by medicinaluser

    slept since the news first broke of a Whedon free reboot, so if anything this is good news for him.<BR><BR>So now that Wheeedon has passed on this will it be ok for the reboot to go ahead minus any of the browncoats or w/e they are called going all jihad on the producers?

  • June 12, 2009, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Whedon is wise...

    by ShogunMaster

    Why would he put his name on such a likely trainwreck? Best keep his association with his cult classic series and well away from something that will fail to depose it.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:36 a.m. CST

    Box Office...

    by TheDarkShape

    Star Trek has never, ever been popular overseas. The "reboot" is doing better than just about anyone expected outside the U.S.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:41 a.m. CST

    At least they reached out to him

    by ParagonComplex

    I still have no interest in seeing it. Buffy is my favorite television series ever, and I don't want anyone frakking it up.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:43 a.m. CST

    I’m largely ambivalent.

    by Hercules

    A reboot would seem to lessen the chances of that Giles/Willow/Spike-friendly sequel all the fans want to see, but chances of a movie based on the TV characters seemed kinda remote anyway.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:46 a.m. CST

    Hollyweird

    by buffywrestling

    I'll never understand this trending tactic of execs announcing plans in the trades, then trying to get the creators on board. Just so backwards. Hopefully, this shows as much progress as McSpaced.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:51 a.m. CST

    In the UK...

    by Nimble

    I was really looking forward to seeing trek, didn't get to go opening weekend because I had no idea it had opened - the promo team have sucked. No push what so ever over here. Had the same for Iron man and Hulk too, lazy sons of ......

  • June 12, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST

    One more thing

    by buffywrestling

    Even thought D'House is off the air at the moment, I'm liking how I still get to see a Whedon TB on Fridays *Mwahahaha*

  • June 12, 2009, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Hercules

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    The series ended. Characters can go on after it, because Whedon isn't a hack. He ended the series so that hope existed for Buffy, and her smile was a 'cool, now I GET to choose where I go next' moment.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Why would you want that sullied...

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    ... by a sequel that would undo the beautiful simplicity of that ending?

  • June 12, 2009, 1:56 a.m. CST

    TheDarkShape

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    It's hugely popular in Britain, or don't we count?

  • June 12, 2009, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Why it can (and might) work:

    by Fatboy Roberts

    I think there are plenty of writers who could do Buffy as good as Whedon. From TV: Rob Thomas (Cupid, Party Down, Veronica Mars) Shawn Ryan (The Shield, Angel) Bryan Fuller (Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies) Film: Rian Johnson (Brick, Brothers Bloom) Scott Frank (Out of Sight, Minority Report) Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim, Shaun of the Dead) People said you couldn't find someone to do better than Lucas for Star Wars, and Lucas himself went out and got Irvin Kershner and Lawrence Kasdan. Two nobodies. Here's how I understand the reboot going down: Roy Lee and Doug Davison of Vertigo Entertainment approached the Kuzui's about maybe doing something with the Buffy Property. The Kuzuis, loving money for nothing, said they were amenable. Everyone is assuming this is a Kuzui thing, but it seems the real engine behind this are Lee and Davison, who sought out the Kuzui's solely as rights-holders and are going forward with them in the same sort of function Whedon went ahead with the TV shows - we'll cut you a check and go about our business with this property. Lee and Davison, under Vertigo entertainment, have remade Ju-On, Ringu, [REC] and Infernal Affairs. They've made sort of a habit of taking geek valuable properties, and at least in The Ring and The Departed, strongly succeeding with those remakes. It's arguable whether those two are better than their predecessors, but at least the argument can be made. The Lake House was one of their originals, and it was schmaltzy shit, but they got Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock onboard. The Strangers is another original, starring Liv Tyler, was made for 9 mil and grossed about 81 worldwide. Vertigo entertainment actually has the cash and the connections to score talent like Verbinski and Scorsese, so it's entirely possible that they could approach some of the people on the abovementioned list, throw a chunk of money at them, and get em to do it.

  • June 12, 2009, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Um yeah, this guy. I don't know

    by lockesbrokenleg

    He has millions of followers, but he remains largely unknown.

  • June 12, 2009, 2:22 a.m. CST

    what I really want is the Angel movie

    by RaveX

    that would deal with post-not-fade-away stuff. with cameo appearances from scoobies. <p> have after the fall be a bridge between the show an the movie, so that people who have never seen angel can go into it with all the major plot lines resolved, and just in time for a brand new end-of-the-world event. <p> but realistically speaking, during this creative drought, how far away are we from "motion picture" reboots (that will have all-new cast and nothing to do with original shows producers) of relatively recent shows like, let's say dark angel, the shield, alias (ok, j.j. would have at least some part in it, seeing that he's currently the hot shit and all...), deadwood and bsg (no tom zarek, not the one you're trying to move along...)? <p> or even ongoing stuff like mad men?

  • June 12, 2009, 2:38 a.m. CST

    I understand that fans of the show are angry, but face it:

    by DerLanghaarige

    You won't change a thing. Whedon's fans didn't made a huge blockbuster out of Serenity, so they probably won't stop whoever is doing the new Buffy movie.

  • June 12, 2009, 2:41 a.m. CST

    After Dollhouse, TV should be left untouched...

    by pokadoo

    ...by Whedon. Just Joshing!! It is shit, though.

  • June 12, 2009, 2:49 a.m. CST

    Clint should direct this.

    by pokadoo

    And play Old Zander.

  • June 12, 2009, 2:54 a.m. CST

    Better to make Hack/Slash than remake Buffy

    by Slightly Mad

    It'd be way more cinematic, although it could possibly lead to a (late night) TV show. If anyone isn't familiar with Hack/Slash go check out the graphic novels for the skinny on Cassie Hack & Vlad.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:29 a.m. CST

    Abrams Trek is terrible

    by kwisatzhaderach

    I know i'm the only person in the world who thinks this (apart from Glenn Kenny) but i'm right. What moments stick in the mind a month on? Nothing. Instantly forgettable bland, vapid 'entertainment'.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:30 a.m. CST

    Buffy

    by kwisatzhaderach

    The producers needn't take any notice of Whedon. Buffy was 10 years ago. Theres a whole new generation of kids that could get behind a new Buffy. Lots of money to be made a la Twilight.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Wait for the script reviews...

    by V'Shael

    When they are shit, as they inevitably will be, then you'll know you won't see it. <p> Casting and Directing can fuck up a good script. <p> I've never seen casting or directing save a terrible script.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:34 a.m. CST

    They should leave this alone.

    by SUPERJIM

    I don't think it will find an audience. Buffy is still my favourite TV show ever but I doubt I would go watch a reboot. I probably couldn't convince anyone to come and see it with me for one thing. They will lose a ton of cash (or at least not make enough to make it worth while) and destroy the chances of any sort of continuation from the old show.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:38 a.m. CST

    Whedon

    by dude_gimme_tabs

    Of course it is better left untouched by him. If he was involved, it would get cancelled.

  • Bow before bale

  • June 12, 2009, 3:54 a.m. CST

    I could imagine a reboot, and I loved the series version...

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    I wonder if they would go for a darker, far more realistic take. (Imagine a Dark Knight-level seriousness to Buffy.) Maybe even cast an actual teen girl for the role. (For some reason I see an up-and-coming actress like Chloe Moretz or Abigail Breslin in the role of Buffy.) In other words, I could possibly see a super-serious take on the character and her role as a Slayer that is mostly lacking of quirk and cutesiness maybe working.

  • June 12, 2009, 4:12 a.m. CST

    The Lake House is a remake of a Korean film.

    by Shan

    The Lake House is a remake of a Korean film called "Il Mare" (Italian for "the sea" - but it is a Korean movie). <p> To the surprise of very few people, the original is generally considered better and makes a lot more narrative sense - at least as any film involving a mailbox that sends letters back and forth through time).

  • June 12, 2009, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Smart move

    by HagCeli

  • June 12, 2009, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Whedon; Abrams

    by Mr Gorilla

    I really like them both. But I think that Whedon is more of an interesting thinker. Watching Firefly and Serenity, you get the impression that Whedon has a bit more to say. Star Trek was amazingly enjoyable, but I'm not totally persuaded it is more than brilliantly achieved fun.

  • June 12, 2009, 4:27 a.m. CST

    These Producers Really Messed-Up By Dissing Whedon

    by Media Messiah

    By saying Whedon would have to audition as a director and a writer for the movie, just like any other of their candidates for the job...the producers of this movie really, and instantly, blew it with Whedon and his fans? What a meanspirited and downright ugly and uncalled for insult against Whedon and his followers??? That alone burned a bridge that cannot be repaired unless they go to him and give him full creative control and final edit of the film, as well as distribution control...and contol of any sequels, prequels, and or, spin-offs of the movie and the characters therein.

  • June 12, 2009, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Kwisatzhaderach: Agreed...Abrams' Trek Is Horrid

    by Media Messiah

    One of the worst films I have ever seen.

  • June 12, 2009, 5 a.m. CST

    Yes to a Vampire Slayer Movie

    by JacksBloatedPayroll

    But no to it being Buffy. Why can't it be another Slayer? Buffy has her own, rich story. A recasting and rebranding seems trite and unwanted.

  • June 12, 2009, 5:15 a.m. CST

    New Trek has the tempo

    by pax256

    Of someone jacking off and about as interesting to see and listen to. Love the casting and a few of the gags but its just not trek.

  • June 12, 2009, 5:17 a.m. CST

    Agreed it should be in the buffyverse...

    by pax256

    Any new movie in that world should respect the tv shows even if its ancillary to them but I think the studios think Whedon is not a money maker at the movies...

  • June 12, 2009, 5:34 a.m. CST

    The Strangers is NOT an original script.

    by J.B.M.A.

    It is largely a remake.

  • June 12, 2009, 5:40 a.m. CST

    Memo to Buffy re-boot producers

    by smackfu

    You guys are absolutely fucking retarded to think you can 'reboot' something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Seriously, it's a fucking CULT CLASSIC. Every now and then everything just comes together perfectly on a show, the perfect writers, actors, characters all gel together to make something really special. It's quite rare. We had it with BSG. We have it for one more year with Lost. The Wire had it. Sopranos had it. Trying to 'reboot' one of these franchises and expecting the universe to align itself like that again, to make that kind of magic AGAIN, is batshit fucking crazy. You're just asking to lose money and credibility. Seriously fuckwads, people are supposed to just have common sense about this shit. This is why no one tries to 'reboot' The Shining. Because it's unfucking touchable in quality. Get some fucking perspective when it comes to these things, and save yourself some embarrassment.

  • June 12, 2009, 5:57 a.m. CST

    There is a certain irony to this.

    by growltiger

    <p>Angel and Buffy were outstanding shows with wonderful actors. But Gellar and Hannigan are in their thirties, Boreanaz is 40, and, heavens, Marsters is pushing 50. At face value, a reboot is not a bad idea. </p> <p>But blowing off Whedon from the get go was idiotic. It was like announcing a re-staging of the Sopranos without involving David Chase in some way. Or re-imagining Babylon 5 without J. Michael Straczynski. However you feel about them, guys like that are part and parcel with the worlds they created. </p>

  • June 12, 2009, 5:59 a.m. CST

    smackfu...

    by SUPERJIM

    <p>....feels very strongly about this issue</p><p>I agree with you though mate, I do not think it will find an audience and they will lose money and any credibility if they have any to begin with.</p>

  • June 12, 2009, 5:59 a.m. CST

    the fact that Marsters is nearing 50

    by smackfu

    and still looks like he's 28 is pretty fucking weird.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:06 a.m. CST

    couldnt care less about this.

    by Conans Sword

    i watched every season of both buffy and angel and at the time it was one of the most entertaining things on tv, even bought one or two of the boxsets but theres no way im gonna watch this shit if whedon isnt running the show. the producers can fuck an orange.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:07 a.m. CST

    it's not the show in particular I feel strongly about

    by smackfu

    it's the absolute idiocy of trying to 'reboot' something where your chances of doing it as well or better the second time are astronomically low. It was an absolute miracle that a show about a vampire slaying cheerleader not only worked, but became a cult phenomenon and stayed on the air for 7 years. As Twilight and Tru Blood have shown us, vampires are a pretty hit and miss subject, the line between cool and ultra, ultra gay is paper thin.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Put this man in charge

    by kafka07

    of all of Hollywood. Everything will be at peace and in harmony. And there would be no stupid ideas like this new Buffy project.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Plan B

    by kafka07

    Now they will try to recruit Luke Perry and Paul Reubens.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:18 a.m. CST

    The difference between Abrams and Whedon is that

    by Fortunesfool

    Whedon understands the basic concepts of film-making and is a gifted writer. Abrams is a TV director who got lucky and is paired himself with two idiots who couldn't write a shopping list without fucking it up.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:19 a.m. CST

    True Blood is an interesting contrast

    by growltiger

    <p>After watching the first season, I dived into the Charlaine Harris novels. To be polite, there is not much depth to them. The Stackhouse mysteries are the sort of thing you take to read at the beach. They are little more than amusing diversions.</p> <p>Which I guess is kind of the point. Alan Ball has done a real nice job with light weight source material. I am looking forward to this new series of episodes.</p>

  • June 12, 2009, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Reboot Reboot

    by Toilet_Terror

    I don't think so.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Why would you want Whedon to reboot this?

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    It wouldn't work. His story for Buffy was told in TV, and you can't have him replicate that feeling again. Especially given how un-Buffy Dollhouse is.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Smackfu is absolutely correct.

    by J.B.M.A.

    I salute him. Or her.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:38 a.m. CST

    kwisatzhaderach

    by rfid

    You wrote: "I know i'm the only person in the world who thinks this (apart from Glenn Kenny) but i'm right. What moments stick in the mind a month on? Nothing. Instantly forgettable bland, vapid 'entertainment'."<br /><br /> No, "instantly forgettable bland, vapid entertainment" would describe AICN, but not Star Trek.

  • June 12, 2009, 6:50 a.m. CST

    growltiger...

    by GaiustheBrave

    I agree 100% about the Sookie Stackhouse novels and True Blood. Can't wait 'til Sunday!

  • June 12, 2009, 6:51 a.m. CST

    He should trade input for backing for

    by Dingbatty

    more Firefly/Serenity. Direct to DVD?

  • June 12, 2009, 6:54 a.m. CST

    Must...not...complain...about...Star Trek

    by GaiustheBrave

    Lens flares! <br><br> As for this bit of news: Who gives a shit? Whedon had his chance, for better or worse. A reboot is a reboot, as my Gramps used to say when we talked about reboots. Let's see it go in a new direction.

  • June 12, 2009, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Star Trek was fun

    by donkey_lasher

    But has had too much coverage on here. Talk about Hype. The Undiscovered Country and Wrath of Kahn were superior. Bringing Kahn back was more ballsy than rebooting and appealing to the kids.

  • June 12, 2009, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Reboot it

    by donkey_lasher

    I think this could work if they don't have vampires magically turn to dust once staked. "What the, there's supposed to be no body!" "You watch too much Tv"

  • June 12, 2009, 7:07 a.m. CST

    "One wonders what percentage of EW readers were aboard when Para

    by Valin Kenobi

    That's different because Star Trek had already been franchised out over several additional series and several producers/head writers. It had expanded out of Roddenberry's hands even before he died. JJ is just another creator to add to that list. Whereas, like growltiger points out, Buffy has always been Whedon's baby.

  • June 12, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST

    The Star Trek reboot is different...

    by Chewtoy

    How many fans would be behind it if Abrams had taken Kirk, removed the rest of the crew, and not had him on the Enterprise. A reboot of Buffy without any of the other characters, or a Hellmouth or Sunnydale, provokes much the same reaction as fans of trek would likely have... Why not just make something new instead?

  • June 12, 2009, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Fuck em!

    by Judge Briggs

    If there is one fucking franchise that doesn't need a reboot, it's fucking Buffy! Don't touch it, you morons. The show is brilliant and the characters established should be left alone or brought into a potential movie, you fucking retards!

  • June 12, 2009, 7:31 a.m. CST

    in full disclosure

    by almostgrown

    I loved the tv buffy, and I'll watch the original movie whenever it's on, but Angel was a much better show. that said, from a film theory standpoint, the show created a much more iconic version of Buffy (and her sidekicks/enemies/etc) due to the fact that it was not a flash in the pan film release that was more pan than flash. After a 7 year run, these are the characters people are invested in and identify with. Even the orchestral love theme of Buffy/Angel is more memorable than, say, any music from the movie. Any good reboot will draw on established iconography and imagery from it's source to invoke the sense memories in the audience to make us remember the good times we had watching the original, a little jedi mind trick to make us feel like we're walking in to our home with the smell of fresh baked cookies in the air.

  • June 12, 2009, 7:41 a.m. CST

    But see, Roddenberry is dead.

    by rev_skarekroe

    Whedon isn't. There's the big difference.

  • June 12, 2009, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I think it's time we all moved on to TRUE BLOOD

    by SpyGuy

    BUFFY: TVS, you were great in your day but your day is apparently done (apart from the current Dark Horse comic book series).

  • June 12, 2009, 7:55 a.m. CST

    I agree with a Buffy reboot in theory....

    by pdennett316

    It needs to be sufficiently different to the previous series to make it worthwhile. <p> I know Buffy is the marketable name, but the end of the previous series gives them a chance to start fresh with new characters, different actors in the same parts would not be acceptable. <p> There were slayers all over the world, pick any location you want and start again with a new group, change the vibe a little too....not quite so 'goofy'.

  • June 12, 2009, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Good for Joss! Who needs a Buffy reboot?

    by Zardoz

    The TV show was great, it doesn't need re-imagining and Joss is still doing Buffy in the comics. (which is great!) So fuck a new Buffy movie. Now if they want to do an old Buffy movie with everyone from the show and Whedon, that's another story...

  • June 12, 2009, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Good, hire somone else.

    by cookylamoo

    It's not like he wasn't asked.

  • June 12, 2009, 8:27 a.m. CST

    97% of respondants

    by palpatinefuckedmydog

    said "who gives a shit"

  • June 12, 2009, 8:44 a.m. CST

    3% said they would go, 17% said they wouldn't

    by chrth

    and 80% said "They're rebooting the Dylan McKay movie?"

  • June 12, 2009, 8:47 a.m. CST

    Buffy = Retarded Producers

    by shutupfanboy

    I love Megan Fox as much as any guy who isn't gay, but she is the wrong person for Buffy. She would actually have to act instead of raping a bike. If this is the best they can do with that role then they are already screwed. Buffy sucks by herself that is why the movie was terrible. The supporting cast is the best part of the show and why it kept going. I appericate the producers going to Joss, but Joss has every right to turn them down considering they know nothing on why the show was successful in the first place. I also agree that Star Trek was different due people sick of Star Trek by the time Enterprise ended. Also, I don't see anyone throwing 150 million dollars to the project and hiring a staff that understands the past material or at least willing to understand the past material. No one is sick of Buffy considering how much hate WB got for canning Angel. I know people could care less, but one great reboot doesn't mean every reboot is going to be good or even consideration that will be great.

  • June 12, 2009, 9 a.m. CST

    For almost 90 years we called them "remakes"

    by Carl's hat

    ...now we call them "reboots". Reboots, my ass! What a load of shit. Pretty much sums up Hollywood today. Star Trek has been on at the movies for almost 2 months now. Isn't it ripe for a reboot?

  • June 12, 2009, 9:01 a.m. CST

    Lol at palpatinefuckedmydog's post

    by CreasyBear

  • June 12, 2009, 9:01 a.m. CST

    Original movie was free of Willow, Xander, Giles, etc.

    by Squashua

    ad nauseum

  • June 12, 2009, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Star Trek isn't the best example

    by cookepuss

    It's a continuity reboot to be sure, but not much else. It's essentially a movie about nothing. Nero's existence only succeeds gathering the characters together - something that could just as well been accomplished via e-vite.<p> <p> I enjoyed Trek, but found the plot to be wholly forgettable. The execution was great, but the Roddenberry vision was gone. <p> <p> I feel that it would be the same case with any Buffy reboot. It may be enjoyable, but that Whedon spark will be missing.

  • June 12, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST

    seems simple

    by the__natural74

    The producers throwing around the idea of a Buffy reboot got it wrong from the start, and thus lost any credibility with such a devoted group of fans (myself included!).<br><br> You come to the table with a fresh look at the story, get Joss' blessing/involvement, include the fans in the process...you're sitting on a potential profit earning franchise.<br><br> By already getting the planning stages wrong...now you're sailing into a storm instead of having some wind behind your sails, pushing the project ahead. No common sense.<br><br> A fresh pair of eyes isn't always a bad thing, but you need to first include the architect of the sacred material, if only to calm the fears of the devoted fan-base.

  • June 12, 2009, 10:16 a.m. CST

    I'm not a huge fan of a reboot especially of Buffy, but

    by Rob0729

    it could still be a good movie and worth watching if they put it in capable hands. Remember they are rebooting the crappy Kristy Swanson Buffy movie, not the far superior Buffy TV show. Anyone hoping for a movie with the TV characters will be waiting forever. Even with Sarah Michelle Gellar's career stalled, she has not shown any interest in returning. David Boreanas has been adament about moving on and leaving Angel behind. James Marsters is pushing 50 and probably couldn't pass for a non-aging spike anymore without a lot of make up and CGI. <br><br> Depending on who directs and who is cast, I may or may not see it.

  • June 12, 2009, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Should feature SMG training up a new girl

    by performingmonkey

    They get all hot and sweaty. And stuff. I don't get why you all want Whedon to suck your cocks so bad. Dollhouse is a piece of shit. Buffy was a fluke. Resurrection had a crap script. Toy Story was co-written. Firefly is the only passable thing he's been heavily involved in apart from a couple of seasons of Buffy (season 5 was quite good).

  • June 12, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Demode

    by palpatinefuckedmydog

    In their 20's??Gitthafuggouttahere.They're all late 30's pushing 40.They were already too old to play the roles in the first place. It's as ridiculous as the cast of Friends portraying people in their 20's when the actors were in their 40's.

  • June 12, 2009, 10:57 a.m. CST

    They asked, Joss declined!

    by cookylamoo

    What are they supposed to do, blow him? (Actually, that would probably work)

  • June 12, 2009, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Not the biggest Whedon fan

    by shutupfanboy

    I actually made a list of 60 decisions by Joss that were retarded. Yet, I can not include him saying no to this as one of those 60 decisions. I think any reasonable person knows its early to reboot this franchise and it probably won't make any money even if it was a sequel. Knowing Joss he would kill Xander, Willow and Giles. Turn Spike evil again and have Angel be turned to dust within in the first thirty minutes of the flick leaving Buffy with Dawn at the end. The same bad ass plot for Serenity just more fan favorite deaths for no reason.

  • June 12, 2009, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Yeah, best to stay away.

    by password.swordfish

    It's still too fresh to reinvent, so without the TV characters, why even bother? Now I would go see another vampire slayer (not buffy) kick ass if the director was someone exciting and interesting - the Kuzais? Um, nope. The original Buffy movie was schlock, pure and simple, and we all know they're the reason for it. Whedon is wise to stay away.

  • June 12, 2009, 11:26 a.m. CST

    this reboot is a remake, vice versa thing

    by Bouncy X

    people are just throwing around the term reboot freely around but when it comes down to it, i think Batman Begins and Casino Royale are probably the only true reboots we've had recently. they both started over a franchise and ignored the movies that came before it. remakes are just that, they redo the same story, reboots ignore the original story and start their own.

  • June 12, 2009, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Me love Buffy

    by MegaBeth

    But I think they should just leave it alone. I adored the T.V. series and it ended perfectly. The original movie sort of sucked in my opinion. Just leave it alone and produce something original.

  • June 12, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Friends and Buffy

    by Bouncy X

    they were more or less the ages they portrayed. they were all in their mid to late 20s when the show started and thats how old they were on the series as well. as for Buffy, with the exception of Spike they were all within 3-5yrs of the characters they played and Dawn was exactly the age she played. i know 90210 started that trend but these two shows werent a big pusher of that concept.

  • June 12, 2009, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Buffy Characters are extremely stoopid

    by buffywrestling

    - not to mention the actors - if they were in their mid-20's in high school o.0

  • June 12, 2009, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Camp that wanted to be serious

    by enderandrew

    There were only 2 good episodes of the show I ever saw, Hush and Once More With Feeling, because the concepts and execution for those episodes were excellent. All my friends kept telling me how awesome this show was, and making me watch it over and over again. But it was poor-campy humor that wanted to be taken seriously. People preached about the incredible love story with Buffy and Angel, except why would a 900-year old vampire by dating a girl in high school? Chicken statuatory?<p>When a normal person walks past a demon, and they write it as as a "skin condition" (including the huge horns) it is neither funny, nor something that lends itself to being taken seriously. Buffy was a bad television show at best, and Angel was really bad. I think people were just happy to see primetime genre television with on-going plots. But that didn't make it good.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Just have JJ reboot Buffy too.

    by IL_Deuce

    He should just reboot everything, really.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Mmmm... True Blood this Sunday.

    by IL_Deuce

    Fuck yeah.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST

    and really, Buffy only worked as a TV show.

    by IL_Deuce

    It gave them time to develop the characters properly.<BR><BR> You really couldn't do everything the series accomplished with a couple of movies or more. There's too much there to fit in.<BR><BR> and that's not even including Angel.

  • June 12, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    3 Percent of Respondents - I love the 'net

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    Never mind that 100 percent of those respondents represent such a tiny minority of people as to be rendered wholly irrelevant. See, what Hollywood has recently figured out with things like IRON MAN and STAR TREK is that the "fans" of the source material are the LAST people you want to get to go see your product. There's NO AUDIENCE for it. Sure, BUFFY was amazing quality tv - but ... do you know how small its audience really was/is? It's TINY. Now, the general moron public - that's who you need to please. And they will, with a few dashes of lesbian eroticism female-vampires a la UNDERWORLD fighting Buffy and saying things into her ear like "Come on - it would be so easy - join us ..." You know it will be there when the movie trailer hits, or in the movie itself. But our girl will be a new Buffy, untested, and she'll be tempted but she'll win out with WILLPOWER and DEFEAT THE EVIL BITCHES! YEAH!

  • June 12, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Make the movie! Interweb fans are 0.02% of box office!

    by Tall_Boy66

    They can turn a profit, go ahead and do it. The Browncoats anger will have negative effect upon them movie. See: Box Office Returns of Serenity.

  • June 12, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Also, Star Trek is the highest grossing/best reviewed movies 09

    by Tall_Boy66

    Maybe not THE best reviewed movie, but it's pretty goddamn close. And only, like, a dozen people on AICN Talkback hate it. But it's AICN talkbackers, so who gives a shit? Star Trek = pure awesome. Period.

  • June 12, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    I've been cautiously on board on Trek

    by VAwitch

    ever since it was announced. After all, there wasn't much worse that could be done w/ it - and JJ Abrams has done several rather cerebral franchises, so he knows audiences don't auto= dumb.<P><P>As for Whedon-free Buffy... I'll pass. When a creator who was also writer AND director of a series/franchise is not involved in any way shape or form (or some other original producer), I've yet to be happy with results. I smell BtVS movie remake - and really? Does the universe need <I>that<i>

  • June 12, 2009, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Tallboy - EXACTLY, you got it

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    They could make a BUFFY movie for $1m straight-to-video quality, get a few of the fans to go and a LOT of newbies, create an Edward Cullen sort of dude for Buffy to go after, put in a lot of mopey teen angst and a soundtrack "featuring music by Hat and pi eating contest" and get 50x their return, or they could do a Joss Whedonverse movie that cost $50m and made $13m (see SERENITY). Do the math. TOUGH CHOICE! And if the movie sucks, they'll just reboot it later. Genius!

  • June 12, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    When you question Hollywood's decisions ...

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    ... consider a recent survey that found that a third of adolescents going to the movies pay little-to-no attention to the movie and view it as a social gathering place to talk oh the phone and text. THEY PAY TO GO SEE SOMETHING TO WHICH THEY PAY LITTLE OR NO ATTENTION. THINK ABOUT IT! IF YOU CAN, I mean ...

  • June 12, 2009, 2:18 p.m. CST

    star trek not doing well

    by BendersShinyAss

    bullshit. sheer and absolute bullshit!

  • June 12, 2009, 2:27 p.m. CST

    I say Reboot Bufly....

    by cookylamoo

    And this time have Xander turn out to be the Lesbian.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Everyone wants...

    by Arteska

    ...to be in the vampire high school business now. Whedon didn't invent it but yeah I would think it would be irritating to jive what is happening now to whatever obstacles he had with his original movie, later vindicated by his TV show (albeit with smaller confines) and now riffed on endlessly. Being asked after the fact most people would react the same way he did. They can copy what he's doing now later I guess.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Even if I end up liking this movie more than Star Wars

    by JRcanReid

    I will never buy it or otherwise contribute money to it in any format. I love Joss Whedon that much. If I ever have another child, I will name the child "Joss Whedon Last Name". Even if it's a girl.

  • June 12, 2009, 3:52 p.m. CST

    A buffy reboot is a great idea...

    by Cory849

    ...10-15 years from now. It is a terrible idea now.

  • June 12, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    I blame the goddamned Emo's

    by RMA

    If those arseholes hadn't gone to see Twilight we wouldn't be facing this pointless, meaningless reboot.

  • June 12, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Definition of terms...

    by growltiger

    <p>Remake is a redo. Take the original property and re-film it in terms of the original. </p> <p>Reboot is to start over again. The big advantage is escaping that devil called continuity. </p> <p>Re-imagine is to remake but recast the story in new terms and/or environment. </p> <p>Adaptation is to take a story from one medium or culture and transfer it to another. </p> <p>Most of the time, this is a fool's game. Why would anyone remake, reboot, or re-imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey? The Grand Illusion is so beautiful that it ought not be adapted for the American audience. On the other hand, a high concept classic like High Noon could be feasible. (Outland tried. It was flawed but interesting.) Why or how would anyone re-produce Birth of a Nation? </p> <p>Joss Whedon may not be Stanley Kubrick, but BtVS is his unique and quirky creation. Sad that he gave up ownership to get his vision produced, but business is business. That said, the creative success of BtVS comes from the characters and their idiosyncrasies and not just high concept. I suppose BtVS without Whedon could work the first time as an exercise in high concept. I cannot see it succeeding beyond that. </p>

  • June 12, 2009, 5:23 p.m. CST

    This will fail....

    by ZodNotGod

    since Trek has always been a collaborative series created by many people. Not to say Buffy isn't, but Whedon's vision has always been the constant and consistant reference whereas Roddenberry's "vision" has been tweaked many ways to fit the times. Here's an idea, give Whedon some moola to make his Buffy-verse movie. Whoever up top said overrated tv show needs to go swallow a cock and die.

  • June 12, 2009, 5:52 p.m. CST

    well...

    by cineninja

    it would be tough for Whedon to do it without SMG and crew as they have been so swamped with quality post-Buffy work like....ummmm....like.....oh well...

  • June 12, 2009, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Spake: It's like you think we don't understand

    by buffywrestling

    why Fran & Kaz are eager to jump back on the franchise at this time. We get why they want to make it; why with Twilight's success, the time is ripe. Anyone who can work a doorknob can figure that out. That is not the reason the fandom was in such a tiz. <p> It's not "Why would they do this?", it's "Why would they do this without Joss Whedon?" And yes, the answer ironically ends up being the same: money. <p> Why give Joss anything when they already own the original movie rights? They don't have to at all, as underscored by announcing the plans for the movie in the trades. <p> All they are really doing is alienating thier own fanbase - the people that they in fact should be marketing to. The original movie was fail. Whedon et al built something from that fail. And love or hate the series, it has garnered critical acclaim, not just from geeks or people on the fringe. And that creative thanks is to the Mutant Enemy team, not the Kuzui's or Dolly Parton.

  • June 12, 2009, 7:39 p.m. CST

    And I could probably get behind a Slayer movie

    by buffywrestling

    If they left Buffy and crew out of it. But unfortunatly, that is not the case. They are looking to cash in on "Buffy", not "The Slayer".

  • June 12, 2009, 8:16 p.m. CST

    No, This is complely different.....

    by cookylamoo

    This is Buffy; The Vampire Slayer. In this one she's a Vampire who slays people.

  • June 12, 2009, 8:20 p.m. CST

    Hard "R" with a 5 minute Hannigan/Geller sex scene.

    by conspiracy

    Minimum $300M at the door..even when you factor in the cost of mopping up and hosing out the theater between showings.</p><p>Make it So!

  • June 12, 2009, 8:31 p.m. CST

    cooky: I'd probably watch that one

    by buffywrestling

    if there wasn't already a Vamp!Buffy in the TV series. Which they can't use.

  • June 12, 2009, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Ramblings

    by buffywrestling

    So I'm just finishing up S7 of BtVS and of course I have to re-visit Angel's S4 Faith 3 ep arc crossover and I'm at the part where Willow and Wesley are confessing their "darkness" to each other and it occurs to me: <p> Wesley Whydam-Pryce had a staggerningly epic 180 from when he was first introduced on BtVS. And when he grimly says, "I've changed" and Willow comes back with, "I flayed a guy alive and tried to destroy the world", how the campiness of BtVS didn't cancel out its underlying metaphor, even in its last diwindling season. <p> Wes says, "I never - flayed - but I did keep a girl chained up in my closet....Oh, it doesn't compare", it actually DOES compare, very much so. <p> However, even with the addition of Harmony and Spike in Angel S5, I think that was when Angel started to break out into its own with a new set of rules, even with the Buffy callbacks. <p> S5 of Angel is what actually gives me hope for the 2nd season of Dollhouse, even if it doesn't get renewed beyond the new 13 eps. Angel S5 felt like a new series - a tighter series - than what came before it.

  • June 12, 2009, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Calling bullshit on the reboot/ remake difference.

    by Carl's hat

    The term "Reboot" was created by some candy ass pussy in a suit that just knew idiots like Tigergrowl and Bouncy X would lap it up. You guys are the exact type that marketing companies try to exploit.

  • June 13, 2009, 1 p.m. CST

    And yet there is a difference...

    by growltiger

    Score one for the marketing suits. </p> <p>Having a term for "going back to the beginning" does not make that concept right or wrong. It is, after all, just a word. The end product will decide whether the concept works. </p>

  • June 13, 2009, 2:55 p.m. CST

    CeejayNightwing is an idiot

    by Proman1984

    Star Trek is YET TO OPEN IN MOST IT'S FOREIGN TERRITORIES. And it is doing quite well especially compared to previous installments.

  • June 14, 2009, 2:56 a.m. CST

    I'd see a Whedon free Buffy movie

    by eveelcapitalist

    Really, has anyone here actually seen the original Buffy movie? It's horrible and bears little resemblance to the TV series. No Willow, no Xander, none of those characters. Buffy barely resembles the TV Buffy in character and finally there is little continuity shared between the two (in the movie, parents are happily married and the school's gym isn't burned to the ground, Luke Perry gets the girl etc etc etc). Basically, they share similar concepts and a name but in execution they're two different beasts. Actually, I think it would be pretty neat if this Whedon-less Buffy movie served as a prequel to the TV series. Since the original and TV aren't continuous this movie could actually solidly define in those terms Buffy's origins and her first forays into slaying, meeting her original Watcher and exactly what happened to cause her to burn down her school's gymnasium.