The New Buffy Movie Has a High Bar To Clear
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
Very interesting concept, and a really good article on it.
I think what made Buffy and Angel good was that it felt like Whedon was just as invested in his characters as you were.
But I'm a little inclined to agree that he might shy away from his work once it's out there in the open, done and accepted. Maybe he knows that some things are better left done like they are, rather than trying to revive them.
As a writer I am sure he has a billion stories inside him that he has left to tell, so it makes sense for him to keep plowing on and churning out more, rather than retreading what he's already done.
I think what made Buffy and Angel good was that it felt like Whedon was just as invested in his characters as you were.
But I'm a little inclined to agree that he might shy away from his work once it's out there in the open, done and accepted. Maybe he knows that some things are better left done like they are, rather than trying to revive them.
As a writer I am sure he has a billion stories inside him that he has left to tell, so it makes sense for him to keep plowing on and churning out more, rather than retreading what he's already done.
Reading through this thing: Do ANY of you realize that Buffy The Vampire Slayer was a god fucking awful movie [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103893/] that was rebooted as a TV show?
To the fans up in arms:
Given the show you pour your undying devotion to is a reboot, why not give another one a chance before condemning it to the gutters of movie hell?
To the fans up in arms:
Given the show you pour your undying devotion to is a reboot, why not give another one a chance before condemning it to the gutters of movie hell?
Haven't you just suggested a pretty cliché line and then chastised them for the lack of creativity?seekeroftruth86 said:
Hmm? I never said it was entertainment gold, I was just seeing how the formula might be shaken up a bit, so that they don't need to remake a franchise. I chastise their lack of creativity because they won't take the initiative to try new things (which doesn't bring in the cheese, to reiterate). They just want to cash in on a popular franchise by digging it back up. They recast people, maybe re-write some motivations and scenarios, but ultimately it will be the name that drives the show. That's what I think is uncreative. I (as well as many other people I'm sure) have tons of ideas for shows, movies, and video games. Why do we need remakes?Zachary Amaranth said:
Does it have alot to live up to? Sure. Is it a cash-in on the twilight craze? proberbly. Is it doomed to fail becasue of just that. No. School has changed since the 90s. To each generation.....well its a new generation with new challenges. I welcome the potential. I loved the series, but not everything josh touches is gold and there is no reason some talented others can't also make something good.
So WB have finally decided to cash in on the new vmpire trend, can't say I'm surprised. The reboot could go either way and I will attempt to reserve judgement until I see it.
btw
And yes I know she does start off very girly but she gets less girly without being less feminine.
btw
Me for a start, just because you didn't appreciate Buffy as a role model doesn't mean that none of the rest of us did. Buffy is a genuinely strong female chracter, without being hugely patronised, masculinised or overly girly, which is kind of a rare thing.Fumbleumble said:
And yes I know she does start off very girly but she gets less girly without being less feminine.
Why not? Because a world of remakes is a sad one, at least in my opinion. Why not make something NEW instead? The series is so good it cannot be surpassed anyway, and its not old enough to be irrelevant. There is no point in remaking it.DarkPanda XIII said:
I'm not a fan of the 'remake-mania' sweeping across the globe. It's lazy, underhanded and frequently awful. It's also not surprising, or preventable.
If I pitch a new movie idea it may succeed, it may flop. When you're investing $200,000,000 in a project that isn't what you want. You want the guy who says 'this brand maintained ratings of between 3.5 and 5.5million viewers throughout a 7 year lifecycle and it's name alone will generate hype.'
I don't like it, but it's basic business - take the straightest path to maximum profit.
That's always been the downfall of the medium; it's art attempting to work hand in hand with business and frankly what makes good art rarely makes good money. Van Gogh's paintings may be worth $30,000,000 now, but he couldn't give them away as toilet paper when he was alive.
Now; Buffy. I grew up with the show and adored every episode. The original movie was god-awful, but the series resonated in my teenage brain like a tuning fork and it's finale felt as epic and climactic to me as the Moon Landing probably would have.
Still, I invite a new imagining of her. I welcome the idea of an artistic re-rendering to create something totally new and different out of the source material. Key words here being NEW and ORIGINAL. Batman worked because it was on the opposite end of the spectrum to it's predecessors. SWAT, Lost in Space, the A-Team, etc didn't work because they essentially tried the same thing with a new cast, which can only be compared to the original and never stand as tall.
Unfortunately, back to the business thing, I know that they'll aim for a PG13 Twilight meets High School Musical and this will end up stinking more than vampires dumping ground. It'll also make a fortune and only encourage similar travesties.
If I pitch a new movie idea it may succeed, it may flop. When you're investing $200,000,000 in a project that isn't what you want. You want the guy who says 'this brand maintained ratings of between 3.5 and 5.5million viewers throughout a 7 year lifecycle and it's name alone will generate hype.'
I don't like it, but it's basic business - take the straightest path to maximum profit.
That's always been the downfall of the medium; it's art attempting to work hand in hand with business and frankly what makes good art rarely makes good money. Van Gogh's paintings may be worth $30,000,000 now, but he couldn't give them away as toilet paper when he was alive.
Now; Buffy. I grew up with the show and adored every episode. The original movie was god-awful, but the series resonated in my teenage brain like a tuning fork and it's finale felt as epic and climactic to me as the Moon Landing probably would have.
Still, I invite a new imagining of her. I welcome the idea of an artistic re-rendering to create something totally new and different out of the source material. Key words here being NEW and ORIGINAL. Batman worked because it was on the opposite end of the spectrum to it's predecessors. SWAT, Lost in Space, the A-Team, etc didn't work because they essentially tried the same thing with a new cast, which can only be compared to the original and never stand as tall.
Unfortunately, back to the business thing, I know that they'll aim for a PG13 Twilight meets High School Musical and this will end up stinking more than vampires dumping ground. It'll also make a fortune and only encourage similar travesties.
But still, you chastised them for not trying something new and suggested something old. At that point, what does it matter if they reboot Buffy or not, if they're just rehashing a different tired old plot instead?seekeroftruth86 said:
REALLY?.. and there aren't REAL women out there, capable of REAL feats worthy of living up to.. as opposed to an entirely madeup and impossible female, incapable of being taken seriously in a real world stuation?.... What kind of world (in your head) do you live in?QueenWren said:
Well, in this day and age, everything is getting a reboot. I say good luck, I'm not going to watch either way.
Yes it was a bad example. Still, they're not going to try anything new, they're going to re-use plots from the show, or the original film and call it a re-make to cash in on its fans, which is my point. They don't need to make more "Buffy" they need to try and make a new IP. I would appreciate that, and I don't expect them to use random idea in a video game forum. If it's "older than I think" it wouldn't have surprised me. That's why a singular person can't make an entire piece of work like this, as Extra Credits have noted.Zachary Amaranth said:
On that note, where have you seen the ideas I used before? Out of curiosity.
I'm with Whedon - just leave things well enough alone and stop half-assing the creative process. Come up with a new idea to make into a movie for once. If Congress thinks it's worth their time to have hearings about steroid use in professional sports, then they should take five minutes and make a law against remaking anything before at least 50 years has passed from the original production.