Joss-less Buffy 'Reboot' = BIG BAD!

[jellymoff]

I agree with you CBG, if they are going to do this I hope they do the best job possible. I would rather it be successful than be a total failure, insuring that future generations stay far away from anything Buffy related.

[buffyfan21]

Agreed. But I would much prefer that this thing never sees the light of day at all.

[moscowwatcher]

The only thing I'm afraid of is that the film can kill Joss' interest in the franchise. The rest... can't care less. Although I strongly suspect that "updating" is an euphemism for making vampires sparkle.

[SOMNAMBULIST 2.0]

When I seen this on the news today at 6:00 AM, I screamed so loud my cats hiss, puffed up, and hit under my bed. THIS IS NOT OKAY!

[dravenuk]

Nov 23, 2010 14:32:20 GMT -5 CowboyGuy said:

The more I think about it, I would rather them use the television show's characters because if they are going to put this thing out I want it to be the best it can be. Without Willow, Giles, Angel, and Xander, Joyce, etc...what would a Buffy movie be?

See I'm totally the opposite. I'm glad that they're not trying to do a certain-to-be inferior rehash of the series. What’s the point? That would only tarnish the memory of the real thing. For me, to see other actors playing Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles etc. in Sunnydale in a Jossless Buffy would just be too much to bear, at least it would while Joss is still around and is not involved. For even though other writers gave her words to say in the series, Buffy's voice was always Joss's voice. That’s what I love.

Personally I hope something happens and this new film just doesn’t get made at all. But if it does get made then I hope it gets widely ignored by moviegoers upon release. For there is only one true Buffy. Joss's Buffy. Accept no substitute.

[patxshand]

Whit Anderson seems like a perfectly nice, clever lady. A fan. C'mon, fandom.

While the fandom at large seems ready to sharpie an evil moustache on her lip and to throw some horns on top of her head, she... sort of just seems like a passionate fan. What up and coming screenwriter wouldn't take the job? There might be some unsavory politics behind it, but we don't know that. She seems like a perfectly nice lady and, from what she said, it seems she has a decent grasp on who the character is and what her story means to so many people. I love Joss, and his work has touched me more than any other writer's stuff... but I'm not ready to condemn this project and this lady without knowing more or having seen the film.

This may be the nerdiest thing I ever say... but I am so blogging about this when I get a chance.

[midwesternwatcher]

Nov 23, 2010 11:49:14 GMT -5 AndrewCrossett said:

Nov 23, 2010 11:38:51 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

No Arthur Conan Doyle, no Sherlock Holmes?

No Euripides, no Hercules?

No Pythagoras, no Theorem?

Come off it.

All of the cases you mention are ones in which the original author is long, long dead. In fact, all of those characters/things are legally in the public domain.

It's fundamentally unethical to steal a creator's character when he's still alive, still telling his own stories with that character, and doesn't approve.

How in the world does it make a difference, when the original author lived or whether he's alive or dead? If it's disrespectful as you say to use a living author's characters, then it's equally disrespectful to use a dead author's characters.

In fact, it is highly respectful. It's the sincerest form of flattery, to borrow a phrase. Do you think Tom Stoppard was disrespectful to Shakespeare?

Making new stories based on characters developed by someone else is an established and recognized form of creativity. It's been practiced since ancient times to today, and it will continue to be practiced as long as people write stories. In his statement, remember, Joss mentioned, in an ironic vein, his own work with the X-men characters. Get used to it!

[AndrewCrossett]

Nov 23, 2010 19:47:31 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

How in the world does it make a difference, when the original author lived or whether he's alive or dead? If it's disrespectful as you say to use a living author's characters, then it's equally disrespectful to use a dead author's characters.

Is it really that hard to understand how taking someone's creation against his will and without his consent and doing whatever you damn well please with it, while he is right there, alive and well, and still telling his stories, is not only disrespectful but unethical?

If you have a piece of paper that gives you a legal right to do it, then you can do it. Doesn't make it right.

It's legalized theft. These people are parasites, nothing more.

[midwesternwatcher]

Yes, it is.

If what you say is true, it applies equally well to fanfiction of all sorts, both in the Buffyverse and elsewhere. Obviously most of us think that's all right, no issue of respect involved. I could find a hundred posts by a hundred people that say that.

Again, why does it matter whether the author is alive or dead? It's a distinction without a difference.

Finally, very few of the posts on this thread have even mentioned "respect to Joss." That's not why people are upset about this. They don't want to be shocked out of their comfort zone. They don't want to learn or see anything new. They want to stick in the same old rut.

If this movie turns out to be great, we'll all embrace it, including Joss, including you, and you'll conveniently forget that you ever said that.

And if it's not great? Contrary to what some people say, we'll still gain. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

[AndrewCrossett]

Nov 23, 2010 20:45:35 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

If this movie turns out to be great, we'll all embrace it, including Joss, including you, and you'll conveniently forget that you ever said that.

Don't tell me what I will or won't do, and don't tell me that my moral and ethical beliefs are somehow phony.

[Shane]

I'm not approaching this as Buffy, the show. It's how a fan of the show got inspired by the character and wants to get her version of the character (albeit under different circumstances) produced. She didn't mention Season 8 so I don't think she considers that part of Buffy's journey, which a lot of people don't.

Still skeptical, though. What would be the draw? I fear a lot of the script will be twisted to capitalize on the vampire craze. If there was a huge Buffy/slayer craze going around I'd be more welcoming.

Nov 23, 2010 10:02:35 GMT -5 dravenuk said:

I'm not morally opposed to remakes or reboots...but only when there is artistic merit. Not just for pure financial gain. Joss is right. Buffy should live on after him. A reboot in the distant future post-joss would be fine. But to actively do it while the guy is still writing his Buffy and while its fandom is still so big and active and vocal is crazy and disrespectful to Joss and to the millions of fans around the world. It comes across as just a cynical, ill timed cash grab.

Agreed. But if the studios are willing to take a chance on it then it has potential and at least some artistic merit (which comes in all forms). I just hope it doesn't become something other than what Joss meant it to be.

And for a lot of people he already left when the show ended. It's not gaining much popularity (?) so this could turn out to be a good thing. I keep separate versions of Buffy and I don't see this as part of Joss's Buffy.

[midwesternwatcher]

Nov 23, 2010 20:49:08 GMT -5 AndrewCrossett said:

Nov 23, 2010 20:45:35 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

If this movie turns out to be great, we'll all embrace it, including Joss, including you, and you'll conveniently forget that you ever said that.

Don't tell me what I will or won't do, and don't tell me that my moral and ethical beliefs are somehow phony.

All right, I got a little hotheaded there. I don't know what you will or won't do. But things go down the memory hole all the time.

You still haven't explained to my satisfaction how it can be disrespectful to somebody to do honest creative work based on his characters and situations. I assure you, most of the fanfic authors out there, whatever they think of their own creations, mean no disrespect to Joss and would be flabbergasted at any suggestion that they were being disrespectful.

Joss was once asked in an interview (can't track it down right now) if he was flattered or embarrassed by fanfic. He replied, "Plenty of both."

Now, there is such a thing as disrespect to an author. Although I'm a champion of fanfic (on record there), I admit there is some fanfic out there that amounts to vandalism. For instance, I once happened on a fic set in the universe of The Chronicles of Narnia which depicted an incestuous relationship between Peter and Susan. That was indeed disrespectful to C. S. Lewis, and should be condemned.

I'm not a C. S. Lewis fan. My feelings about his work are mixed and complex. But I do think he should be treated with respect for his talent and dedication.

Even though he is dead. Whether the author is dead or living makes no difference I can see.

The difference between respect and disrespect is not the quality of the writing, but the intent of the author. A pastiche can be clumsy, but still respectful. This upcoming Buffy movie might turn out bad, but that in itself does not imply disrespect.

[Angel Beast]

SPOILER: Click to show

[AndrewCrossett]

Nov 23, 2010 21:14:07 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

You still haven't explained to my satisfaction how it can be disrespectful to somebody to do honest creative work based on his characters and situations. I assure you, most of the fanfic authors out there, whatever they think of their own creations, mean no disrespect to Joss and would be flabbergasted at any suggestion that they were being disrespectful.

Fanfiction is a small-scale use of his work, for personal enjoyment of a few hundred readers, with no profit motive. It's just playing, really. I've written a bunch of Buffy (and other) fanfics myself. But I would never accept money for them.

I don't think the disrespect has anything to do with malice against Joss or lack of respect for his work. It's a matter of taking his creation to not only make money off it without his consent or input, but to compete directly with the work he's doing. It's laziness and greed, marked by a complete lack of understanding of his feelings about it or acknowledgment of the fact that everything Buffy is, is because of him.

Put yourself in Joss's place. Imagine you created a compelling character, and wrote a successful series of stories about him or her. Some other person shows up with a slip of paper you signed when you were a young, starving author, and claims the right to write a series of books based on your character, with the same title. In addition, this person has the backing of a major corporation and 10 times more financial backing than you ever had. Would you honestly be okay with that? Seeing your life work, the thing you're most proud of, just taken by some hack and turned into a franchise to compete with yours?

If you would be okay with it, I think you're very much in the minority there.

Nov 23, 2010 21:14:07 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

Now, there is such a thing as disrespect to an author. Although I'm a champion of fanfic (on record there), I admit there is some fanfic out there that amounts to vandalism. For instance, I once happened on a fic set in the universe of The Chronicles of Narnia which depicted an incestuous relationship between Peter and Susan. That was indeed disrespectful to C. S. Lewis, and should be condemned.

But now imagine that fanfic writer had the legal right to make a movie out of that story, and major studio backing and funding to do it.

I'm not saying this movie would do something like that to Buffy, but if it did there wouldn't be a thing Joss could do about it. That's just not right.

Nov 23, 2010 21:14:07 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

Whether the author is dead or living makes no difference I can see.

The idea behind public domain is that an author gets to control and profit from his work while he is alive, and some years after he is dead the rest of the world gets access to it. This is how the body of literature moves forward without victimizing its creators.

There's nothing I can do about this, except to hope that the movie will either die in development, or come out and be a quick failure. But whatever happens, I won't see it. It might be the next "Casablanca" for all I know, but it will be a tainted "Casablanca," and I will have nothing to do with it. My loyalty is with Joss for all the years of enjoyment his work has given me. The only Buffy I'm interested in is the one in his head, and I'm happy to see that most of the fandom agrees with that.

[midwesternwatcher]

Yes, I would be OK with that. That person with his piece of paper, signed by me, gave me a leg up when I needed it. I signed it with a clear mind, and without duress. I have no legitimate complaint. I don't know how most people would feel. I gather Joss's actual feelings are not far from mine.

I'm not sure just where the confusion is, but money and respect are two very different kinds of value. If we're talking about respect, then the fact that fanfic makes no money makes no difference. If we're talking about money, then money is a creation of law, which has its own "right" and "wrong" which don't exactly correspond to anybody's idea of what ought to be.

Your indifference to the quality of this movie (which of course remains to be seen), strikes me as sad. You're going to deny yourself something good out of -- what exactly?

Can't you keep these two Buffys separate in your head? I suppose you've read the Iliad at some time or other. You know the character of Achilles that appears there. You may also the character of the same name who has shown up in DC comics. The two aren't entirely unrelated, but they're different. When reading the comics, I manage to keep the image of Homer's Achilles out of my mind. You can't?

Here's an example that may be clearer. I suppose you've read The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and probably you've seen the Walt Disney version. Consider the character of Phoebus de Chateaupers (hope I spelled that right). In Hugo's original, he is venal, vulgar, and a cad. In Disney's version, he becomes a Prince Charming. When you watch the Disney film (which is not too bad IMHO, moving in places) do you let your memories of Hugo get in the way? Can't you keep the two characters on two different tracks in your mind?

I guess I really am in a minority here. I have a high tolerance for ambiguity. The Buffy saga is not a fixed reality in my thinking, but a cloud of possibilities, most of which have yet to be explored. Some of these possible stories may well be as good, or better, than the so-called "canon."

Some of you want a single guiding mind who will keep things simple and compact and consistent (all three are already lost causes, especially the last one, but that's another issue). I most emphatically don't. I want the Buffy saga to escape into the collective mind, where it can live and grow to its full potential.

[AndrewCrossett]

Nov 23, 2010 22:34:23 GMT -5 midwesternwatcher said:

Your indifference to the quality of this movie (which of course remains to be seen), strikes me as sad. You're going to deny yourself something good out of -- what exactly?

My strong belief that it is morally wrong for a Buffy movie to be made against Joss's will and without his involvement.

There is no potential for enjoyment in this movie for me, because I find the circumstances of it so revolting. But even if there was, there are some principles I consider more important than my personal enjoyment.

Not that it matters at all to anyone but me.

[midwesternwatcher]

I do plan to see it, even if I hear bad things about it, which I surely will. I have my own take on the Buffy saga, but that's not the only truth. I want to see what somebody else's take is.

I do respect you for your strict sense of fairness and justice, even if it differs from mine. I do not think that the notion of fairness is funny, an opinion I have run into from time to time.

[Shane]

But why is Joss against this? It's *a* Buffy but not *his* Buffy. People who identify Buffy with Joss already know the difference. And the ones who identify it with the TV show will know the difference when they don't get to see the those characters and that setting.

Plus, so many comics and novels have been published without his involvement too. If people were loyal to Joss because this provides competition then they should be against *all* competition to Joss's work, no?

[The Night Lord]

Why not make a Fray film for Christ sakes? I'm more interested in seeing that (with Joss' consent/him on board) than a Buffy reboot

[AndrewCrossett]

Nov 24, 2010 2:43:10 GMT -5 Shane said:

Plus, so many comics and novels have been published without his involvement too. If people were loyal to Joss because this provides competition then they should be against *all* competition to Joss's work, no?

Those things were published without his involvement, but with his permission. Fox has the courtesy to get his sign-off on every licensed Buffy or Angel thing they authorize.