Home » Blogs » 's blog

Buffy...Reloaded???

Submitted by RED SHIRT on May 28, 2009 - 8:28pm

Saw this today on rediff.com:

"After entertaining fans on the small screen, Buffy The Vampire Slayer is all set to hit cinema halls with a forthcoming flick based on it.

Though the character of Buffy was made famous by Hollywood actress Sarah Michelle Gellar in the hit TV sitcom, it was originally introduced in the 1992 flick of the same title.

The vampire flick could hit the theatres with a new vampire.

Director Fran Rubel Kuzui, who directed the original film and executively produced the TV programme, intends to replace Gellar and the rest of the cast with new actors to fight demons in a different generation.

'Everything has its moment. Every movie takes on a life at some point, and this seems like the moment to do this,' Contactmusic quoted Kuzui as saying."

Then it can't be called Buffy the Vampire Slayer, now can it?

»
John S. Drew's picture

Why not?

Submitted by John S. Drew on May 28, 2009 - 9:17pm.

I mean, I don't agree with doing it, but why can't they call it Buffy?  They can reboot it all they want.  Hell, there's also talking of rebooting the Alien franchise.  Nothing is sacred anymore because what comes first is the dollar.  Vampires are hot again and Kuzui wants to take advantage of it by flogging his Buffy franchise.  Now, will anyone follow it?  Perhaps.  The age group they want to hit is just old enough that they don't know who Buffy is or are not interested in following an over ten years old television show.

—

John
Creator, Producer, All Around God-Like Being
"What?  Too much?"

»

But...

Submitted by Judith Furnari (not verified) on June 1, 2009 - 4:55am.

The show has only been off the air four 6 years.  Call it Slayer or Slayers or Vampire Slayer: the Next Generation, but keep Buffy out of it.

»
John S. Drew's picture

I Know That...

Submitted by John S. Drew on June 1, 2009 - 5:22am.

...and you know that, but it matters not to those that want to make a profit.  They see the kids like the vampires, so why not dig up something that has been freshly buried, dust it off, and present it to those slobbering fans?  It's what Paramount did with Trek.  "It's not your father's Trek."  "This generation's Star Wars."  is what the ads say.  Don't we already have Star Wars for this generation?  Did we need another?  No, but Star Wars makes money and so they turned to JJ Abrams to Star Wars it up, which means dumb it down and spice up the special effects.  It's what's going to happen with Buffy.  I just wonder if they can use Angel or is that something they have to negotiate with Joss Whedon about?

—

John
Creator, Producer, All Around God-Like Being
"What?  Too much?"

»
krad's picture

Fox owns it all

Submitted by krad on June 5, 2009 - 12:34am.

The 20th Century Fox Film Corporation owns Buffy and Angel both.

For that matter, NBC/Universal owns Serenity/Firefly. Joss Whedon doesn't have any actual control over any of it....

 

—

Keith R.A. DeCandido | keith@decandido.net | kradical.livejournal.com | Facebook.com/kradec | Twitter.com/kradec

"Even when you turn your back, you're still facing something."

»
John S. Drew's picture

I Thought...

Submitted by John S. Drew on June 5, 2009 - 4:12am.

Kuzui Enterprises owns Buffy, which is why so many people are really upset about it being brought back.  In fact, Kuzui will be shopping around for a studio to help them with the project. - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i666afabc2849...

That's why I asked about Angel.  Fox may own the incarnations that were produced, but as far as the intellectual property, does Joss hold the rights to Angel?

—

John
Creator, Producer, All Around God-Like Being
"What?  Too much?"

»

Our Amazon Store