shadowkat | So...the Buffy Reboot appears to be actually happening now?

Entry tags:

whedon

So...the Buffy Reboot appears to be actually happening now?

Apparently all it took was for Joss Whedon to get booted out of the Marvel-verse and the DC-verse, to go back to his own verse. They considered rebooting Firefly in 2017, but it's harder to reboot -- I think because too short lived and too small a fan base? (Apparently, he's not interested in going back there again?? I don't know. You'd think he would reboot that one first??)

From sueworld, got the link:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Series Reboot in Works with Black Female Lead and Monica-Owusu Breen and Joss Whedon Producing

One of the most beloved TV series of the past two decades, Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is making a comeback. A reboot of the supernatural drama is in development at Fox 21 TV Studios, the cable/streaming division of 20th Century Fox TV, the studios behind the original series, which ran for seven seasons, first on the WB and then on UPN.

Midnight, Texas creator Monica Owusu-Breen has been tapped as writer, executive producer and showrunner of the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with the original series’ creator and showrunner Whedon set to executive produce alongside original series’ exec producers Gail Berman, Fran Kazui and Kaz Kazui as well as Joe Earley from Berman’s Jackal Group.

The new version, which will be pitched to streaming and cable networks this summer, will be contemporary, building on the mythology of the original. Per the producers: “Like our world, it will be richly diverse, and like the original, some aspects of the series could be seen as metaphors for issues facing us all today.”

According to sources, the diversity in the show’s description reflects the producers’ intention for the new slayer to be African American. The sources cautioned that the project is still in nascent stages with no script, and many details are still in flux.

Hmmm...IDK...this could be a good or bad thing. 98% of it depends on the writing. And Midnight, Texas and Marvel Agents of Shield were poorly written series that put me to sleep. I gave up on both really quickly. (It is worth noting that the first season of Buffy was hardly stellar. It didn't start taking off until the Second and Third Seasons.)

Also, why can't they come up with new series? Why reboot it?

OTOH...I am admittedly curious to see how they'd reboot it. Would they keep the same characters and dynamic, except with different actors and a more diverse cast? Could genders be flipped? How about LGBTQ casting and relationships? (You have to have diverse casting and diverse sexuality now, if you want anyone under the age of forty-five to watch. Gen X and the Baby Boomers grew up with all-white casting, the millenials grew up with diversified casting and have no patience for television shows that do not reflect the world we see daily. (Thank god). We had no choices. (Hello? Twelve Channels, maybe Twenty-Five if that in the 1970s-2005. Now we have over a million. ) They do.)

This could be really interesting.

Instead of a Single Mom raising Buffy, have a single Dad.
Giles be a female Watcher.
Flip the Genders on Xander and Willow.
Also Flip the Genders on Angel, Spike, Darla, and Drusilla.
Make it kinkier -- because if it goes on streaming, you can get away with that.
Have Buffy in College instead of high-school, and in a more urban environment.

There's possibilities.

I'm beginning to understand why they are wrapping up the Buffy comic verse now. (Although, the other reason is because sales were most likely dwindling. I could tell. They mentioned a Spike/Willow comic which never happened. And the number of issues for S11 dwindled, as they did for S12. Interest began to wane.)

Streaming also changes the whole story-telling dynamic. Shorter seasons. Higher production quality. More sex. Darker content. Older target audience. And no waiting between episodes. You can binge.

Mixed feelings.

That said? I wouldn't hold my breath. They teased about a Firefly reboot a year ago, after all. And someone has to pick it up (Buffy not Firefly). Buffy isn't as easy to reboot as it looks, it has a huge and rather entrenched fanbase who are all quite attached to the actors who'd formerly played the roles. You'd have to either attract new viewers and/or convince the existing ones to give it a try. Add to this, quite a few of those fans have become disillusioned by Joss Whedon, but still love Buffy and everything else involved with Buffy BUT Whedon. So...if the reboot only has Whedon and the executive producers of the original attached...the fans may not come aboard.

So, we shall see what happens. Don't get your hopes up though...or for that matter get too upset over it. Nothing is definite until we get an actual air date.

Does seem that after a long silence, and a lot of missteps, Whedon suddenly has a lot of interesting new balls in the air. A female detective series with an odd Swede-repelling name on Freeform. Some bizarre female action Victorian Steam Punk series on HBO, and now a Buffy reboot on streaming. He certainly landed on his feet? Didn't he? And been busy to boot.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Another show about vampires. Another show about the supernatural. Ho hum.

LOL! Yep. Apparently Neil Gaiman was wrong when he said that there was nothing new to say about vampires...no wait, he wasn't, but people just do not get tired of going there.

Although to be fair? We have a metaphorical vampire as President, so hence the interest.

I would watch a show about a vampire who got elected President. That would be different.

Sort of already are...just not a television show. ;-)

Don't get your hopes up though...or for that matter get too upset over it.

Very much the right attitude.

I don't know that gender flipping and role reversing are anything, but the norm any more. They can do all that, but it's not the new thing any more. Why are the show runners making a big deal of having a black Buffy, if the whole idea is that it shouldn't be a big deal. Let the entertainment press make a fuss about it, that's their job. But we who cared about the old show shouldn't care. Is the idea to be diverse or for the show runners to jump up and down and say, "Look at us, we're really cool!" (It's not as if Joss never did that in the old days, but perhaps a younger audience isn't going eat it up like the old one did.) Heck, have these people noticed how many mixed race couples there are in *commercials* these days? Hey, if they want a black Buffy, fine. Just don't act like that in itself is something to get excited about one way or the other.

I have to think that like Hawaii 5-0 if the Buffy reboot is good enough they don't need the old fans. I found the new Hawaii 5-0, too close to the old one. But time has proven that's okay, if you have enough new people watching. I don't think we should be too concerned if the new Buffy isn't what we remember. It's 20 years later and if they can get a different bunch of folks to watch Buffy deal with the 2020s instead of the 2000s, that's fine.

Edited 2018-07-21 04:07 (UTC)

I pretty much agree.

The commercials have LGBTQ and inter-racial couples, along with all POC. We live in an age in which it is the norm. Actually, if they tried to do the show the way they did it in the 1990s -- they wouldn't get an audience or anyone to distribute it. The shows that still have that dynamic started ten to thirteen years ago and over time have switched it up a bit.

It could be good. I don't know. According to sueworld and the article it's still in the pitch stages. They are attempting to drum up interest -- testing the waters so to speak. Personally I think there's enough other similar stuff out there already -- for it not to matter all that much one way or the other.

For me, the show didn't really stick out until late S2-S4, when they began to do weird adult things with it. And even then it was just a handful of seemingly stand-a-alone episodes. I got obsessed with it -- when it sort of got really ambitious and tried to do crazy-ass things that back then you just didn't do on tv. (Now? They do them all the time. So new viewers would have no idea why I got excited.)

I can't see the reboot being all that ground-breaking. The diversity in casting is sort of required now, when back then? It was the exact opposite. Whedon wanted to cast the actress who played Kendra as either Buffy or Cordelia and was shot down. He wanted diversified casting, but had no control. The network catered to its advertisers, who provided the dreaded "focus" groups to test the pilot and test casting sides. Moving it to a subscription channel or streaming has some definite pros -- one of which is you don't have please those pesky advertisers, just subscribers. Subscribers are easier.

Edited 2018-07-21 13:24 (UTC)

I have to think that like Hawaii 5-0 if the Buffy reboot is good enough they don't need the old fans. I found the new Hawaii 5-0, too close to the old one. But time has proven that's okay, if you have enough new people watching. I don't think we should be too concerned if the new Buffy isn't what we remember. It's 20 years later and if they can get a different bunch of folks to watch Buffy deal with the 2020s instead of the 2000s, that's fine.

Eh. Except Hawaii Five-Oh didn't have a passionate and entrenched fandom. Buffy does. Buffy's fandom is as entrenched and as passionate as Trek and Star Wars. Those are hard to reboot successfully. Trek waited over thirty years to do it, after the original creator was long dead and buried. And Star Wars waited about thirty to forty years to do it...and they were smart enough not to reboot but to just continue the universe -- it sort of lended itself to that.

It would be like...rebooting the X-Files, as opposed to continuing it.

And the fandom does NOT like Whedon at the moment. LOL! They are more fans of the characters and the verse than the writer. Many of them feel betrayed by the show-runner and are pissed off at him.

No, I'll be surprised if this gets past the pitch stage and actually gets picked up. Doesn't bother me all that much either way, because...well, there's a million frigging television shows on and I barely watch any as it is. LOL!

Trek waited over thirty years to do it,

Actually that would be less than 20 years. I think Next Gen slipped your mind. ;o) I suspect they way that was handled would be a good way to handle the new Buffy. Acknowledge the old, but mostly move on in other directions. All the potentials became slayers? I guess that wore off with time. ;o) Trash the old like JJ Abrams did with Star Trek? That was more like 40 years after the original.

I get the feeling, just the feeling, that Whedon's name is on this new Buffy, but he'll be much pushed to the background. So many executive producers announced, so little room for more than one of them to be doing much directly with the show. The Kazuis own the rights. Gail Berman has all the connections. The new woman sounds like she really wants to run things unlike Marni. So what is Whedon going to be doing besides collecting royalties? As you say he's not the most popular guy with the fans, but his name on things does make them want a peek.

Actually that would be less than 20 years. I think Next Gen slipped your mind.

No. Next Generation was a continuation not a reboot. Not the same thing. ;-)

We don't have the same definition of reboot. But you are welcome to yours.

Well, apparently nobody on Twitter or in any of the articles agrees on what a reboot is either. LOL!

The James Marsters Fan Page stated "okay, they need to clarify exactly what they mean by new iteration?"

Others?

"We want a continuation of the universe not a reboot aka remake of the story."

I'm not sure what your definition of reboot is. Mine always was to restart or create a brand new version. Example Battle Star Galatica was rebooted as BattleStar Galatica 2.0 with Starbuck as a woman, and the original series forgotten entirely. Hawaii Five-O, Dynasty, and now Charmed are all reboots, they are "remakes" of the original story.

Star Trek Deep Space Nine and Voyager are spin-offs.

Star Trek the Next Generation is a continuation of the original Star Trek (we even have the original characters making cameos on it and in the films, they are still in the verse.)

The Force Awakens is a continuation of Star Wars, it's not rebooted, Mark Hamil, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford make appearances in it as their characters.

In Television "reboot" to my knowledge has always been used to mean restart or create a new version. Another example Magnum PI this coming year is a "reboot".

It seems like what you are saying is if the character names are the same it's a reboot, otherwise not. Clearly the characters don't have to be the same. 2.0 Starbuck was a much different and much better character than anyone on the original. I'm not arguing with you, your view is valid. I just think if they'd called Adama "Sid" and Starbuck "Duke", it would still in my mind have been a reboot of the general idea of Battle Star Galactica.

Then, too, I will have to separate spin offs from reboots, like you did. Next Gen wasn't a spin off because of the time factor. I'd call it a reboot because people had been clamoring for Star Trek on TV for ages, and it was in general Star Trek with everything new, a new start with fresh characters. DS9 and Voyager were spin offs because of the timing and because neither of them technically was about exploration which was the big idea of the original Star Trek.

We can agree to disagree.

Edited 2018-07-22 02:35 (UTC)

It seems like what you are saying is if the character names are the same it's a reboot, otherwise not. Clearly the characters don't have to be the same. 2.0 Starbuck was a much different and much better character than anyone on the original.

Not quite. You're not understanding what I'm trying to say. That's not a disagreement, that's a misunderstanding. When I say apple -- you are seeing a grape, but I'm seeing an apple.

So let's forget the word "reboot" for a moment.

Battle Star Galatica was a complete remake and overhaul of the original series, as if the original didn't exist or never existed. It never referenced the original. It existed outside of it. That's why a lot of the fans of the original hated it -- because it basically acted as if the original never was. The two have nothing to do with one another. Are not connected. They are two separate interpretations of the same general story idea.

Hawaii 5-0 is a updated version of the old television series. But, also, as if the original never existed. They remade it from scratch, using similar character names and situations. If you never saw the original it would not matter.

Dynasty on the CW is an updated version of the original television series. But again as if the original never existed. Similar character names, similar set-up, similar plots although not the same plot, but the original may as well have never been. It's a remake.

Another example? They are remaking Charmed and Magnum PI. The characters, set-up, mythology is the same. Same names. Same location - well for the most part, but different time period and back stories. Magnum PI -- has a female overseer, Magnum is an Iraq/Afghanistan vet (not 'Nam), it's still in Hawaii, they've flipped genders on a few things. Charmed -- has diversified casting, still the Halliwell sisters, just different people playing them, different stories.

Star Trek Next Generation is a continuation of the original Star Trek. They reference the original characters. Even have cameos from them. In the STNG film Generations -- Picard meets Kurt. And we get cameos from Spock and Mr. Scott.
That's not a remake. The original still exists and is referenced within the new version. It's stories are still canonical to the new version.

See here:

Star Trek: Enterprise (2151-2161)
Star Trek Discovery (2255)
Star Trek (2265-2269)
Star Trek: The Animated Series (2269-2270)
Original Star Trek movies (2273-2293)
Star Trek: The Next Generation (2364-2370) See it takes place a century after the original and is a completely new ship, new crew, etc. The only thing it has in common with the original is the same universe and world.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (2369-2375)
Star Trek: Voyager (2371-2378)

This is similar to the Star Wars films. It's within the same universe -- it references the characters from the original series.

Now, the JJ Abrhams Star Trek - with Chris Pine playing James T. Kirk is a remake of the original series. They have new actors playing the same roles that Shatner, Nimoy, etc played. They have the same ship, the same verse, just different stories and situations. It's set up as different time line. But it is not in the same universe as the above television series. It's not a continuation like Star Trek Next Generation. It's a remake or rehaul of the original series -- which in TV executive/studio terms they like to call "reboot", although they have a tendency to use that term for things like Force Awakens, so hence the confusion.

I'm not sure if that makes it clearer or not?

The Buffy fandom has no problem with a "continuation" of the series, like Star Trek Next Generation or Force Awakens. What they are split on and do have issues with is a "remake" of the series, where say another actress plays Buffy, someone else plays Xander, etc. Or the writer does Buffy without those characters as a completely new iteration or remake of the series -- similar to what Ron Moore did with Battle Star Galatica or JJ Abrahams did with Star Trek, both of which got a lot of flack from those fandoms at the time. Because they basically kicked the original to the side.

It's slightly different than what Whedon did with the movie to tv show..because if you watch the first two seasons closely, the events in the movie are referenced. He doesn't remake the movie, nor does he act as if it never happened.
What he does is a continuation of the movie with a television series, but with different actors...in the role, and expands on it. If it was a remake, the movie wouldn't be referenced at all, nor would events from it be referenced at all.

Does that clarify it?

Here's a Twitter thread trying to figure out what reboot means...

Twitter Thread

The new woman sounds like she really wants to run things unlike Marni. So what is Whedon going to be doing besides collecting royalties?

Yep, it's the same woman who was the show-runner for Midnight, Texas. Whedon will be about as involved as he was with Agents of Shield.

I like the idea that Whedon would be the executive producer, but Monica Breen would run the show. Breen has produced some excellent scripts for Lost, Alias and Fringe. (I'm afraid I don't know Midnight, Texas.)

What especially appeals to me is the concept that the young women who grew up on Buffy, who absorbed the lessons of the series on the path to adulthood would now have the chance to tell Buffy's story themselves. This, rather than Whedon's return to the series, gives me hope that a reboot could be something interesting.

We should discuss this on ATPO, no? Masq? You there?

No one is on ATPO any longer. Masq fled to FB ages ago. She's rarely on DW. Good try though.

I don't know, have no clue what episodes of Lost, Alias or Fringe that Monica wrote. (I did like all of those shows, but they were produce by JJ Abrhams. I think Fringe was, I know the other two were.) I did not like Agents of Sheild all that much (it was okay), and Midnight, Texas had the worst production values I've seen, and the worst acting...and direction. It may have improved, IDK. I gave up after three episodes. So it's possible that it is much better now.

Hmmm...speaking of JJ Abraham's, it appears Whedon studied Abraham's success and decided to copy the model? That's what Abraham's is doing, he's executive producing a lot of series and films, but letting other people show-run them. That's what he did with Lost and Fringe (I think), and various other things. (Uhm, I can't spell JJ's last name to save my life, apparently.)

Now Whedon seems to be doing it too -- with two teen female centric series -- "the female noir detective story set in college" that reminds me of Veronica Mars on Freeform (he's executive producing, someone else is writing it) and "the Buffy reboot", while someone else runs it. Similar, in a way, to what he did with Agents of Shield. (It's possible that series improved after I gave up on it. I liked aspects of it, I just got bored in the third season.)

Edited 2018-07-21 13:39 (UTC)

Oh forgot to add..a few things that I was discussing with sueworld.

1. I've been watching the Buffy fandom from the sidelines for a while now and they do NOT like Mr. Whedon at all. Many of them feel betrayed by him and are pissed off at the writer. They are most interested and attached to the characters, world, and story than the show-runner or writer.

And they are really entrenched. Be a bit like rebooting the X-Files without David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson. Buffy fans are a bit like X-Files fans, and Trek fans and Star Wars fans.

They are more than likely to boycott it. It's an entrenched and passionate fandom. I know I've been watching them from the sidelines. The comics kept them active. If Whedon wanted to reboot it, he shouldn't have done the comics.

2. It's interesting that now Whedon's been booted off of Batgirl -- he's decided to do not one but three shows about female empowerment or female centric action heroes. Instead of say, rebooting Firefly. Or even Angel. Makes me wonder what his rejected concept was for Batgirl - I'm guessing we'll probably find out in one of those three shows?

Edited 2018-07-21 14:28 (UTC)

You want to discuss with folks on ATPO...there's a few below that are responding to this post.

I'm pessimistic about this. You make some good suggestions, but I'd bet the show will be more like Agents of Shield (which I like better than you) than BTVS. Let's face it, this will be a Disney/Fox production so the chances of anything truly cutting edge are... minuscule.

There are too few details out now (naturally), but I find it hard to imagine that I'd be interested in a new show.

Like I said above...I wouldn't get too upset or too excited about it..

For one thing it's still in the pitch stages. No one has picked up on it yet. They appear to be trying to drum up interest.

And, Disney is buying Fox, so all of this could change over night. (The deal hasn't gone completely through yet. But there's going to be some interesting shakeups. Look over at HBO and what is going on there with the AT&T's potential buyout of Time Warner.)

But yes, I fear it will be more like Agents of Sheild - or similar. Not all that interesting or appealing from a story perspective. And having seen this show-runner's previous effors -- Agents of Shield and Midnight, Texas...I don't have high hopes for the series.

That said, it should be noted that neither of us are the target audience for it. We're not the demographic they are aiming for here. ;-)

Those are some good points about the buyouts and how easy it would be to have projects fall through the cracks in the meantime. The announcement could also be a windsock to see what reactions come in.

Like many I'd be completely for a story about a new slayer which is part of the canon anyway. I see no reason for a reboot of Buffy and company itself. But I do like your ideas:

"Instead of a Single Mom raising Buffy, have a single Dad.
Giles be a female Watcher.
Flip the Genders on Xander and Willow."

I suspect this will not change because of the targeted demo:

"Have Buffy in College instead of high-school, and in a more urban environment."

However I do agree that it becomes hard to imagine that kids wouldn't be more closely tracked today so that college would make much more sense. At the same time I'd guess that parents would be much more involved in this version.

"Make it kinkier -- because if it goes on streaming, you can get away with that."

Again, doubt it given the demo and the fact that it's not targeted for streaming as opposed to, potentially, Disney Family. But I'll bet that Joss will cover this on HBO with his Victorian ~~slayers~~ series.

The announcement could also be a windsock to see what reactions come in.

I think it's a windsock to test the market. And how people react to it. They are still in the planning stages, so they are sort of testing the water to see :

1) if there's still interest or even a market for it
2) who the market would be
3) which direction to go...continuation, whole new iteration, remake...

Again, doubt it given the demo and the fact that it's not targeted for streaming as opposed to, potentially, Disney Family.

Actually, more likely Freeform. Disney Family skews a lot younger. But according to the article -- they are planning are going with the streaming channels, such as Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon. I think if they get one of them -- it will most likely be Hulu, which has all the Fox and ABC content, and is owned by Disney and Fox at the moment. Disney is buying Fox in order to grab controlling share of Hulu and the Fox entertainment content such as Buffy.

And Freeform has some pretty dark stuff. Vampire Diaries went darker than Buffy did. So too has Supernatural in some respects. So the teen and tween genres have gone really dark in the last few years.

It's not clear from the article what demo they'll go for. Most of the fandom is the 18-45 demo.

So many mixed feelings about this. I think that a slayer of colour would be fab (could fix the problematic use of black slayers in the original) but I don't want her to be Buffy. SoC deserves her own mythology and story line. Kendra would be wonderful. Rona, or another slayer we don't yet know. Their world is so wide, I think it does a disservice to slayers to reboot Buffy as Buffy. It's not Doctor Who where they are rebooted with a different actor as needed. Buffy was groundbreaking, so this one should be also. Hell, I still want to see Melaka's story on the screen.

Twitter comments on this, esp from fans of colour have been eye opening. Worth checking out the hashtag.

My own feeling would have been to just create a new set of characters and continue them in the world and make them mostly unconnected to the old series.

(With the "is it one girl in all the world" or "are there a whole bunch of slayers" being the only real piece of existing continuity I'd grapple with.)

I agree. It makes more sense to do it as a continuation, and hang with the continuity of"a whole bunch of slayers" and forget the comics. That's what Star Trek and Star Wars did. It's more effective than a full-scale reboot. Particularly if you have a sizable and rather entrenched fandom. You can get away with a full-scale reboot with shows like BattleStar Galatica or Hawaii Five-O but not shows like the X-Files, Buffy, Star Trek, Lost and Star Wars.

Twitter comments on this, esp from fans of colour have been eye opening. Worth checking out the hashtag.

Hmmm...are they positive or negative or ambivalent? I may need to check that out.

So many mixed feelings about this. I think that a slayer of colour would be fab (could fix the problematic use of black slayers in the original) but I don't want her to be Buffy. SoC deserves her own mythology and story line.

I sort of agree. I think continuation makes more sense. This is deeply entrenched fandom that is pissed off with Whedon (LOL!). JJ had troubles rebooting Trek, it got mixed results. I don't know if it can be successfully rebooted. They'd be better off continuing it -- with no mention of the other characters. It's a big verse.

For me, I guess the first question is whether you'd do a "reboot" or just a continuations of the universe but with a new character. If you are already changing genders and relationships and such... why not just make them original characters in the same universe?

Do they just not want to be weighted down by backstory from the show and comics? Did they want to keep the "one girl in all the world" part? Do they not want to have to answer questions about whether old actors & characters will come back to the show? Or is it just that they think a "reboot" will sell better than "continuation w/original characters."

All of that aside... those are details. The main thing is - do the show creators have original stories that are relevant to today? If they have that - then it can work. I'm gonna choose not to be weighted - if it's good, it's good. If not, oh well. What's already in existence stands on its own.

Agreed. Feel much the same way. Ambivalent.

If I were to do it -- I'd just do a continuation. But they may want to get rid of the verse as it stands and do a whole new take? And if you reboot from scratch, you don't have to bring back any old characters or actors. You can even use those old actors in a different way.

The main thing is - do the show creators have original stories that are relevant to today? If they have that - then it can work. I'm gonna choose not to be weighted - if it's good, it's good. If not, oh well. What's already in existence stands on its own.

Yep. Also, I'll believe this when I see it. They've teased about a reboot before. The trick is good writers -- and good stories that relevant to today's audience. The new show-runner doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the above, but I'm also judging her based on Midnight, Texas...which may have improved after the first three-five episodes.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So...the Buffy Reboot appears to be actually happening now?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject