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

[shadowkat]

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.

Comments

[cactuswatcher]

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.

[shadowkat]

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.

[shadowkat]

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!

[cactuswatcher]

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.

[shadowkat]

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. ;-)

[cactuswatcher]

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

[shadowkat]

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".

[cactuswatcher]

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.

[shadowkat]

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?

[shadowkat]

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

Twitter Thread

[shadowkat]

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.