![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatApparently 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
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-21 07:00 pm (UTC)No. Next Generation was a continuation not a reboot. Not the same thing. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2018-07-21 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-21 10:42 pm (UTC)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".
no subject
Date: 2018-07-22 02:01 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-22 03:22 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2018-07-21 11:59 pm (UTC)Twitter Thread