Snarking at pop culture with futility

[shadowkat]

Sigh.

In Entertainment Weekly read the following:

"No Scooby Gang? OR (sob!) Joss Whedon? News that movie execs [Kuzeis] intend to remake the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie without cooperation from its writer or the beloved cast of the more successful TV series was met with an expected flurry of online protests. But producer Roy Lee [who clearly doesn't have an original idea in his skull] is begging angry fans to put down their stakes. "I would love to have Joss involved," he says, noting that franchise guru Whedon does not control the rights to Buffy.[yes, we know, evil marketing people do - because he niavely sold you the rights or did it for hire. And you treat creative types like scum, you greedy bastards.] "He's got a huge fan base and it would make sense if he wanted to." [Not really, he is creative person and doesn't feel the need to redo what he's already done to make loads of money. He can 'gasp' actually come up with an original idea and 'gasp' evolve, and 'gasp' invent something new and innovative, as opposed to borrowing from others and repeating himself. That, ahem, is why he has a huge fan base and you do not.] But it looks like Whedon got other plans [like creating new things and expanding his horizons...gee, the world isn't made up of money and riding other peoples coat-tails, who'd have thunk it.]. "I hope it's cool" was all he would say, when reached via email on the set of The Cabin in the Woods. [Yes, because we all know how well the last film version went without his involvement - since it was taken over by the producers, actors, and director to the extent that Whedon's script was literally rewritten. So not involving him...again, is sort of a repeat of what they did the first round. And it sucked that go around, so...let's do the same thing again and see what happens?] Even if Whedon won't be sucked back in, the idea of a reboot is a no-brainer given the success of HBO's True Blood [a series based on a bunch of novels by Charlain Harris who was in turn inspired by BTVS, but she at least had an original idea in her head and Alan Ball at least played with the idea in his adaptation], and a little book called "Twilight"[sigh, no comment]. Besides notes Lee who turned Hong Kong's Internal Affairs in the Academy Award-winning The Departed [and am I the only person who thought that movie was overrated and repetitive? Plus taking a foreign film and redoing it is a bit different than redoing a domestic film that was made into a successful cult tv series and comic series, with a huge fanbase, but I can see how you'd be too dumb to get that teeny tiny difference.] "I don't think we've ever attempted a remake where we haven't had negative comments."[Gee and you've never wondered why that is? ]

And these idiots get a million dollars or more a year? Gotta love free market Capitalism. The unethical greedy bastards finish first. I'm going to donate money to Alztheimer's research and the New York Food Bank right now...to make myself feel better for wasting $34 a year on a pop culture magazine that keeps these nit-wits employed.

Granted, one could say this is not really that different than either the BattleStar Galatica reboot or the Star Trek reboot. But I beg to differ. First of all, BSG was more or less gone.
And the reboot took it in a different and new direction. Star Trek - same deal, the franchise was dead. And the reboot took it in another direction. That said, I do agree that rebooting either series - showed a lack of originality and creativity. Instead of coming up with something new, they went back and redid something that had previously worked - because you know less risk. BSG of the two was far riskier because they did change it, they made it something new and different. It served in some respects as a commentary on the original.
I don't think Abrhams Star Trek quite accomplishes that. Although it is admittedly fun and different.

If they do manage to redo Buffy - I sort of hope that they take a page out of Abrahams and Moore's books and find a new angle. Or a way of commenting on the TV series. Or maybe commenting on our own time period as BSG did. But I won't hold my breath.

Comments

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Star Trek managed to keep going for quite a while after Gene Roddenberry's death, but I think over the last ten years we could all see that the energy had gone out of the franchise and a reboot was not a terrible idea. However Joss is still alive and creating! How insulting to even think of cutting him out of the project (if I really thought there was a 'project' I think there is only a greedy desire to make some more money by people who never deserved the royalties they were already getting).

The Kuzeis trashed Joss' original script for BtVS and made a really lame (IMO) film, could you imagine how bad it would be when they don't even have a script by Joss to mess up?!

Of course I don't know the details of BSG, I had found the original to be unwatchable, so I never watched it.... I came to the reboot as a newbie.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The original BSG - created by Glen A. Larson was mainly for kids. It aired at 7pm in the Midwest and 8pm on the East Coast. I loved it - but I was also only 10 or 12 at the time and it came on the heels of Star Wars - and was in some respects a rip-off
homage to Star Wars. It appealed to me at the time for a couple of reasons - my bullet proof kink regarding survival dramas, the whole adventure bit.

It survived for about three seasons. Came back briefly as a spin-off, with the next generation finding earth (really lame spin-off, and pretty unwatchable - to the extent it last four episodes.) Then with the help of Richard Hatch - had a comic series and a series of books (which I didn't read or follow.). Hatch had been fighting for it to come back for quite some time. When Moore brought it back but not as Hatch and fans hoped, people got really upset. (Think how Trekkies would feel if Abrhams turned Spock or Kirk into a woman? And made the series incredibly dark?)

That said, I loved BSG2, and think it is a lot better than the original - which I loved at the time it aired.
(Now, I find the original version unwatchable. Our tastes do change, apparently. I also find original Star Trek episodes unwatchable now - tried two recently and only made it all the way through one, snarking at it all the way.)

The new version does respect the old one, and does in some regards pay homage to Larson's vision. The first two years even reference old BSG episodes. So, in some regards the new version is richer to people who remember the old one, but are not wedded to it.

At any rate, I generally agree. Remaking Buffy is a completely different animal than remaking Star Trek, BSG, or for that matter Internal Affairs.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Well I can definitely understand BSG fans getting upset if if Larson was left standing at the side lines when Moore took over, but it doesn't seem like Hatch had any real claim to creative rights...

And personally I would have stood up and cheered loudly if JJ Abrams had thought to make either Chekov or Sulu a woman (I agree that Spock or Kirk would have been going too far, but maintaining the 1960s attitude that all the active roles must be played by men was lame. IMO).

I do worry with masqthephisphr that a failed BtVS movie would prove to studios & networks that interest in Buffy is dead, because I'm not convinced any of them have ever even heard of Dark Horse comics... .

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

RE BSG - changing Starbuck to a woman - would actually be akin to changing Spock into a woman. (Or for Angel - Spike into one, or on Firefly - Jayne into a woman.)
Because in the original Starbuck as portrayed by Dirk Benedict was the sidekick to Apollo, the male bud, the macho dude.

I cheered the choice and found it to be sort of cool. But then, I wouldn't be upset if they had women play Spock or Kirk or Jayne. Spike - maybe. (I bring Spike up because that's a joke in the Angel comics - where Hollywood does a film version of Angel and Spike's year in hell and decides Angel needs a love interest and so, turns Spike into the female lead. LOL! People in the Spike fandom got really upset and thought they were actually doing it. And how dare they, make fun of Spike and remove his coolness. I personally found it amusing and cool. Sigh - sometimes I think we live in a sexist society because quite a few women like it that way.

Regarding the Buffy remake? well cactuswatcher may be right on this one - it could turn out better than we think. I won't be wasting my money on it - well not unless a reliable source on my flist says it is amazing and I should try it - like they did with Star Trek (which I was sort of ambivalent about...). And he's not wrong - it would not be hard to make a better movie than the original. But the fact that the same producers are involved does not bode well for the project. They screwed it up the first time...because they did not understand the audience or the material and decided to treat it as a campy joke, what's to keep them from doing it again? (The best thing about the first one may well have been Rutgher Hauer and Paul Reuben aka Pee Wee Herman - who played the evil vampires. Sutherland walked through his role. And whatshername did much the same thing. As did Luke Perry, who was equally wooden in Beverly Hills 90210. Would not be hard to improve on that.)

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Here's what's going to happen: they'll do a BtVS remake movie, it'll get luke-warm ratings, or if it goes straight to DVD as has been predicted, even more luke-warm sales.

And they'll decide there's no market left for BtVS, period.

What they won't decide is a remake of the movie itself was just a lousy idea.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yep. Ignoring of course the sales of the DVDs of the TV series, as well as the sales of the comics. The comics right now are a best-seller. Actually all three - Spike, Angel, and Buffy, with Buffy leading the pack.

I'm not convinced the movie will actually get made. But we shall see.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

On the other hand it would be so easy to do a better film than the original, I don't know that there is much to lose. It wouldn't have to be great shakes. If they can get all us Buffy fans to go see it once and buy the DVD, they'll probably make money.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't know...I got better stuff to waste my money on, such as the Dollhouse DVDs. ;-)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

OTH - as I replied to embers log, maybe if it turned out well, it would create interest? Plus...you are correct - it would not be difficult to make that movie better. All you'd need to do is cast better actors, or rather actors who took the material seriously and didn't walk through their roles like Donald Sutherland and Luke Perry did. Make it a little less campy. And get a better director.