Buffy The Vampire Slayer is heading back to the big screen with a new movie based on the hit franchise.
The character, most famously played by Sarah Michelle Gellar in the hit TV series, was originally introduced in the 1992 movie of the same name, starring Kristy Swanson.
The following TV show ran for six years before coming to an end in 2003.
And now the blood-sucking series could be heading back to the big screen with a brand new vampire slayer.
Director Fran Rubel Kuzui, who directed the original film and executive produced the TV programme, owns the rights to the Buffy brand and is planning to reboot the franchise for cinemas, replacing Gellar and the rest of the cast with new actors to fight demons in a different generation.
Kuzui tells the Hollywood Reporter, "Everything has its moment. Every movie takes on a life at some point, and this seems like the moment to do this."
This is a joke, right? Someone is pulling the leg at IMDB?
Shit, it was Kuzui's fault the movie was so fucking lame. She couldn't organise a fuck in a brothel. Which, I guess, is why she hasn't directed another movie since the original Buffy, or been involved with anything since the end of Angel.
Yeah, I can't believe that they're thinking of doing this. I was appalled when I heard the news on the radio last night and couldn't wait to get here and see if buffistas shared my p.o.v.
I would be really surprised if they could raise the money to make this movie. It has bomb stencilled all over it. If the series had ended 10 or 15 years ago, then it might stand a smidgen of a chance but since it only ended 6 years ago, it's still too fresh in too many minds.
And a cult phenomenon that's pretty strongly identified with Joss and the specific actors from the TV show. Plus, now there've been knock-off shows like Hex, Demons, etc.
It's funny, because this idea -- as bad an idea as it is -- kicks up a lot of dust that probably would have been kicked up eventually anyway.
1.) Buffy's an iconic character, and as such, eventually will pass out of Joss' hands. Probably even while he's still alive, although doubtfully while he's still interested. The character has embedded itself in the cultural matrix, and her story will get retold umpteen million different ways. That's how it goes for the icons.
2.) That being said, it doesn't seem the right time to do this, and certainly not while in a situation where they'd have to drop the other major characters in that story. At this point in time, "Buffy" without Giles or Willow is like "Superman" without Lois Lane or Jimmy Olson. It just feels wrong. (Even "Smallville" made use of Lex Luthor when it started up, along with "Superman" characters Lana Lang and Pete Ross.) Fans of the franchise are as devoted to the secondary characters as they are the titular slayer, and if the only thing that stands between them and a new take on the mythology is 20th Century Fox's scary lawyers, then ... well ... perhaps its best not to do it at all.
3.) Of course, the bare fact is that the "Buffy" mythos is being continued, in comic form, by Joss and writers under his direction. Now, I'm no purist about these things. As I said before, there'll be competing visions of any iconic character eventually -- take Batman, for example -- but at this point in time, anything not done by Joss will always be the knock-off, even if (on the off chance) it's brilliant. Batman had enough room, as a character, for an audience to choose between the comic, the animated and the film version as "their" Batman, but loyal fans of the character have few qualms about bouncing between the mediums, even if -- for example -- they'll always think of the comic version as the "real" one. "Buffy" fans aren't so starved at this moment that they'll automatically leap to a new product, just becuase it's there. (Take, for example, the many versions of the comic that failed before Joss got involved.)
4.) On the flipside, and still acknowledging Buffy as an iconic figure, one wonders if a movie would expand the mythology or deepen it. Surely, there were lots of bad "Dracula" movies, and yet Dracula's still around. (And even in Buffy!) There's really no way to know what the collective culture will do in that situation ... would it drive traffic to the comic or back to the DVDs? Would it kill interest in the character for years? Impossible to say. I don't know how fragile Buffy's mythology really is. I'd like to think it's fairly sturdy, but I'm not sure.
5.) Lastly, "Twilight" killed vampires for a while. When that series runs its cinematic course, no one will want anything to do with them for a while.
Twillight may have ruined vampires for a bit, but I don't think it's dispelled interest in projects involving them. There's a new very similar TV series coming out, as well as Alan Ball's take on Charlaine Harris' books getting a second season on HBO.
I'll bet you a nickel that interest in vampires -- outside of a small, niche following -- dissolves once the last "Twilight" movie comes out, and declines until that point, excepting "Twilight' itself.
I just marathoned most of
True Blood
and it's excellent. If people take that show as an example of vampire shows. . . well, it could revive it a bit.
"True Blood" is excellent. And I figure it's got another ... what? Three seasons ahead of it? It's the last hurrah of the vampire genre for a while.
Meanwhile, "Twilight's" the saturation point -- the place where the mythos becomes mainstream and defanged. I'd bet anything there's a few misguided efforts -- hey! The timing sounds right for the new "Buffy" movie! -- but I sincerely doubt anything will capture the public enthusiasm for a while.
Just guessing trends, which is akin to predicting the wind, but I'll bet my hunch bears out. I already know a lot of publishers are refusing to take vampire stories, because they're played out, and that's not a good sign.
