Forums Horror Movie Talk
The Time Is Right For A Big Screen "Buffy" Movie From Joss Whedon

As a fan of Joss Whedon's influential Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series, I have long hoped that we might one day get to see a big screen movie that reunited the cast from the show. My hopes have been dashed time and again, first when I encountered quotes from Sarah Michelle Gellar indicating a marked antipathy towards returning to the role that made her a star. As recently as November of last year, Gellar claimed that she would only play Buffy again if it were on Sesame Street , for the benefit of her daughter (according to an article on Wetpaint.com). Then there was the recent, and dismaying, news that a big screen Buffy movie was in the works which had nothing to do with Joss Whedon's beloved televion series. However, nce then, several things have happened which make me hopeful that a Buffy movie centered around the Joss Whedon veron of these characters and their world might soon get another look.



For one thing, the planned Buffy remake that was already in the works has been scrapped. This is probably for the best, nce it seemed like it was inexplicably aiming to redo the Kristy Swanson film from 1992, which was more or less a flop. It also eliminates any impediment this veron would have presented to a film featuring a reunion of what I conder to be the "real" Buffy characters.For another thing, Sarah Michelle Gellar's terrible TV show Ringer has been cancelled after just one season, as if to remind the actress that audiences aren't going to mply watch her in whatever trash she shows up in. You'd think she would have gotten this message before now, nce nothing else she's done nce Buffy the Vampire Slayer has brought her nearly as much acclaim or success. Regardless, hopefully this latest development will help her get over herself and remind her that she was truly fortunate to have the opportunity to play a character like Buffy Summers in the first place. If she wants to keep her star shining, repring this role, at this precise time, is a nearly surefire way to do so. Why this precise time? Mainly because Joss Whedon's stock is ring at the same time that Gellar's is plummeting. With the back to back successes of the Cabin in the Woods and the Avengers, Mr. Whedon is a hot commodity in Hollywood, and could likely get absolutely any project he wanted off the ground without too much restance. As much as I want him to go right to work on Avengers 2, I'd also love to see him throwing his clout around to bring us a high quality Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie. This is the perfect time for him to give Sarah Michelle Gellar a call and make her an offer that she'd be a total fool to refuse. I feel pretty confident that the rest of the cast from the TV show would return if both Whedon and Gellar were already gned on. A whole bunch of clamor from fans of Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show can only increase the likelihood that Gellar will wake up and agree to play Buffy again, as she should have years ago. Unfortunately, I am not really seeing a lot of people who are connecting the dots and realizing that this is the most opportune time we are likely to get to try and force the issue. So I thought I'd try and get people talking about it again.What do the rest of you think? Is there any hope of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie that follows the continuity from the TV show? Do any of you want it to happen as badly as I do? And how many failures does Gellar have to rack up in other roles before she does what her fans have been asking of her for years? I look forward to hearing what you all think.

source:

http://www.wetpaint.com/ringer/articles ... ame-street

In one respect, I could understand why SMG would be reluctant to return to playing the iconic role of Buffy. Let's face it, a lot of actors and actresses who play iconic roles, particularly in the horror or science fiction genre, are never able a to escape the clout of the role and are continually typecast forever after. Unless you're in a soap opera, most actors don't want to play the same character for more than a decade.

Much as I loved BtVS the series, it really cant come back as a major film. Most fans accept the follow up comics as canon to the storylines, and so much has happened there that they'd either have to film something following the storyline as put forth in the comics, or move on as though everything in them has happened already. Which would, to be frank, kill off some of the core characters we all know and love. Beyond that, the Angel series also altered the verse/storyline, as well as the follow up comics to THAT series, so it would be a whole new cadre of storylines to incorporate. On top of that, Andy Hallet, who was integral to the AtS plots has nce passed away, and no one

else could take on that.

On a legal note, I'm not even sure that Whedon owns the rights to the franchise any longer. He had been unable to stop the studios from going forth with the planned reboot of the original film - it was only the public outcry that seemed to tank those plans.

I didnt like the way it ended, but I think it truly is over now - just like Firefly is over now. If Whedon could get back the rights and helm some sort of new tales of the Slayers, with an occaonal cameo from someone from the old series, perhaps anchored by one character (Xander?), that might be fun. But I really feel that Buffy's tale has ended.

In one respect, I could understand why SMG would be reluctant to return to playing the iconic role of Buffy. Let's face it, a lot of actors and actresses who play iconic roles, particularly in the horror or science fiction genre, are never able a to escape the clout of the role and are continually typecast forever after. Unless you're in a soap opera, most actors don't want to play the same character for more than a decade.

Much as I loved BtVS the series, it really cant come back as a major film. Most fans accept the follow up comics as canon to the storylines, and so much has happened there that they'd either have to film something following the storyline as put forth in the comics, or move on as though everything in them has happened already. Which would, to be frank, kill off some of the core characters we all know and love. Beyond that, the Angel series also altered the verse/storyline, as well as the follow up comics to THAT series, so it would be a whole new cadre of storylines to incorporate. On top of that, Andy Hallet, who was integral to the AtS plots has nce passed away, and no one

else could take on that.

On a legal note, I'm not even sure that Whedon owns the rights to the franchise any longer. He had been unable to stop the studios from going forth with the planned reboot of the original film - it was only the public outcry that seemed to tank those plans.I didnt like the way it ended, but I think it truly is over now - just like Firefly is over now. If Whedon could get back the rights and helm some sort of new tales of the Slayers, with an occaonal cameo from someone from the old series, perhaps anchored by one character (Xander?), that might be fun. But I really feel that Buffy's tale has ended.Thanks for the reply, Dew. I found it quite thoughtful, although I only partially agree :p

I understand why actors don't like being typecast, but if Gellar doesn't do something soon, she will wish for the problem of typecasting, because it's better than not getting cast in anything at all. She is starting to lose her cred as a bankable star. Most of the films she's done nce Buffy wrapped have been poorly reviewed, many were financial flops as well, and lovely and talented as she is, she wasn't enough of a draw to bring viewers to Ringer. Getting back to her roots would be good for her.

Oh, speaking of her roots, did you know she was in a soap opera? Yep, she was in All My Children back in the day. So maybe she doesn't mind playing the same character for a long time? Anyway, Gellar is typecast already, through her own choices. When Buffy ended, she claimed she wanted to take a break from the horror/sci-fi genre, yet most of the movies she's ever made have been in that same genre and again, none of her roles have been as strong as Buffy. Even Ringer (and Cruel Intentions, for that matter) just took her back to the soap opera realm that she had already worked her way through before. If she's just doing the same kinds of roles over and over anyway, and is clearly not finding much success outde of the horror/sci-fi genre, why not reprise the role of the best character she has ever played within that genre?

As for the comic books and the fact that they're canon - I am a comic reader myself and I know very well that there are always avenues around that kind of thing. The way that comes to mind immediately is to do a prelude to the movie in comic book form which tells people everything they need to know. Marvel already does this every time they put out a movie featuring their characters and their preludes tend to sell briskly. Sure, not everyone would read the prelude, but having the option would help. And if Joss Whedon wrote the script, I completely see him as being capable of finding a non-distracting and fairly quick way to clue people in as to where we're picking up sometime at the beginning of the movie. Also, I was aware that certain characters (like Giles *sad face*) have been killed in the comics. I guess I should have made it more clear that I only expect the surviving characters to come back, although it wouldn't be completely out of bounds for Whedon to find a way to bring a couple of them back from the dead. After all, Buffy herself has died at least twice and come back. The movie could also introduce compelling new characters and/or give us live action verons of any characters that have so far just been in the comics.In regards to legal matters, I believe Whedon could use his newly enhanced clout to wrest the rights to these characters back from whoever has them. If not, they may very well be open to letting Joss Whedon do whatever he wants with these characters anyway. They would know damn well that having his name attached to the project would drum up interest and bring people to the theater. So that's why I'm not giving up hope just yet. Although I have to admit it's posble that I am mply refung to see the logic in your words because I don't want to believe Buffy and the Scoobies will never return to us. What does everyone else think? I know there are other Buffy fanatics out there.

Also, if Gellar doesn't want to be locked into the role for life, they could always kill her off (again) in the movie and have another slayer be called to take us into the sequel. The comic series could then undergo a name change to reflect the moniker of whoever the new slayer is. It wouldn't be the first time a comic book series changed its title in the middle of a run.

Yes, I knew SMG was on All My Children in the day. A lot of actors start out in soap operas - Nathan Fillion was on One Life to Live, Jensen Ackles was on Days of Our Lives, etc - but I meant in terms of the people who stay in a role for 20+ years, like Susan Lucci. It's uncommon that anyone does that for quite so long.

Ringer was perhaps a bit melodramatic, but nce Desperate Housewives started, that has been a big trend in prime time televion. Revenge, Grey's Anatomy, etc, all have the same sort of aspects to them. (Pardon me while I vomit a little in my mouth at mention of GA, yikes).

I really believe the Slayerverse itself is not dead - I would love to see new stories from new characters set in the same world. But I started getting really turned off at what they did to the canon characters after about season x. I would think it's been long enough that this wouldn't be condered spoilery: I absolutely HATED Spike having a soul and anything in the Buffy/Spike romance arc; I hated them throwing Buffy out of her own house (as far as I am concerned, it was extremely out of character for Willow to take part in that); I hated the Angel/Cordelia arc in AtS; I hated the first year after Connor arrived (though it got much better in the final season). It got to the point that it seem the writers involved had never seen the earlier seasons and had no idea of the content of each character's persona.

(And the whole Xander/Dawn thing in the comics? No thank you very much. Ew.)

I think there is a lot of wiggle room in terms of writing within the 'verse without the canon characters, and I'd love to see a project like that go forward. I'd also love to write for it, lol!

I don't think we need a Buffy film mply because there's not a story to tell. I think Joss Whedon is fully satisfied and done with the live-action life of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Forcing him into crafting a new story just for the sake of nostalgia would severely hurt the quality of such a script. The continuation of Buffy would also, I think, really hurt the culmination of the original series. Both Buffy and Angel ended how the Joss and co. wanted them to (barring rushed conditions and such on Angel) and I believe that once he put those finales to film he moved on.

It's always swell to want more of the same but I think this is a case of wanting too much too late. A film may have worked a year or two after the finales, but now I feel as if it wouldn't be nearly as good, impactful or important. Joss Whedon is a creative artist and I'd bet the world he has a ton of fresh ideas to flesh out and new stories to tell. Celebrate what he did with Buffy until the sun falls and the vamps rise but you have to let the man move on.

I don't think we need a Buffy film mply because there's not a story to tell. I think Joss Whedon is fully satisfied and done with the live-action life of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Forcing him into crafting a new story just for the sake of nostalgia would severely hurt the quality of such a script. The continuation of Buffy would also, I think, really hurt the culmination of the original series. Both Buffy and Angel ended how the Joss and co. wanted them to (barring rushed conditions and such on Angel) and I believe that once he put those finales to film he moved on.

It's always swell to want more of the same but I think this is a case of wanting too much too late. A film may have worked a year or two after the finales, but now I feel as if it wouldn't be nearly as good, impactful or important. Joss Whedon is a creative artist and I'd bet the world he has a ton of fresh ideas to flesh out and new stories to tell. Celebrate what he did with Buffy until the sun falls and the vamps rise but you have to let the man move on.There's not a story to tell? Then why are they still making the comic books? Who are you to mply declare there's no story? I could think of plenty of stories to tell with these characters and I bet Joss Whedon and tons of other people could too. And look, no one is talking about FORCING Joss to do anything, nor could we if we wanted to. I'm not saying chain him to a desk and make him type out a script while flogging him. I think Mr. Whedon still has a lot of creativity going in all directions, including ideas about where the Buffy-verse should go. I don't see how a Buffy movie, if done well, would hurt the culmination of the series. I think that's a cop out, just like saying "there's not a story" is a cop out.

I'm also not asking for "more of the same". There IS no "more of the same" when it comes to Whedon's veron of Buffy and her supporting cast, that's what I love about it. Every season had a somewhat unique feel to it and went to unique places, it was just the close knit chemistry and interplay the shifting cast of characters had that was the common thread. Likewise, I would expect a Buffy movie to go to places the series didn't, and be bigger than any Buffy story we have so far seen. That doesn't sound like "been there, done that" to me. And why is there a 2 year time limit on when a movie should be made? The film couldn't posbly be good because it's been more than 2 years? I don't really see how that's relevant. In my book, 2 years would not have been nearly long enough to wait. I like it that there has now been enough time that the characters are all older and would be markedly different, and that some are even dead. I think this is the PERFECT time because not only is Gellar otherwise unoccupied, but Whedon himself is at a creative peak. If this time passes and a Buffy film isn't made, many of us, posbly including Whedon himself, will likely look back on that lapse of judgment with regret. In clong, your last line

- "you have to let the man move on." Seriously, I promise, I haven't taken Joss Whedon captive, I just wrote an article on a webte. Sure, I hope Joss Whedon stumbles upon it somehow and even that it might spark some ideas in his imagination, but I never advocated turning him into an indentured servant or making him do anything he'd rather not. I bet he'd love to do a Buffy movie.

As for all this junk on Angel, that series turned out to be vastly inferior to Buffy, and he became relatively separate from her. His entire de story can be excised from the movie, or he can have a mere cameo for all I care. He's okay, but he's one of the less interesting characters in the Buffy-verse. No one should be worried that a Buffy movie will retroactively mess up the Angel TV series. Angel did a fine job of that all on its own.

If people really still have a craving for more Angel, let them start a thread about why there should be an Angel movie.

As for all this junk on Angel, that series turned out to be vastly inferior to Buffy, and he became relatively separate from her. His entire de story can be excised from the movie, or he can have a mere cameo for all I care. He's okay, but he's one of the less interesting characters in the Buffy-verse. No one should be worried that a Buffy movie will retroactively mess up the Angel TV series. Angel did a fine job of that all on its own.

That much, I have to disagree with. Angel/Angelus as a character is far too tied to Buffy and the Scoobies. You can't conder them completely separate when you have so many ties between the two - particularly Spike, who is a firm link between both televion series. Plus, Dark Horse is picking the Angel line of comics back up, so they're still canonical to the Buffy series.

There are people who dislike Angel as a character for a bevy of reasons, but I think its a bit overly to conder him unnecessary to Buffy's continued story arc. When one character has as big of an influence on another's future actions, you can't count them out entirely. The comics kept up that theme, of the two being indelibly linked, through the whole Twilight debacle.

Of course, this falls into my thought that the latest seasons of each series had characters stepping too far outde their canon grounding - I can't wrap my head around Buffy/Spike and Angel/Cordelia, and not because of a Buffy/Angel shipper thought, but because it seems too unlikely in the growth of either character, with their earlier grounding, to go to that place. You can't erase a character's history just because it's been a couple of years and you want to include a new romantic subplot without bringing in new characters.

Seriously though, the de-fanging and re-souling of Spike pissed me off to no end. Useless.

Either way, I still think Buffy herself is done. With the calling of all of the potentials, there is SO much wiggle room to write about a new Slayer, or Slayers - fallen on either de of the line between good and evil, for that matter.

original Buffy movie sequel with Gellar and Swanson and Perry

I know for sure that James Marsters (aka Spike) will not be returning to the franchise if a Whedon film was made.

We sat in on the Q and A with him at Spooky Empire and of course the question came up b/c of Joss doing so well with Avengers.

Marsters said that after Buffy ended that b/c he was getting older that he had a 6 yr window from the end of the show to make the film where he would be in it.

B/c it didn't happen he confirmed that the ship had sailed for him nce he's older and he wants to do new things.

That much, I have to disagree with. Angel/Angelus as a character is far too tied to Buffy and the Scoobies. You can't conder them completely separate when you have so many ties between the two - particularly Spike, who is a firm link between both televion series. Plus, Dark Horse is picking the Angel line of comics back up, so they're still canonical to the Buffy series. There are people who dislike Angel as a character for a bevy of reasons, but I think its a bit overly to conder him unnecessary to Buffy's continued story arc. When one character has as big of an influence on another's future actions, you can't count them out entirely. The comics kept up that theme, of the two being indelibly linked, through the whole Twilight debacle. Of course, this falls into my thought that the latest seasons of each series had characters stepping too far outde their canon grounding - I can't wrap my head around Buffy/Spike and Angel/Cordelia, and not because of a Buffy/Angel shipper thought, but because it seems too unlikely in the growth of either character, with their earlier grounding, to go to that place. You can't erase a character's history just because it's been a couple of years and you want to include a new romantic subplot without bringing in new characters. Seriously though, the de-fanging and re-souling of Spike pissed me off to no end. Useless. Either way, I still think Buffy herself is done. With the calling of all of the potentials, there is SO much wiggle room to write about a new Slayer, or Slayers - fallen on either de of the line between good and evil, for that matter.I have been meaning to reply to this for days, here's hoping I don't get interrupted this time. First of all, I don't conder Angel and Buffy to be COMPLETELY separate. All I really meant was that he doesn't necessarily have to APPEAR in a "Buffy" film, or have a giant role if he does. The other characters don't have to act like they've never met him and whatever he does in the future that's so important could still happen. And if enough people want it, there could be an "Angel" film as well in which HE was the main star and Buffy has little or no role. I just think they make each other more mopey and boring when they're together. Also, I value the knowledge of the Buffy comics you bring to the table, nce I haven't read them. To some extent, though, I just wanna say "Bah! Details, details, details!". Not because the comic stories aren't important or have no place in Buffy's canon, but because we could use milar logic to say there should never be another Spider-Man, Batman, Avengers, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, X-Men or Superman film. You admit that there is wiggle room for other characters in the same universe, why is there not wiggle room for Buffy and all the main Scoobies? Whatever Buffy and Angel are "destined" to do, in the kind of world Buffy inhabits, destinies can change, futures can be altered, by all kinds of different means. If Joss Whedon didn't want to use something that's in the comics, it doesn't mean he has to just junk it. He can find a creative way to turn it into something else. Or he can find a way to work around it. If he can fit all the subplots and backstory of the characters in The Avengers into a coheve film, he can manage to make a new Buffy movie without having to either disrespect the comics or be a slave to them.

Also, I agree with you about Angel and Cordelia. I don't really see them together. As for Spike and Buffy, I actually liked the complexity of their relationship. And I really liked it when Spike got his soul back. I thought it was more meaningful than when Angel's was restored to him against his will by a (kind of wussy) curse that was just meant to bacally make him think about the bad things he'd done. Spike had to earn his soul back, and I think that made for a better story and a more compelling character. The episode "Beneath You" in season 7 is one of my favorites.Thanks for the discuson, even though YOU ARE TRYING TO KILL BUFFY!! Heh. Just kidding about that last part.BTW, I would be fine with another vampire slayer being called if she was a quality character played by a talented actress. I want the entire "Buffy" universe on the movie screen as much as I want Buffy herself back. I do think Gellar would at least need to have a small role in the beginning where she could be killed off, though.