Reboot yuckiness: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
 

With all the hoopla over and success of the "rebooted" Star Trek, I've been thinking: while a reboot might be preferable to a crappy sequel, what's the point of hauling out old franchises anyway?

Here's the latest:

Buffy Reboot. No Whedon. No Gellar.

yay.:rolleyes:

WTF????????

I could handle a reboot if Joss was involved. But I don't think Joss would ever be involved in a reboot. Spinoff, maybe. No reboot.

Stupid Kuzui.

Yeech (in Mad Magazine vernacular)

Um, can you reboot something this relatively new?

Batman, Superman, Star Trek, James Bond ... all at minimum 40 years old.


Buffy? Sorry, too new to reboot. Retarded.



I'm not upset about not involving the original talent. The reason original talent's not typically involved in a reboot is because they're all dead.


Besides, if the original talent is involved, how is that a reboot as opposed to a remake?

If they think they can do something original and interesting, then I'm all in favor of them trying.

It'll suck or it won't. The first Buffy movie sucked and most people have never seen the TV show, so have at it and good luck (though they'll likely fail to accomplish anything worthwhile), says I.

Batman and Superman had been rebooted many many times in their 40 year history before their latest.

But how old were they when they first rebooted?

Superman in 78. Nothing prior could have been considered a reboot. The TV show was not a reboot of the comic. It was an adaptation. So Superman was already hella old in 1978 when, arguably, the Chris Reeve series rebooted that franchise by starting over in a somewhat different direction.

The Batman TV show, on the other hand, was such a wild reimagining of the comic and any prior adaptations, that I'd consider that 60's show a reboot by today's standards. How old was Batman in the 1960's?

Well... The prevailing attitude here is that a reboot merely needs to be "fun" and have a hot lead in order to be good. So lets wait and see...

As a comic geek, I could enumerate the multiple reboots of Batman and Superman through the decades.

But I don't want to distract iSm from his appropriate Prop 8 outrage.

oh, i don't read the comics. From what i understand, rebooting has been going on in the comic world for decades.


My comments are about visual media only. Reboot is a fairly new concept.

Thanks for the insult.

No insult was intended, just the pointing out of a painful truth. If you were insulted then I suggest a little introspection is in order.

When do they reboot the tv show "ReBoot"?

Give Me A Fvcking Break. :rolleyes: Do you buy your condescencion in Costco size packages?

How about rebooting the Short Circuit franchise.

No disassemble Number 5!

You do realize that a remake has been announced, right?

I stated an opinion (and last time I checked, I am still allowed to do that here). If you took it as an insult, I'm sorry, but you have issues.

DAMMIT! Really??? :(

It was a total condescending insult. Like you condescendingly insulted those who enjoyed Star Trek as well. This is a message board, not the Sundance film festival.

I respond to an unwarranted attack I received from out of the blue, and I'm condescending?! I tried to make a little joke, and I was accused of being insulting. What the hell did I insult? Her precious little movie? OMG! I dissed Star Trek! How horrible of me!

It has become painfully obvious that I am not allowed to have an opinion about the Star Trek movie that differs from all of yours. Ever since i made it clear that I didn't find the movie enjoyable, I have gotten nothing but nastiness and grief.

OK, kids... let's all calm down.

JWB - You aren't the only one here who disliked the Star Trek movie. If you read the thread, I believe I said that I hated it. I can appreciate that you feel separated by your opinion, but sometimes that's just how it goes with a group. For myself, I had to appreciate that there are things about the movie that prevented me from experiencing the joy that many others felt. To be honest, I'm sometimes jealous when my friends (who are certainly not stupid) can have stupid fun, when my analytic mind prevents me. But I think that it's time to stop harping on the difference of opinion. I don't think your comment in and of itself is necessarily hurtful, but I also wasn't one of the people who it was pointed at.

CP - You had fun. We didn't. Pity us who feel we wasted precious time and money and allow our occasional snipes. If we act pompous, we're just a little jealous (see above).

Meanwhile, if iSm is going to keep posting in this thread, I'm going to start talking about Superman and Batman. Do I really have to? I feel like I should...

What's a "Reboot" anyway, and why is it different from a "Remake" ?

"Reboot" tends to refer to franchises, as in "we're going to take the familiar characters and setting and start all over again without the baggage of the stories that have come before."

While the term "reboot" is a recent addition to the lexicon, don't be fooled - it's been going on for a long time.

A good example is Zorro. The Zorro of the serials was reimagined when the feature films were made and then reimagined (or "rebooted") again when Disney did the TV series.

I'll play Wiki guy for a sec. Other than comics, Superman has been rebooted through the serials, the Kirk Alan SUperman series, The Fletcher Studio Superman Cartoon, the Teleivised Musical, the Reeves TV series and film, the Reeve films, the Singer films, Smallville, Lois & Clark, Superman Adventures Cartoon, Superboy TV show.

Just fyi.

JW - your posts here were not opinions about the film, they were opinions about those of us that enjoyed the film. Check the sentences - the subject of both of them were people, not films. They were also baiting, condescending, and you also sounded like an asshole. I know you are not an asshole, so no worries, but when you toss off insults regarding people who post here, expect to get called on it.

I am totally cool with snipes done with love (expect me to make fun of you guys as well). It's all about attitude. However, I will take your advice on this one - no reason for this to go any further. :)

Jen,

My original post was in no way intended to be insulting to anyone. I meant it as wry humor. If you took it as an insult, then I'm sorry. It was not my intention.

I responded as I did because I was in shock that I received the response I did from you. It felt like a punch to the gut. I had no idea (and still don't) why you would take what I said as an insult.

We are all under stress due to the events of today. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you both, I now have a very clear understanding. Soooo (just as a "what if") if the writers of "Lost" write themselves into a corner and don't satisfy the fans at the end, someone else can Reboot the series as a movie or miniseries and totally ignore the facts that have gone before, with a new set of storylines.

I hope I haven't just given them an idea.....

It sounds like an inevitability to me. Unless they decide to make it a Broadway musical first.

Speaking of time travel hijinx by Abrams, last night one of my friend referred to Star Trek as 'Lost' in Space.

Hahahah, that's great.

Oh, I posted, commence Superman and Batman talk.


Interesting all that Superman stuff. Generally, I'm not sure if new incarnations are the same as a reboot. Since reboot is a new term, I'm not sure if we're all talking about the same thing, or where the line is exactly between a simple new incarnation and an attempt to refresh an ailing series.

One such definition, that works for Bond as well as Star Trek, is if the new start comes while the series is essentially still ongoing.


It's questionable if that works for Batman. It was a number of years between the Burton-fueled series and the new Nolans, but I'd argue the Burtons were still fresh in the pop-cultural zeitgeist.


In that sense, though, the Chris Reeve Superman series would not have been a reboot, and I'm agreeable to that. And, by the same token, I think that series was dead so long before Lois and Clark or Smallville that neither were reboots in the sense I'm using that term. The same would have to be true of the Singer attempt (certainly less of a reboot than a remake at any rate).

I certainly cop to the fuzziness. People certainly remembered the Chris Reeve Supermans, but I don't think they were as "fresh" in the pop culture as the Burton Batmans were when Nolan more legitimately tried to revive that franchise.



This is ridiculous minutia ... but oh well, it's a message board.

I see one of the keys to considering it a "reboot" is revisiting the origin story, with the aim of saying, "This is NOT part of any existing timeline for this character, this is an entirely self-contained new universe that does not hinge on what's already been established." So event though Batman Returns and Batman Forever bear little resemblance to Burton's 2 Batman movies, I don't consider them reboots since they weren't an attempt to start everything from scratch and create a new timeline independent of what was before. Whereas Batman Begins is clearly a reboot since it went back to square one.

In that vein, Chris Reeve definitely counts as a reboot.

Raime's Spiderman, even though there hadn't been a widely popular incarnation of Spiderman since the old cartoon series, is still a reboot by that definition.

Trek is a bit of an oddball in that it tied itself into the existing timeline instead of just ignoring that timeline and creating its own. But the end result is essentially the same as a reboot, with the connection to the original timeline thrown in, as I've theorized before, to soften the blow to an audience that would otherwise not have been receptive to a reboot.

GD - I completely agree with you. Even though 'reboot' is a shiny new term, it's a tried-and-true tactic to revive old franchises.

Pretty much every Superman that Bornieo cited is a reboot, and I'd also agree that there have been several Batman reboots, with the first Burton and Batman Begins being the latest two.

And since there's a dead horse here that needs beating, I think the "half reboot" of Star Trek is the root of all of my issues with the movie.

I see the value in Ghoulish Delight's defintion, but the exceptions are glaring.

Was Casino Royale a reboot or not? It posited James Bond as a brand-new agent getting his Double Oh status. But it did not re-tell any origin story.

In fact, since there never was an origin story, one could argue Casino Royale told the origin story for the first time. Does that make it a reboot? Or is starting the main character from scratch sufficient, even if it's not retelling a story told before?

In a sense, the same can be said of Star Trek. It told the "origin" story of how these characters came to be together, and did so for the first time ever. Yet it, too, was clearly a reboot. Starting the characters from scratch again the only pertinent factor.



Singer's Superman was likey an attempt to reboot. But while it was essentially a remake of Superman I and II of the Reeve series, it did not restart the timeline or the character at all.


This is all clearly subjective, then ... it seems.


And to get back to the original point, and without the benefit of the finished product yet existing, I'd peg the new Buffy as a new incarnation and not a reboot.


But this is all the silliest of semantics.

Bond is its own massive exception since, really, every movie is a reboot. It was never serial, so it kinda doesn't really fit the whole model at all, so no I don't consider any Bond movie a "reboot" as it's not the kind of series that can be rebooted.

Of course it's subjective, and of course you can find exceptions. But "attempt to start a new timeline that is whole without need of other series that came before it" I think is the most complete generalization that covers most cases.

Could someone please reboot the Chronicles of Narnia. That franchise is in desperate need of a reboot.

Yes, Casino Royale was a reboot.

As you've stated before (I think in the Star Trek thread), iSm, the James Bond series kept changing - with new actors playing Bond (and M, and Moneypenny, and Felix...) with the occasional reference to a previous adventure. While the movies were all basically standalone, there was a feeling of a series (albeit a sloppy one, I'll admit). We were always meeting Bond in the middle of his career - he always already had a reputation. The problem was, he was perpetually the same age, while the world around him changed. Was he a Cold War spy? An anti-terrorist? Yes, depending on when the movie was made.

With Casino Royale, an attempt was made to start the series again. He's a new agent, just achieving his "Double-0" status. The next movie, Quantum of Solace (without making a value judgement) picked up the specific thread from the CR and continued the story.

As far as Singer's Superman is concerned, I'd agree that it's a tenuous reboot, as it's more a sequel to Superman II. While it erased the timeline after the second Reeve movie, it didn't restart the story... interesting point.

Casino Royale's interesting, too, because for the first time a new actor playing Bond was supposed to be a new (or the very first) Bond, but in the same film "M" was suppose to be a continuation character. Oddball stuff.


Or should I say, "Oddjob stuff?"

What word were the comix geeks using before "reboot?" I dislike using the term.

So perhaps what really sets a reboot apart is that it breaks with existing canon. A fresh start that may or may not be at the beginning of the overall story.

Pandering.

I'd be happy if the (movie) series was just continued instead of being abandoned after Prince Caspian.

True, it doesn't have to start at the beginning. But there does have to be something that explicitly identifies it as breaking from canon. So even though Batman Returns and Batman Forever don't tie into Burton's Batmans, there was nothing in them that explicitly conveys a novel new direction with the intent of separating these new movies from what came before. If anything they were purposely (if misguidedly) trying to tie it back to the campiness of the 60s series.

Hmm, perhaps Singer's Superman is better described as "restore from last known good" than "reboot".

Well, reboot isn't quite as desperate sounding as the (now seemingly passe) "reimagining." (I'm looking at you, Planet of the Apes)

Ok, you said it twice, so I have to ask. Batman Returns is the Burton sequel featuring Michelle Pfeiffer. Batman Forever is the first Schumacher sequel, with Val Kilmer at the Bat.

I'm not sure if you meant to reference the two Schumacher sequels (Batman Forever and Batman and Robin) or the two Nolan films (Batman Begins and Dark Knight).

Grrr, yes. I meant Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

I blame the DayQuil.

I blame it on the sunshine.

I blame it on Rio. But then I blame everything on Rio, except, ironically, that terrible film, Blame it on Rio, which I blame on Larry Gelbart.

Anyhoo, I just watched the original Buffy on TV last week and was it bad. Even Paul Ruebens was given nothing to do. What a waste. I remember my friend Janna was always trying to get me interested in the series but I only saw one episode -- in it, smiling, floating, ghouls, take away your voice and then torture you -- pretty chilling!

Tref sez, check it out.

I think that the series is far better than the film. The screenwriter of the film was not satisfied with the way his screenplay was produced, so he re-produced it himself as a series. It took me awhile to really get into it, but once I did, I was branded for life as a fan. That episode you saw, Tref, is one of my favorites.

I forgot I was supposed to check out Buffy. Can't do the whole series, not for starters at any rate.

Best Season???

Fall, Frankie Valli, saltpeter, Christmas, rainy, baseball.

Take your pick.

Season 2, for me.

I'd say that Seasons 1 - 3 (excepting bad episodes now and again) are three stellar seasons of television and some of televisions' best. The setup - High School as Hell Mouth - is a metaphor perfectly explored and provides an ideal backdrop for more "grown up" themes...since life after high school is still, well, kinda high school. Also, even when times were hard for Buffy (and man did Whedon enjoy putting her through hard times), the show was always entertaining and fun. The characters were likeable and the ones who weren't I loved to hate. And the 3rd season finale felt like a bookend, so if you chose never to watch another episode of the show after that, you wouldn't feel like you were being cheated. The first season is a nice introduction to the characters but is comprised of a lot of standalone episodes. You could probably watch the first and last episode and move onto the 2nd without feeling like you missed anything. If you're only planning to give one season a try, I'd agree with Heidi: go for Season 2.

The story arc of the 4th season was the most ridiculous, but had some enjoyable individual episodes. For a standalone episode you could probably watch without seeing any of the show, and that's already been mentioned here, is "Hush". A good old fashioned fairy tale spook fest.

The story arc of the 5th was some of the most depressing TV I've watched, but Gellar was truly excellent and her performances throughout will likely be the best of her career. [That's not saying much if you've only seen her films, but I maintain she was a perfect Buffy.] Plus, the 5th finale could also be seen as a bookend. You could watch it and feel like the show was brought to a satisfying conclusion.

By Season 6, the show was seriously floundering. It improved on rewatch and I had fewer problems with it than some of my friends, but it struggled because Whedon wasn't at the helm and the characters were inconsistent; if they could'nt come to a consensus about what motivated a character, they allowed one writer to provide motivation for him in one episode, and another writer to priovide an entirely differnet motivation in the next. The result: a lot of behaving out of character...or are they..or...wait...what the huh? And a core character who was often the voice of reason was suddenly absentee (for *very* poorly written reasons) because the actor decided he needed to be back with his family in London.

Season 7 may have tried a little to hard, but it borrowed a lot of spirit from the early seasons, and I'd say the series ended on a high note.

The latter seasons suffered mostly because they lost the solid foundation the high school setting provided. And the core group of friends you grew to love suffered some serious growing pains that made them less fun to watch at times. Didn't love every characters' arc. Didn't love every story arc. Didn't always think the producers and writers knew what they were doing. But I loved all 7 for various reasons, one being that the worst of Buffy is still better, in my oh so humble opinion, than most of TV's offerings. Mutant Enemy took a lot of risks, probably because they knew all eyes *weren't* on them. Heh.

I'm in season 2 so it's gotta rock!