In the aftermath of Terminator Salvation's lukewarm reception producer/director Fran Rubel Kuzui has decided to reboot the Buffy The Vampire Slayer franchise for the big screen sans creator Joss Whedon, or definitive Buffy Sarah Michelle Gellar, or Alyson Hannigan as nerd-goddess Willow.
This shows one of the fundamental problems with franchise films. Hollywood studios are just a little too eager to revamp, reimagine, and reboot any franchise at the drop of a hat, with little or no thought as to whether or not that franchise can be rebooted.
You see, Buffy has already been rebooted and completed. The first incarnation was an uneven and mostly forgotten bit of cinematic camp Kuzui directed almost 20 years ago. The reboot was handled by creator/show-runner Joss Whedon and it became a cult classic that brought a level of wit, charm, and well developed characters to the horror/dark fantasy TV genre.
It also had an ending.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Then allow me to explain.
The Buffy TV series went farther narratively than the usual "monster of the week" that would be delivered by a lesser series. The characters had arcs, they changed over time, they made new friends, enemies, lovers, and loathers, and it all wrapped up in a big final battle that wrapped everything up and left the characters off to find new adventures in other places.
While the characters live on in a Whedon overseen comic book series at Dark Horse, those who only know it from the TV show, have a sense of completion. It's over, it's done, and let's all move on.
A reboot of a product like that, with already well defined characters, and storylines, seems like nothing more than a shameless cash grab, rather than the promise of something new. Creating new characters and plots for the franchise is essentially pissing in the ears of fans and telling them that it's raining. It's telling the fans that the story and characters they invested so much in during the show's run, was nothing, ignore it, forget it, and give me money for this whole new thing with an old familiar name, because my last Hollywood credit was in 2004. It makes fans feel cheated.
And the promise to make this new project somehow "darker" and "edgier" shows a lack of knowledge of the show that Kuzui is credited as executive producer. The show dealt with grief, depression, insanity, corruption, murder, and often killed off popular characters to serve the story. You really can't get much darker than that, unless you make Buffy a drug addict who only hallucinates vampires and is actually slaying small orphan children.
Buffy is what I call a "Story" franchise, and like the Terminator, it had a beginning, a middle, and an end. And when it was finished, folks accepted the ending and moved on.
Now not all franchises are Story Franchises. They are what I call Premise Franchises. Now it is tricky to tell them apart, but it can be done.
The classic example are the James Bond series. Unlike Buffy it is a story that never ends, because it is really just a premise. James Bond is a secret agent, and he fight international super-villains. That's pretty much it. Some of the stories have character arcs within them, but Bond will still be Bond by the next movie, and there will always be another super-villian. Unlike Buffy, he will never have a final battle and close the hellmouth that attracts supervillians like moths to flames.
That's why Bond goes on, through half a dozen actors, and even more writers and directors. The same can be said of superhero franchises, which deals more with the hero meeting new villain premise over an overarching storyline.
Now many thought Star Trek was a Story Franchise, but recent events show that it's actually more of a Premise Franchise. The premise being Kirk goes to Uranus to wipe out Klingons, visit strange new worlds, etc... etc...
Maybe that was because the original series already established the potential for alternate timelines, several times over, and the reboot using that premise didn't offend the geeks.
Buffy doesn't have alternate universes, it just has Sunnydale, and a once ditzy girl and her friends being forced to grow up in order to save the world.
So if you want to reboot a franchise, you must first establish whether or not you're going to make people feel cheated by seeing it.
It's just that easy.
This shows one of the fundamental problems with franchise films. Hollywood studios are just a little too eager to revamp, reimagine, and reboot any franchise at the drop of a hat, with little or no thought as to whether or not that franchise can be rebooted.
You see, Buffy has already been rebooted and completed. The first incarnation was an uneven and mostly forgotten bit of cinematic camp Kuzui directed almost 20 years ago. The reboot was handled by creator/show-runner Joss Whedon and it became a cult classic that brought a level of wit, charm, and well developed characters to the horror/dark fantasy TV genre.
It also had an ending.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Then allow me to explain.
The Buffy TV series went farther narratively than the usual "monster of the week" that would be delivered by a lesser series. The characters had arcs, they changed over time, they made new friends, enemies, lovers, and loathers, and it all wrapped up in a big final battle that wrapped everything up and left the characters off to find new adventures in other places.
While the characters live on in a Whedon overseen comic book series at Dark Horse, those who only know it from the TV show, have a sense of completion. It's over, it's done, and let's all move on.
A reboot of a product like that, with already well defined characters, and storylines, seems like nothing more than a shameless cash grab, rather than the promise of something new. Creating new characters and plots for the franchise is essentially pissing in the ears of fans and telling them that it's raining. It's telling the fans that the story and characters they invested so much in during the show's run, was nothing, ignore it, forget it, and give me money for this whole new thing with an old familiar name, because my last Hollywood credit was in 2004. It makes fans feel cheated.
And the promise to make this new project somehow "darker" and "edgier" shows a lack of knowledge of the show that Kuzui is credited as executive producer. The show dealt with grief, depression, insanity, corruption, murder, and often killed off popular characters to serve the story. You really can't get much darker than that, unless you make Buffy a drug addict who only hallucinates vampires and is actually slaying small orphan children.
Buffy is what I call a "Story" franchise, and like the Terminator, it had a beginning, a middle, and an end. And when it was finished, folks accepted the ending and moved on.
Now not all franchises are Story Franchises. They are what I call Premise Franchises. Now it is tricky to tell them apart, but it can be done.
The classic example are the James Bond series. Unlike Buffy it is a story that never ends, because it is really just a premise. James Bond is a secret agent, and he fight international super-villains. That's pretty much it. Some of the stories have character arcs within them, but Bond will still be Bond by the next movie, and there will always be another super-villian. Unlike Buffy, he will never have a final battle and close the hellmouth that attracts supervillians like moths to flames.
That's why Bond goes on, through half a dozen actors, and even more writers and directors. The same can be said of superhero franchises, which deals more with the hero meeting new villain premise over an overarching storyline.
Now many thought Star Trek was a Story Franchise, but recent events show that it's actually more of a Premise Franchise. The premise being Kirk goes to Uranus to wipe out Klingons, visit strange new worlds, etc... etc...
Maybe that was because the original series already established the potential for alternate timelines, several times over, and the reboot using that premise didn't offend the geeks.
Buffy doesn't have alternate universes, it just has Sunnydale, and a once ditzy girl and her friends being forced to grow up in order to save the world.
So if you want to reboot a franchise, you must first establish whether or not you're going to make people feel cheated by seeing it.
It's just that easy.
"Maybe that was because the original series already established the potential for alternate timelines, several times over, and the reboot using that premise didn't offend the geeks."
ReplyDeleteGranted that I'm in the minority, given the box-office totals, it _did_ offend this geek. I won't be seeing any Trek movies set in this alternate timeline. I wouldn't have watched this one if someone else hadn't been paying for my ticket.
There are people who say Lucas raped their childhood. J.J. Abrams sodomized mine then gave it a golden shower for good measure.
Sorry, had to get that off my chest. :)
I am putting up my review of ST on my blog now. I just wanted to say:
ReplyDeleteYay for Alyson Hannigan !
Ok, now to the post at hand.
ReplyDeleteWhile the characters live on in a Whedon overseen comic book series at Dark Horse, those who only know it from the TV show, have a sense of completion. It's over, it's done, and let's all move on.
A reboot of a product like that, with already well defined characters, and storylines, seems like nothing more than a shameless cash grab, rather than the promise of something new. Creating new characters and plots for the franchise is essentially pissing in the ears of fans and telling them that it's raining. It's telling the fans that the story and characters they invested so much in during the show's run, was nothing, ignore it, forget it, and give me money for this whole new thing with an old familiar name, because my last Hollywood credit was in 2004. It makes fans feel cheated.Especially when you have something like Buffy which has satisfied a lot of fans (indeed I was done with it at the end of season 5) while plenty of other projects (Joss Whedon's own Firefly springs to mind) continue to rot out there without any hope of ever being fully completed.
It's like these people are asking for a geek jihad to rain down upon them.
Now many thought Star Trek was a Story Franchise, but recent events show that it's actually more of a Premise Franchise. The premise being Kirk goes to Uranus to wipe out Klingons, visit strange new worlds, etc... etc...You know what I hated also about this movie? Yes Star Trek is mostly about premise, but the world is vast enough that you can visit and work with nigh infinite premises without even touching already existing and story concluded characters. The story of the Star Trek movie could have been told with pretty much any characters or starships. Why did it have to be Kirk and them? (I think TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT all prove my point)
You know what I hated also about this movie? Yes Star Trek is mostly about premise, but the world is vast enough that you can visit and work with nigh infinite premises without even touching already existing and story concluded characters. The story of the Star Trek movie could have been told with pretty much any characters or starships. Why did it have to be Kirk and them? (I think TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT all prove my point)EXACTLY!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhy did it have to be Kirk and them? (I think TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT all prove my point)Name recognition with the characters mostly. Plus the added attraction of "Smallville-ing" the franchise with young hunky actors, and pissing off Shatner by denying him a cameo.
ReplyDeleteAnd Fuloydo, I've been looking around, and while I can't see the film right now, being too far from any theatre, but I have been hearing a lot of folks accepting this Star Trek as being different from their Star Trek.
It won't please anyone, but it seems to be pleasing enough fans to get a killer opening and stay in the top 5. Which is way better than I predicted, I believe I called it the "Muppet Babies Star Trek" when I first heard about it.
I couldn't bring myself to see the Indiana Jones, because I didn't want my fond childhood memories ruined.
t won't please anyone, but it seems to be pleasing enough fans to get a killer opening and stay in the top 5.Oh yeah. No argument here. I think what the powers that be decided was that they were better off pissing on the old codgers (like me) who remembered the original series by seducing the younger demographic with cool CGI and pretty faces. Seems they were right, going by the BO totals.
ReplyDeleteI still hate them. :)
Name recognition with the characters mostly.Is name recognition really that needed when you have the words Star Trek blazoned across the title? Only Jesus Christ has better name recognition than this franchise or Star Wars.
ReplyDeleteNot upset at you D, just wondering - Well I like the way Fuloydo put it:
I think what the powers that be decided was that they were better off pissing on the old codgers (like me) who remembered the original series by seducing the younger demographic with cool CGI and pretty faces.Which leads to a paradox. Why bother with Name recognition when the younger audience you're appealing to wouldn't know the originals off hand? But then those that do know the names would be angry?
Still, I guess I can't argue with box office. Part of me just weeps at the lost possibilities if they had done the movie with a truly new set up. (which may have had an even larger BO)
Star Trek does have great name recognition, but Paramount wants the added "ooomph" from the near folklore like status of the original characters.
ReplyDeleteRemember, Paramount needs as much help as they can get when it comes to money, and the revulsion people had towards prequel series Enterprise, made them uber-cautious towards adding a new ship and crew to the Trek-universe.
I don't understand why they didn't just pick one of the Trek Novels and buy the rights. Some of them are quite good, you just need to learn which authors "get it" and stick with their work. I just re-read Final Frontier by Diane Carey to get the taste of the movie out of my head and that story would have been massively better as a film than the one they came up with.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm going to answer my own question.
ReplyDeleteOn sober, ok, mildly intoxicated reflection it is obvious that the powers that be deeply desired that whole alternate universe plot so that they can continue to make movies in their "new" universe that are wildly contrary to everything that went previously.
Basically they used this movie to drop their pants and moon every long-time Trek fan on the planet while chanting "None of that stuff matters anymore! It's a Re-Boot!!!1!
They could have mined the entire universe of Trek novels of which, following Sturgeon’s law, 99% of are crap, for that gleaming 1% that is good, quality writing and still had enough story ideas to last the next 100 years.
Nope. None of that ever happened. It's an alternate Universe.
Oh well...
Nothing lasts forever and I suppose I'm better off with having them give me a reason not to waste my money on any more new Trek movies rather than going on as I had been, plaintively hoping that the next one would show that the writers had finally found their way again.
It's closure, of a sort. :)
Remember, Paramount needs as much help as they can get when it comes to money, and the revulsion people had towards prequel series Enterprise, made them uber-cautious towards adding a new ship and crew to the Trek-universe.Ironic because when watching the movie I couldn't help but think, "man Enterprise could have been awesome like this."
ReplyDeleteAs for books into movies, has anyone read the TNG novel "Vengeance"? (I think that's the title) It would have been an AWESOME movie.
Wait - they think Fran Kuzui will make the new Buffy "somehow 'darker' and 'edgier'?" She's the one who took Whedon's original script and turned it into a comedy in the first place!
ReplyDeleteFuloydo & Nate--
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm sure that there are a lot of well done Star Trek novels out there, I'm pretty sure that no one at Paramount actually reads them. Plus, they probably don't want to pay the book's author extra to adapt their novel.
Studios have a screwy way of thinking.
David C. Matthews-
Which reveals that no one involved in this remake has actually watched the TV show.
A Buffy movie, with Gellar (not Whedon) COULD work.
ReplyDeleteIt could be ... Wrath of Khan. Written by Nicholas Meyer, not Roddenberry, and taking the characters last seen on TV (ignoring the awful Star Trek the Motion Picture) and AGING them. Making the central character, Kirk, without a purpose other than ship and mission, as he's gotten too good and promoted himself out of his life.
Make Buffy a single mother, make her face (as Kirk faced in Khan) the logical consequences of her actions (chasing vampires), with the most important guy in her life being her ordinary, non-powered, no prophecy son, age 6 or so. Longing for a father. Make all the characters older, all "famous" as everyone knows about them, and have Buffy protect her son from ritual sacrifice to bring back Angel/Spike etc.
Hannigan? Too old, and her character too weird, to be a sex symbol. That's Trachtenberg now, who's making a career playing sexy nerds and funny bad girls.
Making a youth-oriented Twilight clone (Kuzui's goal obviously) is a non-starter. Because there's not that many (White) youth. The Birth Dearth means that competing with Twilight is just dumb.
As for Whedon, he's not been able to get men in seats, or write for adults (which is where the money is now), or do much of anything. [The Dark Horse Comics are unreadable. Dollhouse is all kinds of stupid, and the lowest rated show ever renewed. Only Fox not having anything else and promises of budgets cut in half got it renewed.] Whedon's time was 1998.
But get a journeyman screenwriter, who gets the basis of Buffy (a nice girl with powers who often lets her bad boy obsessions rule her as her kryptonite) and has a real, "adult" version of Buffy (putting her kid first, ruthlessly) would be a winner I think.
The only reason people are talking about JJ Abrams stuff is what Meyer did about 25 years ago to revive the Trek franchise after it was almost killed.
Can Buffy sustain a franchise? Yes. Gellar is great in the role, it's what she's born to play, the others are superb (Tony Head, Michelle Trachtenberg, and Nicholas Brendon stand out).
It beats a movie with Shia LaBoef.