Buffy "Re-Vamped"

[3113]

And, continuing the list of re-boots....Buffy.

I suspect this is a bad idea, but given that vampires are still wildly in style, how can they resist?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Oysh!

 

[TheeGoatPig]

And, continuing the list of re-boots....Buffy.

I suspect this is a bad idea, but given that vampires are still wildly in style, how can they resist?

I think that one would be better off with sequels (even if the original cast needed to be replaced) than a re-imagining. It's a little early for that.

 

[scriptordelecto]

Not happy about this at all. As I understand it, Joss Whedon has nothing to do with this, so it will probably be atrocious.

 

[jomar]

yes, the original cast of the movie 20 years later....could be interesting, but not the right audience demographic.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

For you viewing pleasure...Hulu.com has the first two seasons online.

ETA: It wouldn't be the same without the original cast...the series. The original movie sucked.

 

[Weird Harold]

I suspect this is a bad idea, but given that vampires are still wildly in style, how can they resist?

If they really need to make a movie about a young lady kicking butt, they should turn this short story collection into a Movie (or series):

http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/maureen.gif
http://www.fantasticreviews.com/maureen_birnbaum.htm

It's the same basic bad joke as the original premise for Buffy, but a much wider field of potential for storylines; if vampires get stale, there are oodles of other threats a girls with a sense of fashion, a credit card and a big sword can deal with.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

I was and still am a die hard Buffy fan. I don't think I like where this remake is coming from. To me, this falls under the same umbrella as the shitty remakes of Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Joss's reaction;
The man is always funny!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So, I guess, this means there are no new ideas worth exploring in Hollywood, huh?

ETA: wrote the above before reading Joss! Like minds and all that!

 

[Stella_Omega]

So, I guess, this means there are no new ideas worth exploring in Hollywood, huh?

ETA: wrote the above before reading Joss! Like minds and all that!

Nope, none. After this and True Grit, I predict a remake of "The Ten Commandments."

 

[3113]

Nope, none. After this and True Grit, I predict a remake of "The Ten Commandments."

Already done a while back. The one I'm cringing about is the "Wizard of Oz."

Oh, the humanity!

 

[Weird Harold]

Already done a while back. The one I'm cringing about is the "Wizard of Oz."

Oh, the humanity!

This will be about the tenth remake of The Wizard of Oz -- just the first in a long time to use the exact same title as the '36 musical classic.

It could be a disaster, and it could be a new classic, but that's going to depend heavily on how/whether they "update" the music and who they get to sing it.

Disney has had some of their young stars update some of the classic Disney songs from classic Disney movies -- they've done it several times over the years, including a rap version of "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf" in the 90s. Some of the updated versions are very much in the spirit of the originals even if the styles are very much different.

 

[3113]

This will be about the tenth remake of The Wizard of Oz -- just the first in a long time to use the exact same title as the '36 musical classic.

Oh, please, Harold! There's a difference in making something like "The Wiz" and trying to re-do "The Wizard of Oz" circa 1939. You don't take something that relied in the magic of a certain historical period, from the look of the Emerald City to the voice of Judy Garland, and try to "re-do" that.

Either you go for a twist, like "Wicked," or you try to do it more faithful to the book, or you don't do it because that particular magic can't be re-captured. Look at the re-done "Psycho" which was copied frame-for-frame with different actors, etc. Completely bogus and why bother?

If "True Grit" had been re-done ten times over the last years (bad cartoons, versions taken from different perspectives, a stage musical) would it stop you from thinking that it's a mistake to re-do it now as a movie? I think not. So don't try to tell me that re-doing the "Wizard of Oz" movie is no big deal because it's been tried before. Prior attempts and variations don't erase the fact that the 1939 version is the one everyone knows and loves and doesn't want to see re-made.

 

[scriptordelecto]

Nope, none. After this and True Grit, I predict a remake of "The Ten Commandments."

Then "Gone With the Wind" and "Casablanca". Arrrgh.

Hubby says another "Planet of the Apes" is in the pipeline. Seriously?

 

[3113]

Then "Gone With the Wind" and "Casablanca". Arrrgh.

Hubby says another "Planet of the Apes" is in the pipeline. Seriously?

Yep. The Tim Burton one did so well (not!).

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh, please, Harold! There's a difference in making something like "The Wiz" and trying to re-do "The Wizard of Oz" circa 1939. You don't take something that relied in the magic of a certain historical period, from the look of the Emerald City to the voice of Judy Garland, and try to "re-do" that.

I do understand what you're saying, but the point I was trying to make is that the Iconic version everyone knows and loves will survive another version of the story even if it happens to use the same script and same songs as the Iconic version.

I do not think it is a good idea to try and duplicate the definitive version of any movie/story but I happen to think the '39 Wizard of Oz is bullet-proof in that regard. It has survived numerous attempts to reshape the vision and the odds of this newest 'Xerox' version replacing it are slim and none.