The last two seasons have mixed reviews, but I thought they were decent (Willow's magic addiction aside). Better than the last two series of Trek, anyways.
As for the reasoning it's being done, that's simple. Two words: The Kuzuis. While Whedon wrote the original movie, it was generally accepted that the director (Fran Kuzui) and the producer, her husband Kaz Kuzui, completely butchered his script. Ever since then, they've owned the rights (You can see this by them being listed as Executive Producers for both shows, despite having absolutley nothing to do with them).
With Buffy done and Joss Whedon having become a success outside of the Buffyverse properties, the Kuzuis want to capitalize on Buffy once again. This is how they're doing it and they're doing it without having to pay for Whedon. . .because they own the property.
It's a giant marketing play, which just so happens to be complete and utter bull****. It'll flop because the Kuzuis have no idea what they're doing or what made Buffy popular in the first place.
That's the impression I got too, minus some of the fanboyism.
It's exactly the same as Star Trek. In fact, Buffy has been off the air longer than Enterprise.
You mean, that critically panned show with piss-poor ratings? ...... on UPN?
Joe Kalicki said:
And there are "in-continuity" Trek novels out there still, and Rick Berman, who's been in harge since Roddenberry died, is still around.
And that's exactly the problem. It's a franchise with at least five series, a dozen movies, and millions of ****ty books and spin-offs. Buffy has two series and a comic book.
But the big difference is motivation. Star Trek is a series with massive appeal, embedded into our pop culture, but which has always just appealed to a small fan base because of how complicated it is. It's an attempt by Paramount to take one of their biggest properties and bring it a mainstream audience it hasn't had for a long time. It's appealed to a small base audience, but it has the property recognition to appeal to a lot more.
Buffy is a niche property that doesn't have all that much name recognition out of its rabid fanbase. It's a franchise that didn't have much lasting appeal until
Whedon added all the supporting characters that won't be included in the new series. Star Trek
is Paramount bringing the series back to the root characters that Roddenberry envisioned. Buffy
is taking the title and that's it. One's an attempt by license owners to clear the slate back to the early days. The other is, as far as I can tell, a desperate attempt by a nothing director to milk a franchise she was peripherally involved in.
Joe Kalicki said:
It's just people making up imaginary differences because it's their favorite thing getting the same treatment now.
Not really. I never dug the TV series. I enjoyed the movie when I was a kid, but would probably hate it now.
Or, there's the potential to make a movie that would erase the suck that is the TV show and comics.
Really? I thought you were a Buffy fan.
When I look at Buffy, I just say why
? I never got into the series. To be perfectly honest, Whedon's cutesy dialogue really just kind of irritates me. But at the same time, the core concept doesn't seem all that great. I mean, we might as well see a Teen Wolf remake. "It's a valley girl who fights vampires!"
Really? Is that really a concept so strong that it demands a brand new, THIRD interpretation of the idea?
Besides.... Seriously.... Is there actually still a teenager out there, in this day and age, named Buffy?