Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 7:52:35 GMT
Just thought I would share this and wanted to know what members thoughts are. From what I have heard from one of the producers the 'Buffy' reboot is going to be based twenty years after the original show and is going to have a new slayer as the lead so Jessica Parker Kennedy won't be playing Buffy but she could play the new lead.  Flash Actress Wants to Play Buffy in the Reboot screenrant.com/flash-buffy-reboot-jessica-parker-kennedy/
|
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on May 5, 2019 10:17:08 GMT
While I wasn't a fan of the character she played, I thought she proved a pretty decent actress in the TV series Black Sails.
If viewers learned anything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it’s that just because you can resurrect something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. That being said, choosing to create another cast of characters is the best approach. This new slayer deserves to be measured by her own merits, and while comparisons are inevitable, the show will have an easier time standing on its own without desperately clinging to what it once was. Many fans would love to revisit the Buffyverse, but not at the price of seeing all of these now iconic characters reimagined.
That^, I agree with. When I first heard about this 'reboot' of BtVS, I was firmly against the idea, but if it's true that they're not trying to redo the original show, but just set a series in the same 'Buffyverse'...then that's something I'm at least willing to keep an open mind about it.
Still, I think some shows just need to be left alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on May 6, 2019 0:29:33 GMT
Interesting. I can sort of see it, she's cute and bubbly. But while I was surprised when I found out she was in her 30s, I think she's too old if they were to set the main character in high school again. The only way it'd work is if the character were in her late 20s/early 30s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 8:08:49 GMT
While I wasn't a fan of the character she played, I thought she proved a pretty decent actress in the TV series Black Sails. If viewers learned anything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it’s that just because you can resurrect something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. That being said, choosing to create another cast of characters is the best approach. This new slayer deserves to be measured by her own merits, and while comparisons are inevitable, the show will have an easier time standing on its own without desperately clinging to what it once was. Many fans would love to revisit the Buffyverse, but not at the price of seeing all of these now iconic characters reimagined. That^, I agree with. When I first heard about this 'reboot' of BtVS, I was firmly against the idea, but if it's true that they're not trying to redo the original show, but just set a series in the same 'Buffyverse'...then that's something I'm at least willing to keep an open mind about it. Still, I think some shows just need to be left alone.
But I was against any 'Buffy' reboots until I heard it was going to be a continuation series set in the future and I think something like that could really work with a new slayer instead of a new Buffy and they could get characters from 'Buffy' and 'Angel' to appear in it and there was a rumour one of the original characters is going to be the Watcher. I am looking forward to seeing what they do with it and I haven't seen 'Black Sails' but I remember some of Jessica's other roles like Plastique in 'Smallville' and she was in 'Brothers & Sisters' with Ally McBeal actress, Calista Flockhart who played Cat Grant in 'Supergirl' and in the 'V' remake with Laura Vandervoort. I still think the best idea for a sequel show would be 'Faith' and hope we get to see Eliza play Faith again in this new show. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 8:16:50 GMT
Interesting. I can sort of see it, she's cute and bubbly. But while I was surprised when I found out she was in her 30s, I think she's too old if they were to set the main character in high school again. The only way it'd work is if the character were in her late 20s/early 30s. 
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 8, 2019 16:49:52 GMT
I'll be honest: I'm ok with any reboot. Some of my favorite stories are reboots/remakes: The Thing, The Fly, Spider-Man: Homecoming, even Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Buffy taught me never to judge until I've watched.
If a remake happens, I'll give it a chance. If it's good, I'll be glad I did. If it's terrible, it won't affect my enjoyment of the original series. It'll just help me appreciate it even more.
Heck, if the remake is popular enough and brings back renewed interest in the original show, we might get some well-done blurays with all new bonus features. That alone would be cause for me to support a remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on May 8, 2019 17:06:13 GMT
Continuation series can be a crap shoot. On the one hand, you get something like Star Trek The Next Generation or the Doctor Who revival series; both of which turned out to be successful to breath new life into their respective narratives at a point when their original stories had effectively ended. Both have produced spin-offs that wouldn't be possible if that attempt to continue the original narrative hadn't been made.
On the other hand, look no further than the likes of the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies or Discovery to demonstrate how much of a cluster fuck continuing the story can become.
There's also something to be said about completely re-imagining the core concept of a story and not tying it in with the original. Sherlock Holmes is probably my go to example for this; the character has been in the public domain for ages and there are all sorts of different takes on him and his stories; and each iteration has resonated with the audiences in different ways, but more important, by exploring the character in this fashion society has managed to keep him relevant instead of allowing him to fade into obscurity.
In a similar vein, that looks like they've done much the same thing with the new Charmed series; and I've actually heard some good things about it and I've seen bits and pieces that sort of piqued my interest but I haven't given in to checking it out just yet.
And there's something to be said about the benefit of hindsight and being able to go into a story know the general direction you want it to play out or even some of the conventional story beats; and being able to either work them in more seamlessly or play with them and try something new. Case in point for the new Charmed series, from what little I've seen, they've taken the idea of "the elders" from the original series and turned it into something less ambiguous and from the looks of it, it appears to be something fairly clever and adds to the overall story in a positive way.
Another point I'd add too actually kind of loops back around to Star Trek; only in this case I'd point to the fan made New Voyages/Phase Two productions. The people who originally set out to make them (before Paramount's legal policy effectively put an end to all fan videos entirely) made a case for different actors playing the iconic roles of characters like Kirk and Spock in a very intriguing way. They compared it to playing iconic roles in theatre - there have been loads of people who have played Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet or even Sherlock Holmes. Some of may have bee very prolific in their turn as those characters and perhaps even set a new standard that others would be compared to, but at no point would anyone say, "that person had defined the role; no one else should ever play Dorthy Gale ever again." We don't forget the people who played those parts before, or take them for granted but when someone new takes on that role and is able to add something unique or memorable, then the character takes on a life of its own.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 14, 2019 3:42:33 GMT
Just thought I would share this and wanted to know what members thoughts are. From what I have heard from one of the producers the 'Buffy' reboot is going to be based twenty years after the original show and is going to have a new slayer as the lead so Jessica Parker Kennedy won't be playing Buffy but she could play the new lead. Flash Actress Wants to Play Buffy in the Rebootscreenrant.com/flash-buffy-reboot-jessica-parker-kennedy/ i endorse as i have a crush as well.
|
|
SportsFan19
Junior Member
@sportsfan19
Posts: 2,845
Likes: 2,248
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Jun 1, 2019 5:22:31 GMT
I'll be honest: I'm ok with any reboot. Some of my favorite stories are reboots/remakes: The Thing, The Fly, Spider-Man: Homecoming, even Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Buffy taught me never to judge until I've watched. If a remake happens, I'll give it a chance. If it's good, I'll be glad I did. If it's terrible, it won't affect my enjoyment of the original series. It'll just help me appreciate it even more. Heck, if the remake is popular enough and brings back renewed interest in the original show, we might get some well-done blurays with all new bonus features. That alone would be cause for me to support a remake. Whoa, PreachCaleb in da house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 13, 2019 21:32:32 GMT
Personally i rather see a tv show with a new Vampire slayer named i don`t know "Sally The Vampire Slayer". I don`t want a Buffy reboot, If they want to make a new tv series about a Vampire Slayer fine but give us a new original Vampire slayer.
And i would be fine with Jessica Parker Kennedy playing this new Vampire Slayer.
The only way i would watch a new tv series about a Vampire slayer is if it was a new original character.
Stop with the reboots and give us original characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 13, 2019 21:56:52 GMT
Personally i rather see a tv show with a new Vampire slayer named i don`t know "Sally The Vampire Slayer". I don`t want a Buffy reboot, If they want to make a new tv series about a Vampire Slayer fine but give us a new original Vampire slayer. And i would be fine with Jessica Parker Kennedy playing this new Vampire Slayer. The only way i would watch a new tv series about a Vampire slayer is if it was a new original character. Stop with the reboots and give us original characters. I mean, it's not exactly a new concept; and there's nothing inherently wrong with re-exploring established characters from new perspectives or with new people in those roles. I get it, to a certain degree, but it is also a little baffling. I mean, should there only ever have been one person to play Romeo or Juliet? A definitive iteration of Sherlock Holmes? That's not to say that everything that gets rebooted is of that caliber, and arguably the problem is more the commercialization aspect and devising story via focus group and what's trending, rather than tell a story that's worth telling - which absolutely can and should include "reboots;" which once upon a time were just called derivative works and has been an important cornerstone for storytelling for centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 13, 2019 22:59:55 GMT
Personally i rather see a tv show with a new Vampire slayer named i don`t know "Sally The Vampire Slayer". I don`t want a Buffy reboot, If they want to make a new tv series about a Vampire Slayer fine but give us a new original Vampire slayer. And i would be fine with Jessica Parker Kennedy playing this new Vampire Slayer. The only way i would watch a new tv series about a Vampire slayer is if it was a new original character. Stop with the reboots and give us original characters. I mean, it's not exactly a new concept; and there's nothing inherently wrong with re-exploring established characters from new perspectives or with new people in those roles. I get it, to a certain degree, but it is also a little baffling. I mean, should there only ever have been one person to play Romeo or Juliet? A definitive iteration of Sherlock Holmes? That's not to say that everything that gets rebooted is of that caliber, and arguably the problem is more the commercialization aspect and devising story via focus group and what's trending, rather than tell a story that's worth telling - which absolutely can and should include "reboots;" which once upon a time were just called derivative works and has been an important cornerstone for storytelling for centuries. That`s characters from literature so its not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 14, 2019 1:54:39 GMT
It's exactly the same thing. Romeo and Juliet is a play, intended to be performed and is still regularly; often verbatim from the original text, while sometimes exploring nuances in the story by setting it in modern times or outright updating the dialog (case in point, "West Side Story"). If Romeo and Juliet are mere "characters from literature" Buffy and the rest are cut from the same cloth.
With Sherlock Holmes and his stories and established characters like Watson and Moriarty are more than figments from old books, they're characters that have been interpreted and re-interpreted, in books, on radio, on TV, in movies. There are notable interpretations in live action that have define some of the iconography, like the hat and pipe that are so well associated with the character. Other iterations have taken what is popularly known about the characters and played with preconceptions and conventions expected from the established cannon - look at Elementary.
You call them "characters from literature" as if characters from Buffy should be anything else. These are written characters too, perhaps not originally conceived of for consumption through reading (though they did segue to comic books, meaning do enjoy a similar literal distinction to the other materials), but just the same, they're not the sole creation of the performers that embodied them. The characters and stories were first written and the actors added depth and color, but the writing gave them form.
A new take on the characters and stories takes nothing away from the original for those who still enjoy it; it just present new opportunities for potentially new fans to discover the narrative in a way that may resonate with them more effectively, and may even appeal to fans of the original. Buffy the TV series is already a reboot of itself; if it hadn't been, all we'd have is the B movie that probably wouldn't have faded into obscurity. A similar comparison can be made for the Stargate TV franchise, which owes its origins to the Kurt Russell movie from which it developed it's core concept and initial inner workings and history, but had nothing to do with the original creator; and dives headlong into a mythology that's entirely its own.
If it's a clean and clear break from the established continuity, what difference does it make? Look what a cluster fuck Star Trek has become trying to keep its attempts to reinvent itself tied overtly or ambiguously to the original continuity. Never mind that at this point, from a legal entity stand point Discovery can't be considered part of the original cannon, yet pretends like it somehow could be. Who the hell knows what Picard is going to be...
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 14, 2019 8:25:07 GMT
No its not
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 14, 2019 13:07:58 GMT
It really is, whether you think so or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 14, 2019 14:23:30 GMT
I mean, it's not exactly a new concept; and there's nothing inherently wrong with re-exploring established characters from new perspectives or with new people in those roles. I get it, to a certain degree, but it is also a little baffling. I mean, should there only ever have been one person to play Romeo or Juliet? A definitive iteration of Sherlock Holmes? That's not to say that everything that gets rebooted is of that caliber, and arguably the problem is more the commercialization aspect and devising story via focus group and what's trending, rather than tell a story that's worth telling - which absolutely can and should include "reboots;" which once upon a time were just called derivative works and has been an important cornerstone for storytelling for centuries. That`s characters from literature so its not the same thing. I gotta go with Stargazer here. There is no reason literary characters should be the only ones to be reimagined or rebooted. Buffy the show itself was a reboot/reimagining/remake of the movie. If live action characters were off limits, we'd've never gotten this great show.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jun 27, 2019 4:57:09 GMT
too old, wouldn't they go back to high school?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 27, 2019 5:16:38 GMT
Remakes are only good if there is a good reason to do it. You get popular or talented actors to do a new version of a Shakespeare play. The reason you watch isn't because you expect surprises but to see how the new person handles the role. or how it is directed or staged.
The Thing remake was ok because of the advances in spfx. The 2011 remake not so much because they didn't really have anything new to do with it. The actors were mostly unknown, so you couldn't even think about performances.
This second remake(since the movie was the original) is just for the sake of greasing the machinery of the studios.
Coming up with a new character at the very least provides the potential for suspense.
|
|
