Dear Joss Whedon

[genericcow]

Nice. You're back on the "I will not completely ignore your shows" list. I'm still a little leery though, considering you're the creator of Buffy in its current form (how you decided a comedy movie starring Pee Wee and a 90210 alumnus should be reworked into serious television drama, I will never fathom

Comments

You seem to forget...

[wraithtdk]

He not only made a TV drama based on a comedy movie starring Pee Wee and a 90210 alumnus, he made a rediculously unecessary SPIN-OFF of a TV drama based on a comedy movie starring Pee Wee and a 90210 alumnus!

BURN WHEDON! BURN! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELLS YOU!

Re: You seem to forget...

[genericcow]

I'm willing to give Whedon the benefit of the doubt on Angel. I'm betting it was the execs that asked for that spinoff. I'm betting Whedon didn't have much control over whether it would make it to TV or not.

Re: You seem to forget...

[hyperscoot]

not sure this is related.

but didn't the crow get spin offs?

Didn't they suck the monkey's left testicle.
Sideways.

Re: You seem to forget...

[wraithtdk]

1. There is a MAJOR difference: Bufyy started out as a COMEDY about a preppy bimbo who became a Vampire hunter. That works because it's funny. The T.V. show was a an action-drama. Whole different format. The Crow started as an action drama comics, became an action drama movie, and then was translated into an action drama T.V. show. At least there was format consistancy.

2. It never actually got any spin-offs. It got sequels and a T.V. adaptation, but there was never a spin-off.

3. I actually liked all of them except for the 2nd and probably 4th movie (haven't seen the new one).

4. Even if you what you said was true, all that would mean was that James O'bar is a tool. And seriously, they might as well burn "black and decker" into that guy's ass.

[hyperscoot]

I think the tv feeling is because firefly was very close to movie quality. if not movie quality for their effects and cgi. I didn't notice much of a difference on that level. The plot was very movie-ish though, they ramped things up way beyond tv.

[genericcow]

Eh, the movie could've been a two-part season finale/season opener. It just wasn't movie quality, to me

huh...

[wraithtdk]

Sounds like the last Highlander movie.

O.k., great, you finished up the movie and got rid of Conner.

Now who's going to be the one?

[hyperscoot]

Ender, I think what you don't realize is that the actor who plays Book has cancer, and the actor who plays Wash won't be available to do any more movies, and or TV show continuation, due to other commitments.

[warden]

Honestly, despite sharing the same name, some characters, and a generalized overarching concept, Buffy of movies and Buffy of TV are so completely different that they should not be compared in my opinion. You're right, I can't understand what made him think to do it, but since the whole universe of Buffy past the main character herself is a Joss Whedon fabrication, and, so far as I've heard, is absolutely excellent if you're into that kind of thing (it ran for how many seasons?) it must have been a pretty good idea. The fact that it got its own spinoff for a character not even IN the original movie should pretty much explain that

[genericcow]

Buffy Success Formula:

A) Sarah Michelle Gellar for the normals
B) Alyson Hannigan for the dorks
C) [insert chicks with tight clothes on killing things]
D) What's-his-nuts (played Angel) for chicks and gay guys

It's so easy, it's scary. I could make a series out of sniffing various kinds of wood solvent run for 7 years, if it had enough chicks killing things in it. :)

As for not comparing Buffy of Movie and Buffy of TV... does this mean I can't compare Batman of Comics and Adam West's Batman anymore? Because, aside from having the same name, some of the same characters, and a generalized overarching concept, they're pretty much entirely different...

[warden]

Personally I think you're wrong about the 7 years thing. The formula you described works for maybe a year or two before people loose interest. Long running series require some "good" writing (by good I mean interesting for the people that are the target audience).

As for the comarison, actually I'd say yes you can't. I wouldn't compare those, nor would I compare either to the movies that were done (except for the last one since it was an attempt to be more like Adam West's batman) nor would I compare either to the cartoons that were done in the 90s. They're all so completely different and ment for completely different audiences that comparison becomes almost fruitless. There are more differences than similarities.

Like comparing apples and oranges man. They're both fruit (overarching concept), they both contain seeds and nutrition meant for those seeds (same characters) but on the whole you wouldn't go substituting one for the other in cooking. I don't care how good apple beef sounds, I don't think it would be the same ;)

[genericcow]

"The formula you described works for maybe a year or two before people loose interest."

Select series which ran longer than Buffy to date:
Baywatch
Beverly Hills 90210
Married With Children
WWE Raw
WWE Smackdown
Power Rangers

Now, I guess there is the subjectiveness of the definition of "good writing" being "whatever keeps the target audience watching", but seriously, remake Buffy, but this time use average looking people, and you've lost your crowd. That show simply would not have lasted as long as it did without hot chicks and dudes killing things, just like Raw and Smackdown can have the greatest plot twists ever, but if it's dorks out there clotheslining themselves, and not hot chicks and ridiculously buff dudes, no one's gonna watch.

That's the target audience for Buffy. :)

RE: apple beef - you should implement this. I would try it.