A Joss Whedon-less 'Buffy' movie: Worst idea ever of the year | EW.com

News | PopWatch

A Joss Whedon-less 'Buffy' movie: Worst idea ever of the year

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the rights holders of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – which began as the 1992 crapmound film starring Kristy Swanson and was later transformed by writer Joss Whedon into one of the touchstone TV series of the last 25 years – are planning a remake/relaunch. Now, fans of the Buffyverse have been clamoring for a feature extension ever since the show’s end in 2003; and they’ve made the Whedon-overseen comic books best sellers. Whedon has long been the hand on the wheel of the Buffy franchise, and his cultish fanbase are legion.

That raucous sound you hear is that fanbase currently consulting an engineer to figure out exactly how to support all of the hell they’re gonna raise. Because – get this – Whedon isn’t involved. AT ALL. (Update: Joss Whedon responds.)

According to the news item, the producers aren’t against the idea of Whedon’s involvement, but they haven’t “reached out to him.” What’s more, this new “film” would have no connection with the TV series, nor would it feature any of the show’s robust supporting cast. In other words, they’d be jettisoning everything and everyone that made Buffy work. I swear, sometimes it’s as if Hollywood sets out with “failure” plugged right into the GPS.

The only reason that Buffy remains a viable franchise is because of the rabid, happy-to-purchase fanbase. And the only reason that fanbase exists is because of Joss Whedon. (There are actually t-shirts out there with “Joss Whedon is my master now” printed on them.) Why leave all that money on the table simply to make a shoddy Twilight-lite? Because there’s no way those fans would turn out if Whedon wasn’t involved – what’s more, they’d actively work to undermine it in every way possible.

Clearly, Joss has more Buffy stories to tell. Why not let him? Would you go see this film without Joss Whedon at the helm? Vote in our poll. Sound off in the comments section.