Spike movie straight to DVD? [Archive]

DamnSkippy

07-20-2005, 01:38 PM

Unless someone can supply a reason why going straight to DVD would be better?

I'm just theorizing here because I really don't know, but perhaps they see it as a limited audience that they can make more money from DVD sales than from advertising dollars on TV. Why let the small number of cult fans tape it and not spend the money on the DVD? Not that they wouldn't do both, but it is perhaps a consideration.

Or maybe no advertisers want to pay their asking price to air it, so going straight to DVD gives them a bigger profit.

Mr.Brightside

07-20-2005, 02:15 PM

Cordy's Bitch

07-20-2005, 02:39 PM

I remember when I meant Clare Kramer/Glory, she told me the same exact thing. Said "the lastest was a Spike movie". That she talk to James a week ago, and he said that he was all up for it. I went to a comic convention in New Jersey, about month ago. That's where I meant her. But its weird that this movie is going to dvd then Tv. It would be smart to put it on Tv and then put on dvd. Wouldn't you make more money like that?

Not if they can't sell the advertising. Advertisers might not think there's enough interest to justify spending money on commercial airtime for what is essentially a nostalgia project for a cult show. Networks like SciFi can get away with it (as they did with Farscape: Peacekeeper War), but I don't think the WB really needs or wants to go backward like that.

And personally, I'd like to think that James Marsters had better opportunities out there than this, and that enough was enough.

I don't need anymore, thank you. I almost gagged on the last bit of Buffyverse I ate.

silveragent

07-20-2005, 03:39 PM

I don't buy it. WHY release a DVD only movie?

Kristin? Isn't she Wrongda?

Cordy's Bitch

07-20-2005, 03:41 PM

I don't buy it. WHY release a DVD only movie?

I don't know. Let's ask those dudes at Disney that released Mulan 2 and such. I'm sure they don't know anything about the market.

silveragent

07-20-2005, 03:50 PM

But Mulan 2 is animated. More expensive live action and without the pull of Disney kids stuff.

Morrigan

07-20-2005, 03:57 PM

I don't know. Let's ask those dudes at Disney that released Mulan 2 and such. I'm sure they don't know anything about the market.
And I have the same response to this that I do to all of those Disney sequels released to VHS/DVD, it ain't worth my time. Have you seen an actual Disney squeal that was anywhere near as good as the original? They all sucked

But that does make sense, I guess, you can count on kids wanting to see these movies no matter the quality because they're familiar. Do you think that's what ME/FOX is counting on?

ETA: Where does Disney come into this, other than having the market cornered on straight to DVD sequels?

Cordy's Bitch

07-20-2005, 03:59 PM

More expensive live action and without the pull of Disney kids stuff.

I'm not sure that any further BTVS stuff wouldn't be considered as the same kind of niche market, if not smaller. From Dusk Til Dawn 3, anyone? Cruel Intentions 2? The Crow 4?

ETA: Morrigan, I was just using Disney as an example of a major corporation who saw straight to DVD as a viable marketing strategy/outlet.

Lovin' Lorne

07-20-2005, 04:37 PM

And personally, I'd like to think that James Marsters had better opportunities out there than this, and that enough was enough.

I'd like to think so too, but maybe he's turning out to be the most type cast of all. I thought for sure we would have seen him in more stuff by now. Kinda like I figured we would have seen Alexis picked up for something by now as well. I guess you just never know.

brownsbros3

07-20-2005, 04:58 PM

Speaking from experience as a former video store employee, usually when a movie goes straight to video or DVD, that usually means its not very good.

Adrian_Tepes

07-20-2005, 05:15 PM

Yeah, but you have a built in TV audience right there. The fact that they can't get the movie on the WB doesn't sound good at all.

Unless someone can supply a reason why going straight to DVD would be better?

Joss does have a built in TV audience, just a considerably smaller one than Disney. Add in the fact that the hacks running the Sci-Fi channel will be creaming themselves running to pay him the money for the rights for the first ever broadcast of said movie ad you have a recipe for limited success that is exactly the thing Joss would go for.

That way he's in a no lose situation. If the movie doesn't sell well he can say that there wasn't enough money behind the making of it and if it does, he can boast of what he could do with more money and power.

And TV execs generally being idiots and the people he hangs around with, one of them will believe him and give him what he wants.

Really you have to admire a man who's managed to parlay his limited creative skills together with an as yet unmatched or unchallenged mastery of spin doctoring into the career he's had. He has completely bullfeathered everyone who has the power to hurt his career into thinking he's so much than he really is and that nothing is ever his fault.

Morrigan

07-20-2005, 05:35 PM

Thanks Skippy, CB and A_T, I guess I can kind of see the logic in a move like this but I have to say, right or wrong, it totally reeks of being a bad B-flick move.

v120176

07-20-2005, 05:39 PM

first, this is Wrongda, guys. And second people asked about this to Joss at the Convention. Not that Joss is very reliable and sincere, but why not say this?

And third, if the best they can get is a DVD movie, we can say goodbye to a big screen movie and to any participation of SMG on it. I mean, even with all the noise for the end of BTVS, for the cancellation of ATS, for the campaigns for Faith/Spike spinoff, etc, this just prooves that none of the big studios really care about the fandom. Hell, even Firefly with what? 7 episodes? got a movie. Here the most popular character of the Buffyverse (hey! they said that at the beggining of ATS 5 ;) ) only gets a DVD movie? Maybe this is a shock of reality for some fans who thinks all the studios loves and respect the Buffyverse. Don't get me wrong. To me the DVD movies are ok and I know they made tons of money, but what the fans wanted was a big screen movie (and I bet that Joss wanted that too).

V.

Kate

07-20-2005, 06:01 PM

there's a rumour (reliable spoiler source) that James will play in Smallville.

Kate

07-20-2005, 08:24 PM

Kristin : ... For now I can only tell you that by all accounts, despite Alyson's hints, a Spike-to-DVD is not currently in the works. (Sniff, sniff) (http://www.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/ann.jspa?annID=14)

LaLa247

07-20-2005, 09:05 PM

Prima

07-20-2005, 09:29 PM

Big shock.

They don't call her Wrongda for nothing.

Why they pay her for it is another story all together.

Penny Century

07-20-2005, 09:35 PM

They don't call her Wrongda for nothing.

Why they pay her for it is another story all together.
"Look, I mentioned the Buffyverse again! Hit my link! Read my column! Come back, Shane!..."

SamIAm

07-20-2005, 09:35 PM

"...Come back, Shane!..."

::snerk::

Morrigan

07-20-2005, 09:45 PM

Adrian_Tepes

07-20-2005, 09:45 PM

I wouldn't say it kills any interest by a Studio in a big screen movie.

I mean look around and what is being licensed and made into movies NOW, for example. Dukes of Hazzard anyone?

Joss will get his Spike movie, maybe just on the DVD release maybe not. I've learned to not underestimate his capacity for spin jobs.

tojoson

07-20-2005, 10:11 PM

I will say this, I fully expect that in the very near future movies/TV shows won't even air on the networks. I expect shows to just start going straight to DVD. That does seem to be where all the $ is.

morrigan, i fully agree with you, in fact, i posted on this about 3 months ago

http://www.stranger-things.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18910

Cordy's Bitch

07-20-2005, 11:03 PM

Oh darn and I was so looking forward to not buying it. :blah:

I will say this, I fully expect that in the very near future movies/TV shows won't even air on the networks. I expect shows to just start going straight to DVD. That does seem to be where all the $ is. Of course I'm a cheap bitch and won't buy any DVDs so I guess I'll have to start reading again.

Nah...it'll be on demand digital, baby. Download to your ipod, or some something similar. I don't understand why they don't do it now with TiVO type machines. A broadcast network where you make your own schedule. You could subscribe to Lost, sample an ep of Alias, etc...

silveragent

07-21-2005, 12:51 AM

Penny -- too funny. Hehehe. Spike on SV? How typecast.

I dunno though on any viability past SMG. Spike movie? Joss doesn't own it, and he seems to have a lot of bad blood with Fox. I think with DVDs cheap at my Supermarket checkout, it's a different thing than just a few years ago.

LAT actually did a decent job of covering this, DVD revenues are down, all around, see Dreamworks Animation, Shrek 2 and Sharktales, revenue restatement of, stock price falling of. Retailers are ruthless in dumping poorly selling titles and shelf space is limited requiring lots of courting Wal-Mart and the like who are big players. Most titles stay in stores for only a few week (hence Dreamworks revenue booking problems). Theatrical release is more like a marketing campaign for DVD. All of that screams mass-market which tends to squeeze out cult/niche players like Joss and the Buffyverse.

Until/unless America gets true South Korean style broadband, etc. [It's a rights issue plus network throughput CB]

I agree that hell a Dukes of Hazzard movie equals total creative bankruptcy, and yeah Fox would want to milk out more money. I just don't think Spike is the most popular Buffyverse character (as if) and that Fox would want to go that way or involve Joss after he made enemies there. Joe moviegoer knows SMG, has no idea of Joss, and heck they made Hellblazer and V is for Vendetta (ahem, bad timing on that one) without any involvement and even protests by Alan Moore. They got Keanu Reeves and Natalie Portman. By Hollywood standards that works.

[Insert random Buffy movie casting here: Jessica Simpson as Buffy, Lindsay Lohan as Willow, the Rock as Angel, Sean William Scott as Xander, John Cleese as Giles]

skippcomet

07-21-2005, 01:24 AM

If they did a Spike movie direct to DVD, who do they expect the audience to be? Loyal Spikefen, probably some Spuffies, fans of JM, and diehard Whedon loyalists. Check. And in the other corner are those who won't pick it up -- Spike-haters, those who associate Spike's rise in prominence with the downward trend in show quality, fans of other characters who are sick to death of Spike, burned former fans of Whedon who've been muttering for years that Emperor Joss isn't wearing a fancy new suit (to say nothing of his obvious, ah, shortcomings :grin: ), people who simply don't give a damn about JM's career.

Cordy's Bitch

07-21-2005, 01:55 AM

Until/unless America gets true South Korean style broadband, etc. [It's a rights issue plus network throughput CB]

]

Were you addressing me here? I understand that there are legal issues to be worked out in my on demand scenario, but I believe they will be resolved in due time.

Adrian_Tepes

07-21-2005, 03:07 AM

DVD revenues are down because of the growth of the file sharing industry. It doesn't make any sense to buy the movies on disc when you can download them for free essentially. That too will sooner or later have to be addressed.

And it doesn't really matter what Joe Moviegoer thinks. As pointed out time and time again, Joss appeals to the people MAKING the movies most of whom have lost all touch with reality. As long as those people are in charge of things, he'll have an 'in' with them.

So look for a Spike/Faith movie at some point with lots of whiny about Buffy from both characters and guest appearances from Willow and Giles and Andrew as your supporting cast member.

Mr.Brightside

07-21-2005, 10:06 AM

If you guys didn't know yet. There will be no Spike movie.

http://www.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/ann.jspa?annID=14

Cordy's Bitch

07-21-2005, 11:33 AM

If you guys didn't know yet. There will be no Spike movie.

http://www.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/ann.jspa?annID=14

I personally think that the whole notion is somewhat of a bad idea for all concerned. It wouldn't be a huge moneymaker, and what purpose does reviving Spike and the Buffyverse as a whole serve (by the time its life support failed, I was more than ready to pull the plug)?

Mr.Brightside

07-21-2005, 11:35 AM

I actually thought this movie, would make some money. Since there was so many Buffy and Angel fans. Plus most of the fans wanted a Spinoff of Spike or a movie.

DamnSkippy

07-21-2005, 12:51 PM

I actually thought this movie, would make some money. Since there was so many Buffy and Angel fans. Plus most of the fans wanted a Spinoff of Spike or a movie.

I don't think I would definitively say "most of the fans" want that. A good number of internet fans would be happy with that (and quite a few wouldn't), but the general public at large who watched the show and isn't obsessed with JM or the verse at all probably wouldn't rush right out to buy it. They might've tuned in if they weren't busy if it was on TV, but paying money for it - I doubt it.

Mr.Brightside

07-21-2005, 01:10 PM

That's true, maybe its better not to have a movie and let the Buffyverse actors do something else in there career. Besides doing something related to Buffy or Angel.

Adrian_Tepes

07-21-2005, 04:16 PM

If you guys didn't know yet. There will be no Spike movie.

http://www.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/ann.jspa?annID=14

You forgot the last word, "There will be no Spike movie, yet."

It's coming, Joss will not be deterred from his path of stupidity.

v120176

07-22-2005, 12:24 PM

here's what Wrongda wrote in E!...
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Kristin/Archive2005/050722b.html

"I hear there might be a Spike movie," Aly said, "which I think would be the logical character to start with, but I think there's more opportunity for the Angel crew, not the Buffy crew. Joss has talked about different things, and I think the last thing I heard him say was a straight-to-DVD-type movie."

So this is very, very different to what Wrongda claimed AH said....

And after posting the news she checked the information (that is not the right order to do the things, righ? :rolleyes:

Salivating that this might be the project to which James Marsters has been alluding as "in the works," I begged a friend at Fox studio for the skinny. But alas, no dice. "I can tell you there is no Buffyverse movie happening right now," she says. "At least, not at 20th Century Fox. Joss is very busy."

I, too, have heard the rumors flying around that James' next project might be Smallville, but a WB rep tells: "A huge guest star is coming up on show but not [James]. You'll find out at TCA." (And by the time you read this, you'll probably already know.) I'm also told by another source that the WB did offer to do a few Angel movies-of-the-week at the time the series was canceled, but Joss declined the offer.

Yes, Wrongda did it again!!!!!!!!!!!

DamnSkippy

07-22-2005, 01:18 PM

So, according to Wrongda *pinch salt*, Joss turned down Angel MOW offers. So it wasn't a case of the WB talking out of both sides of their mouths but, rather, Joss who essentially ended the Angelverse prospects on TV. Interesting. :lol:

Morrigan

07-22-2005, 02:24 PM

So it wasn't a case of the WB talking out of both sides of their mouths but, rather, Joss who essentially ended the Angelverse prospects on TV. Interesting.
Sounds like someone is playing Spin Dr.

Cordy's Bitch

07-22-2005, 02:36 PM

Sounds like someone is playing Spin Dr.

I actually think that may be a good decision on Joss' part. He may be at a point in his career where he needs to show that he's more than a one trick pony.

DamnSkippy

07-22-2005, 02:49 PM

I actually think that may be a good decision on Joss' part. He may be at a point in his career where he needs to show that he's more than a one trick pony.

Oh I agree it was a good decision. But he was the one espousing the possibility of MOWs to appease all the fans' screams of WB "foul" at the cancellation, so it's interesting to hear they actually did make the offer only for him to turn it down.

KarKar

07-22-2005, 04:07 PM

[whinging 15 fangirl] But, but, he PROMISED us a Spike Movie!!! [/whinging 15 fangirl]

Yeah, I'm emotionally immature today, what of it?

Kit

07-22-2005, 05:21 PM

Don't want to start a new thread. But there's a long article about "Serenity" and how it might follow "Star Trek"'s footsteps.

Whedon Flock Ready For "Firefly" Resurrection (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050722/film_nm/firefly_dc/nc:790;_ylt=Am1vzq0kGTYfEX1yrsuKeGowFxkF;_ylu=X3oD MTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

In October, when Universal's co-president of marketing, Eddie Egan, booked a routine rough-cut preview in L.A.'s San Fernando Valley, he was amazed by the explosive response from the research-screening recruits who were clearly rabid "Firefly" fans. He wanted to know just how they had learned about the screening.

It turned out that one fan had identified the movie and tipped off her entire "Firefly" community (known as "browncoats") with one Internet post. Some of them had driven from Arizona and Seattle, Egan says. Universal, deciding that it had something bigger than it thought, pushed the action adventure off of its spring lineup and into the fall.

Wow. Look how they spin!

All in all...meh.

silveragent

07-22-2005, 06:46 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but hasn't Whedon said over and over that FOX not himself owns Buffy, and they could put anyone they wanted on the project? Back when the show was running? So wouldn't that make Wrongda, I dunno, wrong? Hehehe.

Hmmm ... yep the Koolaide drinkers in force. Fireflop is running on Sci-Fi, can't believe how bad it is. I wonder if the movie will reach the sci-fi heights of Pluto Nash.

jerry

07-22-2005, 06:56 PM

Any Buffyverse project done without Joss would almost certainly fail, so even if he does not have legal control over it, he has practical control over it.

I don't think Joss has ever wanted to make TV movies. I think he just occasionally pays lip service to wanting to in order to appease the fans who still want some.

DamnSkippy

07-22-2005, 10:24 PM

Any Buffyverse project done without Joss would almost certainly fail, so even if he does not have legal control over it, he has practical control over it.

I think that's a fallacy. Your average Joe outside of the net truly doesn't care who wrote, produced, owns, etc. Buffy and it's various characters. I know none of my relatives who watched the shows even know who Joss is nor do they care. If a big enough name took the franchise and made something new with it and it was actually good, people would pay to see it. You can't seriously think a Lucas or Spielberg version of Buffy would be a big flop? I'm not saying those people would touch it, but someone with a weighty name known by the general public I don't think would have any problems drawing a crowd. If the Whedonites want to boycott and not buy tickets to it, I'm sure Fox could afford to lose a few hundred thousand in profit.

Adrian_Tepes

07-23-2005, 11:15 AM

DamnSkippy

07-23-2005, 12:27 PM

Someone else may own the rights but Joss has thoroughly ingrained the notion that he was the only reason it was successful to both fans and the idiots in charge. Any attempts by Fox or someone else to mess it without his involvement would be met with huge backlash from his devotees, both the fans and the various critics who love him dearly.

1. If this happens it would be years from now and not tomorrow.
2. If we judge how strongly the fans will hold onto the Joss worship by the number of fan sites currently closing down, then it's a good bet in a few years the Buffy/Joss Only freaks will be far, far less numerous. People do move on and it's really hard work to care about something so unimportant in the grand scheme of things as who first did what.
3. Critics may be surprised that anyone other than Joss would touch a Buffy project, but I would guess they wouldn't pan the idea without seeing the product. They might say, "This won't be your grandmother's Buffy," but I'm guessing they'd give a Jackson or a Tarentino or a Spielberg (insert quality director/producer/writer name here) some slack and be pretty excited about the possibilities of seeing someone else's vision of these characters on screen.

Adrian_Tepes

07-23-2005, 02:58 PM

1. If this happens it would be years from now and not tomorrow.
2. If we judge how strongly the fans will hold onto the Joss worship by the number of fan sites currently closing down, then it's a good bet in a few years the Buffy/Joss Only freaks will be far, far less numerous. People do move on and it's really hard work to care about something so unimportant in the grand scheme of things as who first did what.
3. Critics may be surprised that anyone other than Joss would touch a Buffy project, but I would guess they wouldn't pan the idea without seeing the product. They might say, "This won't be your grandmother's Buffy," but I'm guessing they'd give a Jackson or a Tarentino or a Spielberg (insert quality director/producer/writer name here) some slack and be pretty excited about the possibilities of seeing someone else's vision of these characters on screen.

1. I don't know about that. I think we'll see something sooner than later.
2. Again I would disagree, as older fans move on, newer fans are created all the time.
3. This is Hollywood we're talking about. A land where logic need not apply. There's a very good chance any of those people would seek out Joss for his input into their version of his project. It isn't like what happened with Wilder and Burton which was old Hollywood vs. New, this is New Hollywood working with each other on this.

DamnSkippy

07-23-2005, 03:57 PM

1. I don't know about that. I think we'll see something sooner than later.
2. Again I would disagree, as older fans move on, newer fans are created all the time.
3. This is Hollywood we're talking about. A land where logic need not apply. There's a very good chance any of those people would seek out Joss for his input into their version of his project. It isn't like what happened with Wilder and Burton which was old Hollywood vs. New, this is New Hollywood working with each other on this.

These are all, of course, our opinions which can neither be proven right or wrong today. Only time will tell.

1. If they do something sooner (which I have no faith will occur) then you could be right. That is assuming all the elements fall into place: DB/SMG/JM/etc all available; JW willing and available; excellent material that meets everyone's approval. However, I think it far more likely that "later" is more likely to happen. I think it's highly probable Fox would want some time to pass to let the images of SMG, DB, JM, etc. fade in the public's mind before presenting something fresh with this franchise with new faces and a new creative team.
2. Newer fans are created, yes, but not in the numbers that the older fans were and probably not in numbers enough to replace those abandoning ship. Plus, with the constant rerun factor of the franchise on TNT, fans can see all the seasons within a year and see it again and again much faster than we did. They will, I suspect, get burned out quicker and not stick around as long as we have.
3. Exactly. This is Hollywood and having worked there and inside it for years, I can tell you it's not about working "with" somebody to do something creative. That's actor/artist lingo for schmoozing up their next job. It's about working with "anyone" who will do it for the best price and make the most profit. If it doesn't fit in with Fox's budget/vision/profit margin to have Whedon do it (assuming they are on good terms with him and he is their first choice), they will not hesitate to get somebody that will. There are no loyalties there and "artful" only applies to bookkeeping.

silveragent

07-23-2005, 04:17 PM

AT -- Alan Moore's involvement in V is for Vendetta and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Hellblazer? NIL.

Buffy IS SMG. Not Joss, not James, but Sarah. That's the face and name people know.

A movie that hit the right notes and was marketed the right way could be successful. One without Joss I'd argue. Put say Tim Story or Steve Soderbergh or Steven Greenglass, and critics will love it, because their names are bigger and more respected than Joss.

A more light-hearted, FF-type movie would seem a no-brainer. I don't think James or David would work at this point not only because of the aging issue but it would be a vampire not a Buffy movie. JMHO

Morrigan

07-23-2005, 04:22 PM

There are no loyalties there and "artful" only applies to bookkeeping.
Oh, that's a quote in the making. Heh, I should send it to my friend who works for AIG. :D

Adrian_Tepes

07-23-2005, 07:54 PM

AT -- Alan Moore's involvement in V is for Vendetta and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Hellblazer? NIL.

Buffy IS SMG. Not Joss, not James, but Sarah. That's the face and name people know.

That's the face you and I know, that's not the face though the industry associates with Buffy though.

A movie that hit the right notes and was marketed the right way could be successful. One without Joss I'd argue. Put say Tim Story or Steve Soderbergh or Steven Greenglass, and critics will love it, because their names are bigger and more respected than Joss.

A more light-hearted, FF-type movie would seem a no-brainer. I don't think James or David would work at this point not only because of the aging issue but it would be a vampire not a Buffy movie. JMHO

I don't know about that.

I think Joss will get his Spike movie because no one is going to have the brass to do anything without his input on a movie. It may be this year or next but with all the positive press surrounding the guy not to mention his connections and buddies at Fox (Hello Mrs. Berman), he'll get his way.

Lovin' Lorne

07-23-2005, 08:17 PM

That's the face you and I know, that's not the face though the industry associates with Buffy though.

Maybe not, but it's not the "suits" that need to fill the seats, it's the fans. And for the fans, SMG is Buffy. The "Joss is God" contingent will only fill so many seats. For anything Joss produced, whether it's Buffy, Angel or Fire Fly, it's going to take more than the industry yes men and the Whedon-ites to make it successful. It's going to take the average Joe Buffy watcher, who doesn't live and die because of what's said or not said on the internet.

LaLa247

07-23-2005, 08:33 PM

I just know I'm not willing to see Hilary Duff take SMG's place.

...

...

...

...

...

...

SHIRTLESS GUNN ATTACK!

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/LaLa247/supersymmetry0434.gif" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

jerry

07-23-2005, 08:34 PM

AT -- Alan Moore's involvement in V is for Vendetta and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Hellblazer? NIL.

Having just been to Comic-Con, I can say for sure that the producers of 'V' are none-too-happy to have Alan Moore telling everyone that their movie is moronic. That may not stop it from being successful (although it will if it is true, as was the case with 'League') but it definitely doesn't help. Similarly, a 'Buffy' project does not need Joss involved, but it is likely to fail if he is actively opposed.

Either way, I think any BtVS project that is entirely free of Joss would only happen at some point in the future where it was a remake, rather than a continuation of the story.

Mr.Brightside

07-24-2005, 11:18 AM

Adrian_Tepes

07-25-2005, 01:11 AM

Maybe not, but it's not the "suits" that need to fill the seats, it's the fans. And for the fans, SMG is Buffy. The "Joss is God" contingent will only fill so many seats. For anything Joss produced, whether it's Buffy, Angel or Fire Fly, it's going to take more than the industry yes men and the Whedon-ites to make it successful. It's going to take the average Joe Buffy watcher, who doesn't live and die because of what's said or not said on the internet.

Yes but these are suits we're talking about, none of whom have had even the slightest touch with reality in many years.

SA: Not an Alan Moore fan. I understand why a lot of people like him but I personally don't think much of him or what he writes about. Never could.

silveragent

07-25-2005, 01:32 PM

AT: Yeah, I know about Alan Moore. The only things I really liked was Top Ten and the first arc of League. I couldn't get into the others. Watchmen doesn't age well past the 80's.

But somewhat lurching back on topic, now that DVDs are selling in my supermarket, it's a mass market/commodity deal. Niche will only take you so far with sponsors, and a Buffy movie wouldn't be that TV model at all. Execs know to make their numbers they need someone who can put the most butts in seats and get the impulse buy at Target and Best Buy. That's not Joss.

[DVD growth at 3%, Shrek 2 and Sharktales being aggressively remaindered, a cluttered marketplace means more LoTR/Harry Potter style stuff, a lot less Donnie Darko]

ETA: I wouldn't discount the horror, the horror, of Hillary Duff as Buffy. Bwahahahaha.

Mr.Brightside

08-04-2005, 09:22 AM

*Joss called James about a Spike movie*

http://www.slayerverse.org/tanet/net_buffy_us/?navi=news.php&id=24713

September

08-04-2005, 12:21 PM

Having just been to Comic-Con, I can say for sure that the producers of 'V' are none-too-happy to have Alan Moore telling everyone that their movie is moronic. That may not stop it from being successful (although it will if it is true, as was the case with 'League') but it definitely doesn't help. Similarly, a 'Buffy' project does not need Joss involved, but it is likely to fail if he is actively opposed.

Either way, I think any BtVS project that is entirely free of Joss would only happen at some point in the future where it was a remake, rather than a continuation of the story.

I really am the only person in the world to think 'League' wasn't that bad, amn't I? I'd say (and sorry for going OT) it would depend on how popular the comic was. If the cachet of the comic is a big part of what is propelling the movie (as it seemed with Sin City) then you need the creater perhaps more on board, if otherwise then I'd say it doesn't matter really. I can't say outside of fandom how associated Whedon is with Buffy - I'd say not that much as few producers/writers/creators get widespread press. On the other hand the online fandom would make the papers like the Harry Potter fandom if they cut him out now.

I think a Spike made for DVD would likely sell enough to cover its costs: JM has enough enthusiastic fans and then there's all the Buffy and Angel people who would buy it just to finish their collection. It doesn't need to make the supermarkets when you've got Amazon, etc. online plus the free advertising of very dedicated fans.

silveragent

08-04-2005, 01:50 PM

Sep -- if per Freddy little kids in Bali know Sarah is Buffy, that's hard to beat, particularly since it helps you Globally. I doubt anyone in the wider, non-online fandom audience knows or cares about Joss or James or would do so even if told.

Writers/Directors just don't matter. JK Rowling didn't write the screenplays to the films, people still turned out in droves. Alan Moore complained about Constantine all the time, nobody cared. THAT was a Reeves movie. Joss could whine, people globally would pay to see SMG.

I think the reason there hasn't been and won't be a direct to DVD Spike movie is economic. James and Spike may have online fans, that didn't translate into wide audience viewing, otherwise we'd have had Spike the Series which Whedon obviously wanted. [Internet IMHO distorts knowing the true nature of viewing audience] Recall how Spike was going to "save Angel the Series?" Except he didn't. Plus James is naturally fair, and is stereotyped with bleached blonde hair. Which hurts him outside of playing villains or buffoons.

If the cost to a Spike movie is akin to $50 million on Serenity, add in another $30 million for marketing, that would require 8 million DVDs (at a margin of $10 each) just to COVER the cost. Buffy at it's height didn't draw that amount in viewers for free, in comparison the best-selling comic book (Superman or Joss's X-men) does only 200K; Chronicles of Riddick did about 8 million unit sales. The danger in a Spike movies is you get much closer to 200K than the other.

Plus execs can only oversee so many projects. Which would you rather have as a Fox exec? A "pre-sold" world wide movie with Buffy, when kids in Bali know her, or some guy who's character couldn't even make a TV spinoff? Given unknown risk go for the much larger payoff.

League wasn't bad. I thought it was OK.

psychofilly

08-04-2005, 02:03 PM

You know, the article just states that Joss called James. He could have been calling to say that there never was nor ever will be a movie made with Spike as the star.

Hee.

Morrigan

08-04-2005, 02:09 PM

You know, the article just states that Joss called James. He could have been calling to say that there never was nor ever will be a movie made with Spike as the star.

Hee.
or just to say he was happy to see the hair was growing back. :blah:

Mr.Brightside

08-04-2005, 02:49 PM

You know, the article just states that Joss called James. He could have been calling to say that there never was nor ever will be a movie made with Spike as the star.

Hee.

Thats true, but its a possibility hehe.

KarKar

08-04-2005, 03:00 PM

You know, the article just states that Joss called James. He could have been calling to say that there never was nor ever will be a movie made with Spike as the star.

Hee.
Or maybe he was asking for SMG's & DB's new unlisted phone numbers.

Mr.Brightside

08-04-2005, 03:44 PM

I seriously believe he was calling James about a Spike movie. Why else would he call him?

KarKar

08-04-2005, 04:58 PM

I seriously believe he was calling James about a Spike movie. Why else would he call him?
Didn't you hear? JM is so compulsive about finding new jobs that he's working directory assistance.

Adrian_Tepes

08-04-2005, 07:12 PM

Again, this is Hollywood. If someone is stupid enough to let Uwe Boll license their movies, then someone is stupid enough to let Joss make his Spike movie.

Cordy's Bitch

08-04-2005, 08:39 PM

Again, this is Hollywood. If someone is stupid enough to Uwe Boll license their movies,

I'm lookin' for a verb there....

That*clown

08-04-2005, 08:40 PM

or just to say he was happy to see the hair was growing back. :blah:
Just as many of us were chipping in for that Hair Club For Men membership. :help:

ScaryFairy

08-04-2005, 09:25 PM

Seems to me that JW keeps in touch with a couple of actors. AH(annigan), AA, JM, and NB have all said they've spoken to him in the past week or two.

This new thing from Wrongda saying that JM told her he spoke to JW about a Spike movie (link!: http://www.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/ann.jspa?annID=58 ) strikes me as her jumping the gun (again). Until I see an interview or a chat transcript, I'm not going to believe that a "Spike movie" is anywhere close to the planning stages. JM could have been making a noncomital statement and Wrongda (again) blew it up into something it wasn't.

I mean, just last week she took a noncomital statement about a Spike movie from AH(annigan) and made it sound like it was a done deal, direct-to-DVD thing.

Hell, the latest TCA Press Tour Wrongda interviewed NB (link!: http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Kristin/Archive2005/050805b.html) and he said he also spoke with JW, but pretty much dismissed the idea that any BtVS or AtS movie was in the offing because JW is a little busy with Wonder Woman and the actors themselves are busy. In true Wrongda fashion, she jumped on his Wonder Woman mention and asked if he was going to be cast in the movie. (His long answer made short: "No.")

So, really, I put this down to hopeful wishing on the part of some of the fanbase. And without a doubt, at least half that hopeful fanbase is gonna be pissed with whatever JW decides should it ever happen.

Although to be honest, at this point, it doesn't matter to me if FOX and/or JW ever do anything with the property again. As for the actors, I hope they all find great careers far, far away from the BtVS or AtS. Just IMHO.

KarKar

08-04-2005, 11:02 PM

He also dismissed a Buffy/Spike pairing at one point so who knows what he's capable of?

Adrian_Tepes

08-04-2005, 11:28 PM

I'm lookin' for a verb there....

Never post sober.

It ruins the experience.

silveragent

08-05-2005, 04:01 PM

Let's not forget that Fox and Whedon don't get along. Budget battles, and of course Fox passed on the Firefly movie. ME closed it's doors. Universal didn't even tell Whedon when Serenity would open (up against a Jessica Alba in a bikini movie) and isn't promoting it past the true believers (suggesting bomb). Joss has a scripting deal for Wonder Woman but no script yet and per his interview seems to be struggling, falling victim yet again to far too many cool moments and no plot yet.

If Fox does anything I would be surprised if Whedon had any involvement, past Buffy as a TV show his actual $$$ track record is not good (his only WGA credits are Alien Resurrection and Titan AE, and unlike polishers like Babaloo Mandel, he's not attached to a star like Will Ferrel).

His talking to Nick seems odd, given Xander's and Nick's treatment on Buffy and his very public brush-off in moving to Angel. My take is Whedon has burn-out creatively (seems to be struggling with the WW script per his interview) and is seeking to mend fences with Sarah (good luck with that). His interview seemed to shoot himself in the foot with Joel Silver. Whedon does have difficulty working with others when he's not in control (Roseanne disease).

Hollywood seems bankrupt creatively, too much Alan Ball disease, which doesn't pull in the paying customers. Buffy with Sarah is basically pre-sold, people know who/what the character is and basically like her so even just competent execution can make money. A fun upbeat film with "friends of Sarah," i.e Michelle, Nick, Seth, and Tony would be I think a winner and if there was enough money waved at folks a summer project, no sooner though than 2007 release and 2006 filming is at least possible. A Buffy movie would make more money than Dukes of Hazzard for sure IMHO.

However I think anything beyond a Buffy movie is highly doubtful and even that is likely years and lots of cash away.

Adrian_Tepes

08-05-2005, 08:03 PM

Berman and the rest of his buddies are still over at Fox right?

They'll get along just fine because that's Hollywood.

September

08-05-2005, 08:20 PM

Adrian_Tepes

08-06-2005, 05:04 PM

I can't imagine any Buffy or other movies happening really though because pretty soon they're all going to be too old. Except for MT.

Depends, most of the core cast are going to be too old but VK (Connor), MM(Harmony), TL(Andrew) and even Eliza are still fairly young and would fit into their roles again easily. Mind you a movie without the originals probably wouldn't have that wide of an audience but that's a given since it would be Spike centric to begin with.

DamnSkippy

08-06-2005, 05:20 PM

Depends, most of the core cast are going to be too old but VK (Connor), MM(Harmony), TL(Andrew) and even Eliza are still fairly young and would fit into their roles again easily. Mind you a movie without the originals probably wouldn't have that wide of an audience but that's a given since it would be Spike centric to begin with.

How is it going to be Spike centric when Spike (aka James) is the oldest one of the bunch (except ASH and his age doesn't really matter)? If we're talking cast that will be too old to make a movie, James is top of the list.

tojoson

08-06-2005, 06:51 PM

mqaybe they'll give Spike the Shanshu, and make him the new watcher, with Andrew as his watcher in training (or his wife)

he would probably have to be the watcher over a totally new slayer, but at least the fanatics would have their Spike and Andrew

Adrian_Tepes

08-06-2005, 08:35 PM

How is it going to be Spike centric when Spike (aka James) is the oldest one of the bunch (except ASH and his age doesn't really matter)? If we're talking cast that will be too old to make a movie, James is top of the list.

Age doesn't mean anything. As toj points out, they do have ways around that problem ie Shanshu.

It'll be Spike centric because out of that group only Faith has any real chance to be marketed as an equal to Spike, the rest would be supporting characters.

Let's say you have Spike shanshued and teamed with Faith. Andrew is their Watcher in name only as he's still a goody sidekick while they look for Connor cause darn it all, Spike promised Angel he would. Harmony shows up for strictly comedic value, has a slap fight with Andrew and gets staked. Eventually they find Connor and the story goes from there.

LaLa247

08-06-2005, 11:10 PM

Age doesn't mean anything "..." Depends, most of the core cast are going to be too old but VK (Connor), MM(Harmony), TL(Andrew) and even Eliza are still fairly young and would fit into their roles again easily.

Let's say you have Spike shanshued and teamed with Faith. Andrew is their Watcher in name only as he's still a goody sidekick while they look for Connor cause darn it all, Spike promised Angel he would. Harmony shows up for strictly comedic value, has a slap fight with Andrew and gets staked. Eventually they find Connor and the story goes from there.
You can't possibly think this makes a great movie, do you?

DamnSkippy

08-06-2005, 11:11 PM

Age doesn't mean anything.

But it does. That was the argument - that the cast would be too old to play in any movie by the time one might actually be made. For you to say it would be Spike centric makes no sense within that argument. Now you say if Spike Shanshued then... Well, Spike becoming human and being an old watcher (or whatever you think he'd be as human side-kick to Faith) doesn't a Spike centric movie make. Fans don't want to see a 50-year old, winkled, pot-bellied, brunette James Marsters playing some young slayers washed-up, ex-vamp, psuedo Watcher. They want their badass, Billy Idol impersonating vampire who smokes and hopes every time he gets in a fight that it'll be his last. Your scenario puts James Marsters in a movie, but it won't be Spike centric.

tojoson

08-06-2005, 11:52 PM

Fans don't want to see a 50-year old, winkled, pot-bellied, brunette James Marsters playing some young slayers washed-up, ex-vamp, psuedo Watcher. They want their badass, Billy Idol impersonating vampire who smokes and hopes every time he gets in a fight that it'll be his last.

ahhh, but joss doesn't give the fans what they want, he gives them what they need, but HE'S the one who decices what they need.
he's liable to give them anything, as long as it's KEWL

Adrian_Tepes

08-07-2005, 03:13 AM

"..."

You can't possibly think this makes a great movie, do you?

I'm not the one in charge of deciding which films should be made. Who thought Scarlet Johansen would make a believeble action star or that Jessica Biel could carry a film like 'Stealth'? Someone did obviously even though neither could.

But it does. That was the argument - that the cast would be too old to play in any movie by the time one might actually be made. For you to say it would be Spike centric makes no sense within that argument. Now you say it if Spike Shanshued then... Well, Spike becoming human and being an old watcher (or whatever you think he'd be as human side-kick to Faith) doesn't a Spike centric movie make. Fans don't want to see a 50-year old, winkled, pot-bellied, brunette James Marsters playing some young slayers washed-up, ex-vamp, psuedo Watcher. They want their badass, Billy Idol impersonating vampire who smokes and hopes every time he gets in a fight that it'll be his last. Your scenario puts James Marsters in a movie, but it won't be Spike centric.

I didn't say he would be sidekick, if anything Faith would be HIS sidekick in the movie, and Andrew would be his helper. Think Van Helsing with worse acting and less budget.

That would be a Spike centric movie that's terrible but one that I can see very realistically being made.

angdelia

08-07-2005, 03:24 AM

Let's say you have Spike shanshued and teamed with Faith. Andrew is their Watcher in name only as he's still a goody sidekick while they look for Connor cause darn it all, Spike promised Angel he would. Harmony shows up for strictly comedic value, has a slap fight with Andrew and gets staked. Eventually they find Connor and the story goes from there.

The sad thing is that Joss could actually write the Spike movie based on that story.

DamnSkippy

08-07-2005, 08:16 AM

I didn't say he would be sidekick, if anything Faith would be HIS sidekick in the movie, and Andrew would be his helper. Think Van Helsing with worse acting and less budget.

That would be a Spike centric movie that's terrible but one that I can see very realistically being made.

Why on earth would Faith be a side-kick to a human? Was Buffy a side-kick to Xander? Spike may be an experienced fighter, but human he's just not much better than Xander. I doubt ED would consent to do a movie where she played second fiddle (again) and especially to an old, fall-down and break a hip, ex-vamp now human Spike. It would make absolutely no sense for her character or her career. Now if you want to leave Faith out of it and just make it Spike with Andrew as his side-kick tearing a swath through Hoboken, then you've got a buddy movie worth a quarter. Movies are still 25 cents aren't they?

LaLa247

08-07-2005, 10:58 AM

Why on earth would Faith be a side-kick to a human?To add on- Why would Faith be a sidekick to anyone? Come on, she helped out Angel went he needed it, but she was never his sidekick either. She fought side by side with people, but I don't think she would ever lower herself to sidekick. For anyone.

silveragent

08-07-2005, 05:41 PM

Faith as a sidekick for Spike is what the Spike fans want I guess. Based on reaction by other boards. I honestly don't see it ever happening (I think that was why Eliza said no to a Faith series and went for True Calling).

Sep -- even if you have a TV Movie, ala Sci-Fi, you still have a cost of around $5-6 million is my guesstimate. Each hour of a show in production runs around $2 million, and of course sets would have to be built and stuff (hence the fudge factor). Late in Buffy's run the set issue and mandated cost reductions from Fox (also on Angel) caused almost constant shooting on soundstages (and IMHO detracted from the look of the show).

AT -- Berman is gone from Fox, along with other Joss supporters. Part of the very bitter and public battles Whedon had with Fox over Angel, Buffy production budgets, Firefly airing sequence, and making the Firefly movie (Fox said no, Universal picked it up). Joss doesn't seem to play well with others, interestingly Firefly dropped from R to PG-13 and Joss seems to be disconnected to it, suggesting Universal took it away from him and did it's own edit.

I just don't see the broad fanbase there for a Spike movie though. FX's the Shield only gets 3 million viewers, Six Feet Under gets south of that number. It's critic-bait but not the moneymaker that say, CSI is. That to me explains why Joss closed up ME and not Sci-Fi, not WB, not UPN, not FX signed up for a Spike movie when it made sense. Not even demos could save Angel with Spike on the show, and UPN lost around $50 million on Buffy's last two years. Ouch.

I honestly can't see Faith working as a main/lead character, I don't see her appeal to women, and don't see Spike's appeal to men. I do think with the residual good-will for Buffy you could make a movie with Buffy embracing normal life (finally) and accepting life after "fame" as an "ordinary person" that would appeal to the broad audience where the money is. More Spider-Man and less Blade. Her supporting cast all aging would be IMHO a plus, ala aging party-guys Wilson and Vaughn in Wedding Crashers.

Yeah Joss can write whatever he wants, but someone has to fund him, and Fox has to OK any Buffy-related project because they own it (not Joss).

Adrian_Tepes

08-07-2005, 05:47 PM

v120176

08-07-2005, 06:10 PM

SA, the one thing I've learned is never underestimate a person's determination (Joss) and their potential for stupidity (Studio heads).

Someone will give Joss his Spike movie, it's just a matter who, how and when.

I don't know if Whedon will have his Spike movie or not but I totally agree with you about the rest.

But there's one thing that could stop the movie: the numbers of both shows.
I don't know if that happened to the rest of you but I'm not from USA and when I first searched for BTVS/ATS on google I got thousands of sites. Seeing the highly repercution that both shows had on internet I thought the shows had three or four times the ratings they have.
Just think about it. Remember all the noise for BTVS ending, all the articules and publicity for the finale, all the buzz, and add to that all the books BTVS/ATS generated during all their years, the novels, the incredible number of sites boths series still have, the numbers of visits sites like Slayerverse or buffy.nu and others general sites have, the numbers of fictions (check on fanfiction.net) this fandom has... and what number Chosen did? Only 2.9
Like all the buzz for ATS cancellation, the last Buffyverse show on air, the end of that universe...... did 3.2.
The fanatism and repercution both shows have was not reflected in the ratings numbers. Ok, BTVS got good numbers specially on season 1 to 3. And ATs got a great rating on its premiere, but still seeing all the sites and forums about Buffy and Angel in all the worlds I would expect more than the numbers they have. Hell, I'd think we're talking about ER or CSI numbers. From what I checked, BTVS and ATS have more sites than 24 for example.

I think the cold numbers of both series could stop any movie.

LaLa247

08-07-2005, 07:43 PM

SA, the one thing I've learned is never underestimate a person's determination (Joss) and their potential for stupidity (Studio heads). Yeah, too bad Whedon didn't have the same determination for BtVS and AtS (the first two successful shows he had) that he did for Firefly. That's one determined genius, right there.

Someone will give Joss his Spike movie, it's just a matter who, how and when.
Not if that FF movie flops. He'll be back to doing uncredited re-writes on crappy movies.

Mr.Brightside

08-07-2005, 08:29 PM

Yeah, too bad Whedon didn't have the same determination for BtVS and AtS (the first two successful shows he had) that he did for Firefly. That's one determined genius, right there.

I never got to see Firefly. Did it last for season at least?

LaLa247

08-07-2005, 09:10 PM

I never got to see Firefly. Did it last for season at least?
Only eleven episodes, I think.

Adrian_Tepes

08-07-2005, 10:24 PM

If he wasn't buried immediately after the ending of BtVS and AtS when he was publicly feuding with the leads of both shows then he's not going to be buried anytime soon.

People still give Ben Afleck the go-ahead to make movies despite all of his most recent ones bombing.

More to the point, Thundercats AND Jem are being remade a la He-man with Jem being more like Avril DESPITE the flop of the 'new' He-man.

Mr.Brightside

08-08-2005, 09:23 AM

Only eleven episodes, I think.

That sucks, I hope they put it on DVD.

DamnSkippy

08-08-2005, 09:26 AM

That sucks, I hope they put it on DVD.

It's already out on DVD.

silveragent

08-08-2005, 06:29 PM

V -- I do agree on the numbers (see below), though I think Sarah's world-wide recognition in the role gives her an edge that is different from other Buffy-verse characters and actors.

I think part of Joss's success in pitching is his near-Ivy background at (Wellesly?). People in Hollywood are still impressed with that (see the Harvard Mafia), insecure as they are. I think that only goes so far though. Rumor has it that Universal took editing away from Joss on Serenity and re-cut it to a PG-13 from his R. Could explain his suddenly distant attitude towards the movie in interviews. I don't see Whedon and Silver lasting much longer on WW, particularly since it's a big budget film and Joss doesn't handle budgets well (consistently went over on Buffy, Angel, Firefly).

For those interested, there's some info on the Lifetime Original Movies <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117927086?categoryid=14&cs=1&s=h&p=0">Here</a>

Tidbits:

Average budget is $5 million for 2 hours.
Michelle's Lifetime movie did well, 4.2 million viewers on Lifetime (Shield does 3 million or so; Rescue Me, Six Feet Under, Entourage, Huff, Nip/Tuck all do less [source LAT articles a few weeks back not in the Variety article sorry but LAT is searchable for more info])
Lifetime is doing 17 movies this year, often from literary sources and away from "Women in Jeapordy" stuff of old.
Average deficit for indie producer is $1.3 million per movie, Lifetime only pays $3.7.
Deficit requires tax benefits (Canada, Louisiana, etc), but foreign sales have collapsed. Dunno how they continue this for long.
Majors won't do movies for Lifetime, no real profits.

Conclusion: I don't see with above numbers Fox putting a Spike movie together in order to take a bath.