Should a new "Buffy" Movie be Made?

Since it first aired in 1997, Buffy: The Vampire Slayer has amassed a devoted cult-following, critical acclaim in spades, and even some recognition from academics, who have coined the term "Buffy-studies" to talk about the television show. After its cancellation, creator and television mastermind Whedon has worked hard to keep Buffy afloat - though the series ended in 2003, television spin-off Angel ran for 5 seasons (finishing a year after Buffy itself did) and a lengthy series of canonical comic-books have been made under Whedon's direction.

With all of these expansions to what is fondly known as the "Buffy'verse," it might seem unsurprising that a film with the intention of "rebooting" Buffy: the Vampire Slayer is in the works, set for a release sometime in 2012. The catch? The new Buffy film doesn't feature any of the original cast. It also isn't being written or directed by Joss Whedon. Like other reboots, the Buffy movie is expected to take the core of Whedon's idea - a vampire slayer struggling to mesh her supernatural responsibilities with her teenage social life - and reconstruct it from there. For some franchises, that might work - and has worked. Marvel superheroes have been given the reboot treatment several times in the past decade and fairy tale modernizations are box office staples. Many of these films do poorly, but there are exceptions. Some fans have even found that the reboots for their favorite franchises are more compelling and aesthetically interesting than the originals.

But for Buffy, the timing is wrong. Reboots are designed to draw modern interest to a franchise that hasn't stood the test of time. Movies or TV series that were campy, slowly paced, or in desperate need of a technology upgrade tend to be targets for the flashy, hi-tech Hollywood treatment: with reboots, they get edgier, sexier, and faster-paced. They feature gadgets, fashions, and socio-economic conditions that resonate more with viewers.

Buffy: the Vampire Slayer was canceled only eight years ago. The "original" generation is still part of the dominant TV-watching demographic, and most younger viewers could very well have caught some of the later seasons when they were on air. More importantly, there are future installments planned for the canonical comics and the DVDs for the original series were released no more than a few years ago. That knocks out most of the need to introduce new fans to the franchise - it's already a current, modern part of popular culture. And because it's already a current, modern part of popular culture, it still feels relevant. Superhero comics made in the 1950s and 1960s seem anachronistic today, with their racist undertones and outdated slang. Nothing in particular is anachronistic about Buffy, primarily because the late 1990s were less than twenty years ago. While our culture is dynamic, it hasn't changed enough to make the characters and plot situations seem outdated. Viewers can still relate to Buffy, Willow, and Xander, even if they don't have iPhones and Facebook profiles.

So if it's the wrong time for a Buffy: the Vampire Slayer remake, when is the right time?

Maybe never, for two reasons.

First, much of the show's charm is in its writing and characterization. Even with its emphasis on the monster of the week (or of the season), Buffy: the Vampire Slayer was more than a horror or sci-fi program. It was a drama with a cast of characters that all had complicated personalities and personal histories. Their vulnerabilities, idiosyncrasies, and personal strengths thickened plots as much as they created relational conflicts. Consequently, it's difficult to imagine Buffy without Willow or Spike or any of its other central characters. Even if Buffy's characters were to be recreated, they would seem like muted imitations rather than naturally fleshed-out human beings. Whedon and his team of writers worked meticulously to pack each episode with creative linguistic idioms and fast-paced, whip-smart dialogue that made their characters come to life, each in a different way. Buffy's abuse of the "-y" suffix, Angel's short, clipped sentences, Giles' reserved British accent and literary references - another writer might be able to echo those things, but they'd never be doing more than echoing.

Second, Buffy reflects the attitudes of the late 20th century in only the most superficial ways, meaning that it won't feel obsolete when the culture changes. This isn't true for every story - superheroes like Super Man reflected an era of simultaneous naivety and hopelessness that is no longer easy for most people to relate to, an era in which the public desperately wanted a hero whose effortless all-American values could comfort their insecurities about Cold War tumult. Buffy: the Vampire Slayer, on the other hand, is driven by the idea that adolescence and coming of age is much like fighting paranormal monsters. Adolescence as a struggle is an ancient, timeless idea that has been relevant for thousands for years and will continue to be relevant. Though people watching Buffy in fifty years might be unimpressed by the special effects or the slang used in the characters' conversations, the absolute core of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer may not ever need a facelift. Making a new Super Man movie demands reconstructing the plot, characterization, and mood of the original story and making a new Buffy movie simply wouldn't. If you don't need to change those things, why would you go to the trouble of making a new movie at all?

The reboot of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer may exceed expectations, but even if it does, it is a wholly unneeded, superfluous addition to a franchise that has stayed afloat with relative ease for close to two decades.