A couple of days back the Sunnydale underground was abuzz that “Glee” scene-stealer Heather Morris (‘Britney’) had inherited the stake from Sarah Michelle Gellar in this worrisome “Buffy” reboot that Warner Bros is putting together sans the man that gave birth to the Slayer, Joss Whedon.
Easy rumour to believe – “Glee” is a hot show, anyone on it would likely be considered a viable commodity, and more so, in addition to having killer looks and great comedic timing, Ms Morris is an uber-flexible, super-healthy dancer. One would imagine that’s exactly what the producers are looking for in Buffy Sommers 3.0, no?
Alas, Whit Anderson, the actress cum screenwriter behind the film, has debunked claims that Morris is the frontrunner for the role, telling THR “We’re not even thinking about casting yet…The script isn’t even written!”
Kids, ‘script isn’t even written’ is a good thing; it’s sometimes code for ‘And who knows if the movie will even get made when it is’.
Heather Morris, of “Glee” fame (as opposed to “I gave birth to Caffeinated Clint” fame), is said to be the favourite to grip the stake in Warner’s “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer” movie remake.
MovieWeb were in Nashville this past week and had the chance to ask an associate of Sandollar productions, who are producing the movie, who the studio were envisioning as their new Buffy Sommers.
Says the site, “The source indicates that Heather Morris’s comedic timing is a perfect fit for Buffy Summers, and that her background as a dancer and a gymnast will be greatly utilized in the skill set that Buffy is supposed to have as a Slayer. In this new reboot, Buffy will no longer be in high school, but instead facing the same hardships that a lot of young college graduates have today in struggling to find a paying job and a healthy relationship. Though she plays a teenager on Glee, the 23 year-old-actress is actually the right age for this newly rebooted take on the character.”
The new “Buffy” film is being written by Whit Anderson.
We “Buffy” buffs smashed beer bottles and dropped ducts when it was announced last week that Warner Bros would be rebooting the Joss Whedon created series – as a feature – without it’s creator.
Whedon soon responded to the news, noting that although it’ll hurt to see ‘his’ Slayer stomping about on someone else’s Sunnydale, he’s OK with it.
And now we know why he’s OK with it : He passed on being involved.
Says Heat Vision, “According to studio insiders, he was approached last year after Buffy rightsholder Fran Rubel Kuzui and husband Kaz Kuzui began developing a remake with Vertigo. After presented with the opportunity, Whedon decided he’d rather work on other projects (he’s making Marvel Studios’ The Avengers). Producers then began searching for a writer and late last year hired actress-turned-scribe Whit Anderson. The unknown Anderson, with only bit film appearances to her credit, came up with a take on the Buffy myth that was strong enough after a couple of drafts to lure Atlas, which partnered with Vertigo to set it up at a studio.
Fox, distributor of the 1992 movie, had first crack, but passed, so Warners slid in, betting that Whedon or no Whedon, Buffy can still slay at the box office.”
Now I can only imagine that Whedon passed because the “Buffy” that Vertigo, and then Warners, wanted to make wasn’t his “Buffy” – as in, it wasn’t going to be a feature-film version of the TV series that people know and love. Whedon couldn’t…wouldn’t… want to be involved in a reboot without his cast… it’d not only seem disrespectful, but he’d be caught up in the ostensible imminent backfire too. He needs his fans – they keep him employed.
Meantime, Whedon’s surrogate, Whit Anderson (She’s a woman), tells The LA Times that she’s a die-hard fan of the ’90s series, “[it] was the one show I would watch when I got home. I just loved this character. I was the same age as Buffy, and it was so rare to have a female lead character on TV in those days who was strong and capable and smart but also allowed to be feminine.”
“The thing that was so wonderful about ‘Buffy’ is what made it special was so timeless,” Anderson said. “The deep struggle she had with duty and destiny, that tug between what you’re supposed to be doing and what you want to be doing. The fate of the world is on her shoulders, but some days she wakes up, and she just doesn’t want to do it. And are we doomed and destined to love someone? That conflict was very interesting to me. Those are the things I loved about her and her world. She also represents — like all the heroes — something empowering for us. She reminds us of what we could be if we were in our top form, the best of us if we were at our very best, and even then we still see the vulnerability and doubts she has inside. That’s where we all connect.”