Buffy Tele-Movies

[Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James]

Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.
No Spike.

No Illyria.

No Willow

No Go.

No way FOX is going to win fans after this.

"I think its safe to say that's not happening anymore," Acker told fans at
the Starfury event, says SyFyPortal, "'cause if they were, they'd be getting
done right now. There was supposed to be three of them -- one for Spike, a
Faith one and also one for Willow. I think it's safe to say that now because
its not going to happen."

Acker said that FOX and creator Joss Whedon didn't see eye to eye on the
telemovies. "Fox couldn't get it together the way Joss wanted to do them."

J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of the
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.

"I think it's okay to say this now, since its not happening, but I think J
(who plays Charles Gunn) was to be evil in it." she said. "He was to become
a vampire really early on in this really big battle."

Richards, adds "I'd probably have him come back as a vampire and then kill
himself." Added Richards. "That's always how I wanted it to end for my
character."

So bummed right now. So bummed.

[(Harmony) Watcher]

"Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James"

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.
No Spike.
No Illyria.
No Willow
No Go.
No way FOX is going to win fans after this.
"I think its safe to say that's not happening anymore," Acker told fans at
the Starfury event, says SyFyPortal, "'cause if they were, they'd be getting
done right now. There was supposed to be three of them -- one for Spike, a
Faith one and also one for Willow. I think it's safe to say that now because
its not going to happen."
Acker said that FOX and creator Joss Whedon didn't see eye to eye on the
telemovies. "Fox couldn't get it together the way Joss wanted to do them."
J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of the
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.
"I think it's okay to say this now, since its not happening, but I think J
(who plays Charles Gunn) was to be evil in it." she said. "He was to become
a vampire really early on in this really big battle."
Richards, adds "I'd probably have him come back as a vampire and then kill
himself." Added Richards. "That's always how I wanted it to end for my
character."
So bummed right now. So bummed.

Must it be on Fox and by Fox? Has Whedon tried the SciFi channel? Does Fox
own all rights to making any Buffy-related or Angel-related movie? How
about direct to DVD? How many BtVS or AtS fans are there? And how many such
fans are interested in seeing a movie? If enough Buffyverse fans are
interested, how about selling "early-bird" DVD vouchers to the fans who
would pay to preorder the DVDs and get them later so as to help finance the
project?

In this day-n-age, there's got to be a way to undercut the networks by going
directly to the fans. Ten thousand fans alone each chipping in $100 can
generate one-million dollars to help finance it. Are there fewer than ten
thousand fans in the world? Since a $100 "donation" to PBS is not uncommon,
it might just be viable. Wishful thinking?

==(Harmony) Watcher==

[kim]

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
"Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James"

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.
No Spike.
No Illyria.
No Willow
No Go.
No way FOX is going to win fans after this.
"I think its safe to say that's not happening anymore," Acker told fans at
the Starfury event, says SyFyPortal, "'cause if they were, they'd be

getting

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
done right now. There was supposed to be three of them -- one for Spike, a
Faith one and also one for Willow. I think it's safe to say that now

because

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
its not going to happen."
Acker said that FOX and creator Joss Whedon didn't see eye to eye on the
telemovies. "Fox couldn't get it together the way Joss wanted to do them."
J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of

the

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.
"I think it's okay to say this now, since its not happening, but I think J
(who plays Charles Gunn) was to be evil in it." she said. "He was to

become

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
a vampire really early on in this really big battle."
Richards, adds "I'd probably have him come back as a vampire and then kill
himself." Added Richards. "That's always how I wanted it to end for my
character."
So bummed right now. So bummed.

Must it be on Fox and by Fox? Has Whedon tried the SciFi channel? Does Fox
own all rights to making any Buffy-related or Angel-related movie? How
about direct to DVD? How many BtVS or AtS fans are there? And how many such
fans are interested in seeing a movie? If enough Buffyverse fans are
interested, how about selling "early-bird" DVD vouchers to the fans who
would pay to preorder the DVDs and get them later so as to help finance the
project?
In this day-n-age, there's got to be a way to undercut the networks by going
directly to the fans. Ten thousand fans alone each chipping in $100 can
generate one-million dollars to help finance it. Are there fewer than ten
thousand fans in the world? Since a $100 "donation" to PBS is not uncommon,
it might just be viable. Wishful thinking?

I should think it was extremely unlikely there were 10,000 fans willing to
pay $100 just to see a telemovie.

(kim)

[Barnabas Collins]

On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:11:50 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
In this day-n-age, there's got to be a way to undercut the networks by going
directly to the fans. Ten thousand fans alone each chipping in $100 can
generate one-million dollars to help finance it. Are there fewer than ten
thousand fans in the world? Since a $100 "donation" to PBS is not uncommon,
it might just be viable. Wishful thinking?

Except for one problem. Fox has the rights, if they want the
property to sit on the shelf and rot they have that right.

Didn't they sell like 500,000 angel DVD sets?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[(Harmony) Watcher]

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:11:50 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
In this day-n-age, there's got to be a way to undercut the networks by going
directly to the fans. Ten thousand fans alone each chipping in $100 can
generate one-million dollars to help finance it. Are there fewer than ten
thousand fans in the world? Since a $100 "donation" to PBS is not uncommon,
it might just be viable. Wishful thinking?

Except for one problem. Fox has the rights, if they want the
property to sit on the shelf and rot they have that right.

Now I'm depressed. Did someone miss some of the fine-prints?
(http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=5876)

Post by Barnabas Collins
Didn't they sell like 500,000 angel DVD sets?

Where would the majority of that profit go?

==Harmony Watcher==

[kenm47]

Good. Anything that kills off a Spike movie (IMO, JM has been looking
a tad grandmaish over on Smallville lately) is OK with me.

As for Willow or Faith? I just don't see it.

Time to think Frey?

Ken (Brooklyn)

[David E. Milligan]

Post by kenm47
Good. Anything that kills off a Spike movie (IMO, JM has been looking
a tad grandmaish over on Smallville lately) is OK with me.
As for Willow or Faith? I just don't see it.
Time to think Frey?
Ken (Brooklyn)

I've said it before and I'll say it again --- Willow & Anya. Sitcom
heaven.

David

[e***@aol.com]

Post by kenm47
Good. Anything that kills off a Spike movie (IMO, JM has been looking
a tad grandmaish over on Smallville lately) is OK with me.
As for Willow or Faith? I just don't see it.
Time to think Frey?

Also, it's not just Amy that's been talking this way. Mercedes said
Joss has a lot of projects going, so everybody's moved on. Michelle
isn't too high on the idea in the first place, and Sarah and Aly are
concerned about quality, about any future Buffy projects not living up
to the fans' expectations. ASH seemed a bit irritated about Joss
talking about developing Buffy projects but writing X-Men comics,
instead.

Joss has got Wonder Woman in development. The old cast isn't getting
any younger, and as they're committing to more and more projects,
themselves, you have to wonder, should Joss decide he wants to revive
this world, how many of them would be availiable.

[b***@shentel.net]

Post by e***@aol.com

Post by kenm47
Good. Anything that kills off a Spike movie (IMO, JM has been looking
a tad grandmaish over on Smallville lately) is OK with me.
As for Willow or Faith? I just don't see it.
Time to think Frey?

Also, it's not just Amy that's been talking this way. Mercedes said
Joss has a lot of projects going, so everybody's moved on. Michelle
isn't too high on the idea in the first place, and Sarah and Aly are
concerned about quality, about any future Buffy projects not living up
to the fans' expectations. ASH seemed a bit irritated about Joss
talking about developing Buffy projects but writing X-Men comics,
instead.
Joss has got Wonder Woman in development. The old cast isn't getting
any younger, and as they're committing to more and more projects,
themselves, you have to wonder, should Joss decide he wants to revive
this world, how many of them would be availiable.

Joss decided he wanted to make the show his way, after the movie, so he
was more than willing to totally throw out the movie. And who knows.
He wanted to do a Buffy animated series. Maybe if he came up with a
movie he wanted to do, and couldn't get the actors, he'd animate it.
There was once a Hercules/Xena animated movie so he wouldn't be the
first.

JLB

[Barnabas Collins]

On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of the
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.

The good news is he is now looking for work now that Conviction
has gotten the electric chair at NBC.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[b***@shentel.net]

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

If you mean tied to the continuity of the TV show, I bet you're right.
But I bet in 20 or so years we'll see one inspired by it, liked the
Charlie's Angels movies or the Dukes of Hazzard movie.

JLB

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of the
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.

The good news is he is now looking for work now that Conviction
has gotten the electric chair at NBC.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Carin]

Post by b***@shentel.net

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

If you mean tied to the continuity of the TV show, I bet you're right.
But I bet in 20 or so years we'll see one inspired by it, liked the
Charlie's Angels movies or the Dukes of Hazzard movie.

I hope I'm dead by then - those movies are always so obnoxious.

Post by b***@shentel.net
JLB

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of the
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.

The good news is he is now looking for work now that Conviction
has gotten the electric chair at NBC.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Barnabas Collins]

Post by b***@shentel.net
If you mean tied to the continuity of the TV show, I bet you're right.
But I bet in 20 or so years we'll see one inspired by it, liked the
Charlie's Angels movies or the Dukes of Hazzard movie.

After the DOH movie I hope not.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[lab~rat >:-)]

On Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:42 -0400, Barnabas Collins

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

Or in anyone's, IMO. SMG is the recognized star of the series and her
antics toward others involved in the show have poisoned the show
forever. You can thank her for ruining your fun...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[b***@shentel.net]

Post by lab~rat >:-)
On Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:42 -0400, Barnabas Collins

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

Or in anyone's, IMO. SMG is the recognized star of the series and her
antics toward others involved in the show have poisoned the show
forever. You can thank her for ruining your fun...

I've heard people mention her "antics" yet no one ever described them.
It's like they decided she was a diva and so would act accordingly.

What has she actually done, that can't be explained as scheduling
conflicts, or some other perfectly legitimate reason.

JLB

Post by lab~rat >:-)
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[lab~rat >:-)]

Post by b***@shentel.net

Post by lab~rat >:-)
On Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:42 -0400, Barnabas Collins

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

Or in anyone's, IMO. SMG is the recognized star of the series and her
antics toward others involved in the show have poisoned the show
forever. You can thank her for ruining your fun...

I've heard people mention her "antics" yet no one ever described them.
It's like they decided she was a diva and so would act accordingly.
What has she actually done, that can't be explained as scheduling
conflicts, or some other perfectly legitimate reason.

That may be true, but there is documented proof that she lied her ass
off claiming to have been in the first comparative ad. Not to
mention, anyone with half a brain knows she wasn't wearing disguises
into McDonalds. And there is no proof that she was personally sued as
a little girl by McDonalds.

And with the fact that she is a compulsive liar behind us, you could
see how she could piss a lot of colleagues off.

And HOW old did she say she was?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[Justin]

Post by lab~rat >:-)

Post by b***@shentel.net

Post by lab~rat >:-)
On Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:42 -0400, Barnabas Collins

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

Or in anyone's, IMO. SMG is the recognized star of the series and her
antics toward others involved in the show have poisoned the show
forever. You can thank her for ruining your fun...

I've heard people mention her "antics" yet no one ever described them.
It's like they decided she was a diva and so would act accordingly.
What has she actually done, that can't be explained as scheduling
conflicts, or some other perfectly legitimate reason.

That may be true, but there is documented proof that she lied her ass
off claiming to have been in the first comparative ad. Not to
mention, anyone with half a brain knows she wasn't wearing disguises
into McDonalds. And there is no proof that she was personally sued as
a little girl by McDonalds.

Ummm, ok. What now?

Post by lab~rat >:-)
And with the fact that she is a compulsive liar behind us, you could
see how she could piss a lot of colleagues off.
And HOW old did she say she was?

[lab~rat >:-)]

Post by Justin

Post by lab~rat >:-)

Post by b***@shentel.net

Post by lab~rat >:-)
On Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:42 -0400, Barnabas Collins

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:53 -0500, "Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.

Here is a hint: there ain't going to be any Buffy/Angel/Spike movies.
Ever. Won't happen in my lifetime.

Or in anyone's, IMO. SMG is the recognized star of the series and her
antics toward others involved in the show have poisoned the show
forever. You can thank her for ruining your fun...

I've heard people mention her "antics" yet no one ever described them.
It's like they decided she was a diva and so would act accordingly.
What has she actually done, that can't be explained as scheduling
conflicts, or some other perfectly legitimate reason.

That may be true, but there is documented proof that she lied her ass
off claiming to have been in the first comparative ad. Not to
mention, anyone with half a brain knows she wasn't wearing disguises
into McDonalds. And there is no proof that she was personally sued as
a little girl by McDonalds.

Ummm, ok. What now?

Post by lab~rat >:-)
And with the fact that she is a compulsive liar behind us, you could
see how she could piss a lot of colleagues off.
And HOW old did she say she was?

--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[Benjamin Pavsner]

What I've heard from Marsters in the BrVS mag (maybe the Angel mag. It was
one of them) is that of a Spike movie isn't done in a certain amount of time
(I think he said about 5 years from the end of Angel) he's absolutely not
interested. He said that since Spike isn't supposed to age as a vampire,
Marsters would have aged enough (he'd be in his mid/late 40s) that it
wouldn't work.
"Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James"

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.
No Spike.
No Illyria.
No Willow
No Go.
No way FOX is going to win fans after this.
"I think its safe to say that's not happening anymore," Acker told fans at
the Starfury event, says SyFyPortal, "'cause if they were, they'd be getting
done right now. There was supposed to be three of them -- one for Spike, a
Faith one and also one for Willow. I think it's safe to say that now because
its not going to happen."
Acker said that FOX and creator Joss Whedon didn't see eye to eye on the
telemovies. "Fox couldn't get it together the way Joss wanted to do them."
J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of the
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.
"I think it's okay to say this now, since its not happening, but I think J
(who plays Charles Gunn) was to be evil in it." she said. "He was to become
a vampire really early on in this really big battle."
Richards, adds "I'd probably have him come back as a vampire and then kill
himself." Added Richards. "That's always how I wanted it to end for my
character."
So bummed right now. So bummed.

[(Harmony) Watcher]

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
What I've heard from Marsters in the BrVS mag (maybe the Angel mag. It was
one of them) is that of a Spike movie isn't done in a certain amount of time
(I think he said about 5 years from the end of Angel) he's absolutely not
interested. He said that since Spike isn't supposed to age as a vampire,
Marsters would have aged enough (he'd be in his mid/late 40s) that it
wouldn't work.

But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will not
appear after the CGI people process the shots. The only question would be
whether he's paid enough to motivate him to reprise his role.

==Harmony Watcher==

[David B]

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
What I've heard from Marsters in the BrVS mag (maybe the Angel mag. It was
one of them) is that of a Spike movie isn't done in a certain amount of

time

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
(I think he said about 5 years from the end of Angel) he's absolutely not
interested. He said that since Spike isn't supposed to age as a vampire,
Marsters would have aged enough (he'd be in his mid/late 40s) that it
wouldn't work.

But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will not
appear after the CGI people process the shots.

In X-Men 3 they used CGI to make Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan look 2 decades
younger. I watched a clip of it the other day and it looked weird. Hopefully it
works better on the big screen.

[Barnabas Collins]

Post by David B
In X-Men 3 they used CGI to make Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan look 2 decades
younger. I watched a clip of it the other day and it looked weird. Hopefully it
works better on the big screen.

But in the end Patrick Stewart will never ever look like he is 18
years old. No matter how good the special effects wizars are.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Benjamin Pavsner]

1. Stewart and McKellan play characters that can still age, so even if they
make an X Men movie in another 5 years, the fact that Xavier and Magneto age
won't be THAT much of a problem. Unless Blade turns them into vampires in X
Men III. That would complicate things.

2. CGI won't erase what Marsters said, Five years from the end of Angel.

Post by David B

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
What I've heard from Marsters in the BrVS mag (maybe the Angel mag. It was
one of them) is that of a Spike movie isn't done in a certain amount of

time

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
(I think he said about 5 years from the end of Angel) he's absolutely not
interested. He said that since Spike isn't supposed to age as a vampire,
Marsters would have aged enough (he'd be in his mid/late 40s) that it
wouldn't work.

But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will not
appear after the CGI people process the shots.

In X-Men 3 they used CGI to make Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan look 2 decades
younger. I watched a clip of it the other day and it looked weird. Hopefully it
works better on the big screen.

[k***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
What I've heard from Marsters in the BrVS mag (maybe the Angel mag. It was
one of them) is that of a Spike movie isn't done in a certain amount of

time

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
(I think he said about 5 years from the end of Angel) he's absolutely not
interested. He said that since Spike isn't supposed to age as a vampire,
Marsters would have aged enough (he'd be in his mid/late 40s) that it
wouldn't work.

But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will not
appear after the CGI people process the shots. The only question would be
whether he's paid enough to motivate him to reprise his role.
==Harmony Watcher==

I thought the animated series idea was dead?

Ken (Brooklyn)

[Barnabas Collins]

On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will not
appear after the CGI people process the shots. The only question would be
whether he's paid enough to motivate him to reprise his role.

Special effects/makeup/etc. wizards can do amazing stuff but
there are limits to how much you can do to make an 85 year
old Spike look like he is much younger.

At some point JM will age out to the point where nobody will beleive
for a second that he is the age he is supposed to be.

The bottom line: William Shatner is in his 70s. Now matter how much
makeup/speical effects magic they do Shatner will still look like a
man in his 70s. JM will reach that point too.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[(Harmony) Watcher]

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will not
appear after the CGI people process the shots. The only question would be
whether he's paid enough to motivate him to reprise his role.

Special effects/makeup/etc. wizards can do amazing stuff but
there are limits to how much you can do to make an 85 year
old Spike look like he is much younger.
At some point JM will age out to the point where nobody will beleive
for a second that he is the age he is supposed to be.
The bottom line: William Shatner is in his 70s. Now matter how much
makeup/speical effects magic they do Shatner will still look like a
man in his 70s. JM will reach that point too.

Are you assuming that it is illegal to use CGI to trim Shatner's waistline?
[Mmm, OK, what waistline? <g>]

==Harmony Watcher==

[Barnabas Collins]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:11:13 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will

not

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
appear after the CGI people process the shots. The only question would be
whether he's paid enough to motivate him to reprise his role.

Special effects/makeup/etc. wizards can do amazing stuff but
there are limits to how much you can do to make an 85 year
old Spike look like he is much younger.
At some point JM will age out to the point where nobody will beleive
for a second that he is the age he is supposed to be.
The bottom line: William Shatner is in his 70s. Now matter how much
makeup/speical effects magic they do Shatner will still look like a
man in his 70s. JM will reach that point too.

Are you assuming that it is illegal to use CGI to trim Shatner's waistline?
[Mmm, OK, what waistline? <g>]
==Harmony Watcher==

But there is only so much the miracle workers in special effects can
do. No matter what they do Shatner will still look like a 75 year old
man. No matter what special effects they do you'll think Denny Crane
when you look at 75 year old Shatner.

No special effects wizard will ever make Shatner a convincing
18 year old. And JM will reach that point soon too.

Spike doesn't age but JM does.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[(Harmony) Watcher]

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:11:13 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will

not

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
appear after the CGI people process the shots. The only question would be
whether he's paid enough to motivate him to reprise his role.

Special effects/makeup/etc. wizards can do amazing stuff but
there are limits to how much you can do to make an 85 year
old Spike look like he is much younger.
At some point JM will age out to the point where nobody will beleive
for a second that he is the age he is supposed to be.
The bottom line: William Shatner is in his 70s. Now matter how much
makeup/speical effects magic they do Shatner will still look like a
man in his 70s. JM will reach that point too.

Are you assuming that it is illegal to use CGI to trim Shatner's waistline?
[Mmm, OK, what waistline? <g>]
==Harmony Watcher==

But there is only so much the miracle workers in special effects can
do. No matter what they do Shatner will still look like a 75 year old
man. No matter what special effects they do you'll think Denny Crane
when you look at 75 year old Shatner.
No special effects wizard will ever make Shatner a convincing
18 year old. And JM will reach that point soon too.
Spike doesn't age but JM does.

CGI techniques these days *can* make anybody--not just Shatner--look like an
18-year old Shatner. They can make anybody look like anybody else (as long
as there are no legal ramifications). They can make good use of stock images
of Shatner's face 30 years ago as a starting point to do any needed
modifications on Shatner's face today. "Disposable" actors are not that far
away--legal issues aside. And "triming" fat away is a piece of cake with
computer imagery.

==Harmony Watcher==

[Barnabas Collins]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:06:14 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:11:13 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Barnabas Collins
On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
But he's wrong. CGI can do wonders these days. Aging and wrinkles will

not

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
appear after the CGI people process the shots. The only question would

be

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by (Harmony) Watcher

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
whether he's paid enough to motivate him to reprise his role.

Special effects/makeup/etc. wizards can do amazing stuff but
there are limits to how much you can do to make an 85 year
old Spike look like he is much younger.
At some point JM will age out to the point where nobody will beleive
for a second that he is the age he is supposed to be.
The bottom line: William Shatner is in his 70s. Now matter how much
makeup/speical effects magic they do Shatner will still look like a
man in his 70s. JM will reach that point too.

Are you assuming that it is illegal to use CGI to trim Shatner's

waistline?

Post by Barnabas Collins

Post by (Harmony) Watcher
[Mmm, OK, what waistline? <g>]
==Harmony Watcher==

But there is only so much the miracle workers in special effects can
do. No matter what they do Shatner will still look like a 75 year old
man. No matter what special effects they do you'll think Denny Crane
when you look at 75 year old Shatner.
No special effects wizard will ever make Shatner a convincing
18 year old. And JM will reach that point soon too.
Spike doesn't age but JM does.

CGI techniques these days *can* make anybody--not just Shatner--look like an
18-year old Shatner. They can make anybody look like anybody else (as long
as there are no legal ramifications). They can make good use of stock images
of Shatner's face 30 years ago as a starting point to do any needed
modifications on Shatner's face today. "Disposable" actors are not that far
away--legal issues aside. And "triming" fat away is a piece of cake with
computer imagery.
==Harmony Watcher==

They can work miracles, but not to that extent.

No matter how many miracles they work Shatner will still be an
old man with an ego the size of Texas.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[b***@shentel.net]

Post by Mottola/w Snakes On A Plane And Mickie James
Sounds like Amy Acker has delivered the final nail in the coffin for those
rumoured "Buffy" spin-off movies.
No Spike.
No Illyria.
No Willow
No Go.
No way FOX is going to win fans after this.
"I think its safe to say that's not happening anymore," Acker told fans at
the Starfury event, says SyFyPortal, "'cause if they were, they'd be getting
done right now. There was supposed to be three of them -- one for Spike, a
Faith one and also one for Willow. I think it's safe to say that now because
its not going to happen."
Acker said that FOX and creator Joss Whedon didn't see eye to eye on the
telemovies. "Fox couldn't get it together the way Joss wanted to do them."
J.August Richards, who played Gunn on "Angel", would have been in one of the
telemovies - but his character would've been a villain. Yep, seems Angel's
law-abiding pal would've been turned.
"I think it's okay to say this now, since its not happening, but I think J
(who plays Charles Gunn) was to be evil in it." she said. "He was to become
a vampire really early on in this really big battle."
Richards, adds "I'd probably have him come back as a vampire and then kill
himself." Added Richards. "That's always how I wanted it to end for my
character."
So bummed right now. So bummed.

Personally I wouldn't want to see a TV movie that just featured one of
the stars of the shows. I only found them really interesting in group
settings and by the end of Buffy and Angel it seemed like they'd
exhausted their supply of new, interesting and likable characters.



JLB