Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie to t.v. ques.

So, I just saw Buffy the Vampire Slayer on television today, and it was a great movie. I didn’t know it was written by Wheden as well, so that was a bit of a suprise, but besides the point. I never saw the first few issues, so I’m not quite sure how the transition from the film to movie goes, but I do remember seeing an old episode where the previews kinda talk about a rehash where you see someone else acting as her first watcher, you see him die, you see Giles take over, and then the episode began. So, I guess it’s really two quick questions:

  1. did the series ever re-write the movie to tie it into the show

  2. What happened to Pyke? Did he die, did he turn evil, did he join the circus, or do they just never talk about him at all?

Some things(like Buffy’s age) were changed in the show. Mostly the movies is not mentioned, with the exception of mentioned the fact that buffy burned down the gym at her old school. Also, the character of Billy Fordham is supposed to have gone to school with, and been friends with, Buffy in LA, but I don’t remember him from the movie. I think Joss has said that while the TV show and Movie agree with each other on some story points, the show should not be considered a literal extension of the movie(not surprising since Joss doesn’t seem to particularly care for the film, or Donald Sutherland, very much).

Oh and no, Pyke has never been mentioned on the TV show.

I like some of the movie elements more than the TV shows.

I liked Buffy having essentially Vamp-radar intune with her menstration.

And that Vamps could fly. I really liked that. I thought that could have been a cool element on the TV shows…
Angel: Sure Vamps can fly, we just don’t.
I did always find the whole One Slayer/ One Watcher soul thing to be a little disturbing.
If I am not mistaken, didn’t Dark Horse Comics do a comic version of the “movie” but based on Whedon’s orignal script (which was very different than the film version)

I loved the movie, because it was great satire. The tv show doesn’t do anything for me.

I thought the whole point of the movie was a valley girl turned warrior?

I believe Whedon has said that his original script is part of the canon for the show, but the finished movie is not.

If I had any inclination at the moment, I’d look (but it’s getting late) through my Buffy magazines or books about the show because I’m sure this is covered by Joss in interviews. Maybe I’ll look later…

Anyway, Joss was not pleased with the shooting script or final movie though he liked some elements. As I recall, he felt that the series pilot more closely aligned itself to his vision of Buffy – the monsters as metaphor for challenges we face growing up plus it is intended to be counterpoint to the norm of the horror genre (the feminine blond hottie being the badass fighter rescuing everyone from the monsters).

Buffy was and is supposed to be a vapid, superficial California girlie-girl (as Willow would say) who turns warrior. There have been some small connections between the show and the movie – in particular, the Season Two finale (a two-parter entitled “Becoming”) flashes back to Buffy being called by her first watcher (slightly rewritten), which includes Angel with a good demon named Whistler watching – we learn that it is love at first sight for Angel. Amazing considering that Angel was originally only supposed to be around sporadically for a few shows in Season One, but the role kind of took off…and now has his own show. Go figure! There is another reference to her calling in the episode “Helpless” where Angel tells her about witnessing her calling to be a Slayer.

Obviously there was a little revisionism of the backstory as the series grew beyond expectations – for example, the Watcher’s Council role and the existence of other watchers. They have also implied more violent behavior back in L.A. than that witnessed in the movie and just recently they revealed that Joyce and Hank supposedly took Buffy for mental help briefly in L.A. over her “Slayer delusions.” Still I think Joss and staff have managed to expand things with minimal continuity issues.

I like the campiness of the movie, but consider it a completely separate entity from the series. I thought the menstrual cramp-vamp detector bit was kind of lame, myself. On the topic of Pyke, I started to read a Buffy novel – an “extended universe” type deal – that featured Pyke showing up in Sunnydale; it wasn’t very well written (imho) so I never got past the opening chapters, which had Xander jealous of Pyke as he (Pyke) took Buffy for cappuccino at The Espresso Pump.

Yes, they did a two- or three-part mini-series called “The Origin,” reprinted as a single trade paperback under the same title. I have it, but I can’t remember whether I have read it yet. (I read way too many comics, and I think my brain is full.)

The whole point of the movie, Guin, is not the same as the whole point of the creator and writer of the show: Joss Whedon’s satire is much deeper and more subtle. Where the director of the movie only saw the humor of the situation, Joss Whedon’s vision is extremely funny PLUS, um, deep. His vision: Buffy is just trying to be a normal teenager, but the world is falling apart around her. She has homework to do, she can’t be late for cheerleader practice, her mom is mad at her, but first, FIRST, she has to save the world: her highschool is built on the mouth of hell. Now, we’ve all been to highschool: isn’t that exactly what it was like for all of us? Whedon just takes the kind of metaphors one might use to describe one’s life, and tacks on a “literally!”

In college, Buffy begins to suspect that her roommate is a soul-sucking demon (first clue: she’s a Celine Dion fan). . . . here’s the joke–“literally!” Turns out, of course, she is. And who among us has not had a soul-sucking demon as a roommate? Another time, all the guys on campus are turning into cavemen when they drink beer . . . literally! Turns out someone’s put a spell on the beer, and the guys who drink it turn into hairy animals. Funny, yes, but it also gives us a fresh perspective on some old situations.