Buffy the Vampire Slayer : Right now, who do you think would make a good Buffy?

IMO, Emma Stone. Just got home from La La Land, and I just gotten more and more in love with her. She has the perfect wits and timing for Buffy. Although, she's a little too old now. She'd be the perfect choice in her Easy A era.

I mean, are we talking "right now" as your subject says, or at any hypothetical point in someone's career, like saying Emma Stone would be the perfect choice in her Easy A era? Because "right now" Emma Stone is almost 30, which isn't the end of the world of course, but a little too old if we're talking about the show or character of Buffy at the her prime, when she was in high school.
And picking someone who's the right age now is a tricky thing, because there aren't too many talented actors under 20, that have gained enough notoriety for most people to know who they are; while not so well achieved in their career already as to be in prime position for a leading series role.


"What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like cream of corn."
"Except it's deviled ham!"

I mean right now as in the 2010-ish, which is why I say Emma Stone.

My pick would be Chlo Grace Moretz.

Oh !

Dont know that one, but purely from looks she appears to be pretty perfect.


A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

I was going to say her, Chlo Grace Moretz. She was awesome in Kickass.

Oooooooooooooh she's the little girl from Kick-Ass ? Well, she was awesome as that, but also only 13 or something.


A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

Well, unsurprisingly: none of the above and probably none of the below either.

Especially not Emma Stone pfft lolz seriously ?!? Come on ! Stone really has absolutely nothing that qualifies her for the part. She's not exactly petite (1.68m vs SMG 1.63m), she's not blonde (and looks really, really silly blonde, she's the type that needs red or dark hair), she doesnt really have the right looks (fightery; she looks more like a Willow; but again, too old), she's too old (sorry but she's 28 already), she's not the really type personalitywise (well ok not completely awful), and IMHO she already butchered Mary Jane Watson (okay not completely her fault, the movie just sucked).

If I had to cast Buffy, I would review a lot of young more or less unknown actresses in the area age 18-24. Because thats Buffy, a fifteen, sixteen year old. Blonde, petite, bright, strongwilled. Which, traditionally, is done in Hollywood by the aforementioned age range.

Well on second thought I would include 15+ year olds too. Wouldnt hurt to find a talent that can actually play a character of her own age well.

After all, Natalie Portman got refused the part of Julia in "Romeo and Julia" because she was "too young". But I think she would have been WORLDS better than the actress who actually got the part. And it would have been more historically accurate, too !

And of course Oksana Akinshina managed to play a character slightly older than herself, and she did it in the most brilliant, perfect way, in "Lilya 4-ever".


A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

Wow, you and I have such differing opinions. I think Stone looks amazing as blonde, and she didn't butcher the role of, well, actually, Gwen Stacy. She's strong-willed, confident, smart, and her chemistry with Andrew Garfield was electric. She was basically the best thing to come out of that failed Spidey reboot. Furthermore, she'd deliver Buffy's quips during battles excellently.

She was Gwen Stacy ? See, thats how much I despised that movie, lolz.


A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

I think Sarah Hyland would make a good Buffy. Who says Buffy has to start in high school?

---

Who says Buffy has to start in high school?

---

Because arguably, that was when Buffy was at its best; and a lot of its foundation was built on the premise of high school/teenage problems being dealt with as metaphorical and sometimes literal supernatural manifestations. The core premise was maintained mostly throughout the series, but it worked most effectively when the characters were coming of age in high school.

I can't disagree wholesale with Chloe Moretz or Sarah Hyland, but this would a hypothetical, alternate reality where this remake, or whatever you want to call it, is taking place a couple of years ago. I agree with poem, that the best bet would be an up and coming unknown, somewhere in the range of 15-18. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at with my initial response, because while there is no doubt a wellspring of potential actors who would fit all of the right criteria of age and talent, you wouldn't know who they are. If you did, odds are they're already committed to something, like Sarah Hyland is; or their career in film has greater prospects, that it's unlikely they'd take on something like being a lead in a tv series, which ostensibly would be the case with Chloe Moretz.
Chloe would probably best forerunning in this thought exercise, in terms of talent and age; as she's definitely got the chops - even from what little I saw of her on 30 Rock, which was years ago, already - and the odd trailer or snipet from one of her movies. She's just under 20, which puts at about the same age SMG was when Buffy originally started, but like I said before, I do think any hypothetical reboot would do well to have the actors closer to the age they're portraying. You might lose out on playing up any sex appeal with an actual 15 or 16 year old girl playing Buffy, but that's okay. It's too easy to take that aspect for granted when the actors are all adults; what with Angel lusting after a 16 year old high school student, and Xander planning to married at roughly 20-21 years old. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but when the actor very clearly looks more like he's pushing 30, or over 30 already, the context is very different; especially later on, when he decides he's not mature enough or prepared for that commitment yet. It might also better highlight the father/daughter type dynamic between Buffy and Giles.


"What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like cream of corn."
"Except it's deviled ham!"

Emma Stone is actually a natural blonde. She dyes it red.

______________________________________________
Formerly known as "Greenmandms"

That little girl from Stranger Things in a couple years.

Sophie Turner. I liked her in X-Men: Apocalypse.

Dianna Agron with ariana grande or victoria justice as cordi, jane levy as willow. Robert buckly as angel, matt bennett as xander and hugh bonneville as giles

I like your choices, Dianna will work for Buffy, I can see Levy as Willow and Justice as Cordelia, Matt Benneth will work for Xander as well, with that cast I will see that rebooth for sure, looks good

I was thinking how fun it would be to have charisma Carpenter play Jenny Calender

No no no to Emma please. I'd rather have a completely unknown play Buffy than Emma- she's too popular.
I think right now Sarah Michelle Gellar would make the perfect Buffy. Why would we want to see a new girl rehash what Buffy already went through anyway? I want to see Buffy grown up.

Years ago I stumbled across a fan made "revival" of the original Star Trek, called at various times either Star Trek Phase II (named after the canceled revival series of the 80s, before they started the film franchise) and later New Voyages - new actors, for the most part, taking over the iconic roles, and creating new "episodes" that continued where the original series left off. This was long before the movie reboot. What stood out to me was the description by one of the driving forces behind the project; comparing it to classical theatre, and how you can have multiple actors take on an iconic role like Romeo or Hamlet. It presents an opportunity for actors to take on a role they might revere, while at the same time, subsequent performances by different actors don't diminish what any preceding actor might have done in the role. The concept really stuck with me and largely changed my perspective on remakes. The key of course is doing due deference to the original source material - which personally I don't think the Abrams Star Trek movies have done a great job of doing; going more flash and less substance, but that's arguable an inherent problem with the idea of remakes that should be addressed, and not the reason not to do them. Too often people behind a movie reboot, or the occasional remake of a series, over think the premise; and try to condense it into it's purest essence; instead of letting it grow more organically, which is what worked the first time. This of course isn't unique to remakes, but could arguably apply to long running shows as well; where the writing starts to become so boiled down to things that had worked in the past, that the characters and stories start becoming exaggerated caricatures of where they started.

I for one think it would be interesting to explore this story, with the full benefit of knowing the scope and direction from beginning to end; and use that foreknowledge to tell a tighter story, where you can work in certain ideas you now know ahead of time are coming down the pipeline - like the Mayor or the Initiative, or Joyce's death - and build the mythology knowing those things are going to be part of it, and fit them in easier than when you're crafting the story more on the fly. Joss and his team worked out some of the details long term, but not everything.
There's also the opportunity to explore unexpected twists to certain stories, and play slightly with expectations. This would need to be kept within reason, but look at the Battlestar Galactica reboot, with Boomer turning out to be a Cylon.
Imagine if Dawn were incorporated into the series from the start; maybe she's still the Key, maybe she's just Buffy's sister. Maybe she's something else. If she is still the Key, her past integration with the other characters would be different, for both the characters and the audience, to know this person for years and then be told that none of it is real. Think of Riley being turned into Adam.
In a reboot, they could dive deeper into what it means for another Slayer to be called, when the previous one doesn't actually die; because they would know from the start if or when another would be called, and under what circumstances.

There are definitely a lot of ways it could go wrong, but there are a lot of ways where it could go right; and arguably only a few that would tarnish what's come before.


"What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like cream of corn."
"Except it's deviled ham!"

When I saw Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, I always thought she'd be the perfect Buffy, but she's too famous now to take on a role like that. Not that fame has anything to do with taking comic-book like roles, but it seems highly unlikely. I read she got paid 20 million for her last movie. I doubt a Buffy movie could pay her that much!

"I wish I wasn't afraid all the time, but I am."
-V for Vendetta

Stefanie Scott or Peyton List as Buffy.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

If we are going for someone that age id go with sabrina carpenter

My pick would be Mackenzie Porter (my avatar) but I think the chances of Emma Stone doing a TV show are very slim when she is so popular in Hollywood at the moment and I think they would cast a younger actress in the role. Sarah Michelle Gellar was 19 years old when she first played Buffy.

_____________________________


They say I'm gifted, uh huh
Well I'm a certified prodigy
I'm gonna own you, uh huh
I'm gonna bring you to your knees

I always tell you how smart you are
It's cause my brain is really supersized
You're an academic superstar
Just look at me

I'm a leader, I'm a winner, and I'm cleaner
'Cause I'm awesome
I don't need you 'cause I'm neato and I beat you
'Cause I'm awesome

Honestly I can't see anyone but SMG in the role.