XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , David Johnston   
    wrote:   
   > On 3/11/2017 10:00 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > > In article , David Johnston   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >> On 3/11/2017 7:24 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>> In article <58c467a5$0$798$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Wouter Valentijn   
   > >>>  wrote:   
   > >>>> Op 10-3-2017 om 22:47 schreef Your Name:   
   > >>>>> In article , Ubiquitous   
   > >>>>>  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>> ...   
   > >>>>>> 1) Sarah Michelle Gellar   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn’t get nearly enough credit for how   
   > >>>>>> incredible an actress she is, and how integral she was to Buffy the   
   > >>>>>> Vampire Slayer. No one, I repeat, no one else could’ve brought Buffy   
   to   
   > >>>>>> life as much as she did. Gellar handled the comedic and action-filled   
   > >>>>>> scenes like a pro, but her real strength was in the show’s more   
   > >>>>>> dramatic moments. Gellar’s performance was wrought with real, raw   
   > >>>>>> emotion. Nobody ever recovers after watching her in “The Body.”   
   Nobody.   
   > >>>>> ...   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> "incredible actress"?!? She's not even a "mildly good actress" ...   
   > >>>>> she's a one-"hit" wonder who put me off bothering to even try to watch   
   > >>>>> the Buffy show.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Charmed was the much better show with much better actresses ... well,   
   > >>>>> excluding the dismally bad Shannen Doherty of course, back thankfully   
   > >>>>> she did her usual walk-out-in-a-sulk-for-not-being-THE-star-of-the-show   
   > >>>>> routine.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Charmed the much better show ?!?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> ROFL !!!!   
   > >>>   
   > >>> And which of the two shows reportedly has a silly "reboot" in the   
   > >>> planning? Yep, "Charmed", not silly "Buffy".  :-p   
   > >>   
   > >> That's not becaue Buffy's worse.  It's because the Charmed Ones are   
   > >> easily replaced by another set of three.  You'd have to wait a lot   
   > >> longer to before recasting the part of Buffy would fly.   
   > >   
   > > Nah. She's easily replaced ...   
   >   
   > You are of course wrong.  The character is still very much identified   
   > with the actress.  That won't stop an eventual reboot, but the turn   
   > around time is going to be around 40 years same as for Star Trek.   
      
   You do realise that Gellar herself was the replacement for the actress   
   from the movie version? (I have a vague, possibly wrong, recollection   
   that Gellar was even the second choice for the TV role.)   
      
   EVERY actor is replaceable in Hollyweird. Nobody thought they'd be   
   stupid enough to re-do MacGyver since Richard Dean Anderson *was*   
   MacGyver, but they still did (and it's horrible).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)