XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: davidjohnston29@block.com   
      
   On 3/11/2017 11:33 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > 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 am.  But it doesn't matter.  2 hours of a flop movie doesn't ingrain   
   itself the way 7 seasons of a fairly successful TV series does   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)