Once upon a time, there was a sub-par action-comedy movie called Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Based on a script by Joss Whedon, the movie is now known best for having served as a precursor to the television show of the same name. Now, the original Buffy movie’s director is planning a remake… without Joss Whedon or Sarah Michelle Gellar.

I have to say that I think this is a spectacularly stupid idea. The plan is to abandon the current canon and create an alternate universe for the story, much like Star Trek did earlier this year, and its original creator has been dead for quite a while. The problem is that Star Trek is now 40+ years old. Buffy has been off of television for barely more than six years. The original creator, whose writing is generally acknowledged as being the reason that Buffy was so beloved, is alive and well (and making Dollhouse).

Here’s the biggest problem, though — there’s no reason to remake Buffy, especially if one is planning to ignore the show’s storyline. Other Buffy fans may be annoyed by my saying this, but the basic Buffy mythology simply isn’t that special. The specifics of Buffy’s origins may be unique, but a super-human girl fighting vampires (which is, really, the only part of the mythology that the Kazuis really seem to want to harness)? I could go to the fantasy/science fiction section of any bookstore and find you a half dozen books and/or series that have almost exactly that premise.

It’s not even like they need the Buffy name to get people to buy tickets to the movie. There are enough people out there who’ll pay to see anything vampire related (see: Twilight) that the movie can be pretty successful without the Buffy name (and, honestly, enough of those might be turned off by the idea of Buffy without Joss (much less Buffy without Sarah Michelle Gellar) that they’d be better off without the name).

Of course, you could get all of those people at once. Get a budget together, let Joss write and direct, and create a Fray movie with the idea of creating a franchise in mind. That would be at least as good an idea as this stupid Buffy relaunch plan.

Our first anniversary is coming up (a little less than two weeks out). I’ve already purchased part of my wife’s gift, but as cryptic hints have started dropping about my anniversary gift, I’ve been trying to think of a way to supplement what I’ve already purchsed for my wife.

Of course, one place to turn for gift ideas is the traditional (and modern) anniversary gift list. Believe it or not, I was actually aware that this list of traditional gifts existed before my wife brought it up a few weeks ago. Finally, my addiction to the internet has paid off!

The first anniversary is known as the “paper anniversary”^[a]. The “modern” list of gifts says that the first anniversary gift should be a clock, but “the clock anniversary” doesn’t sound as interesting to me.

The problem with the modern gift list is that it’s more centered around what the gift itself should be, where the traditional list seems to generally describe materials. The traditional list allows for a lot more variety and imagination, I think. It also includes diamond jewelry a lot earlier and a lot more often than the traditional list. I wonder if De Beers wrote the the modern list.

1. My first encounter with this term was, in fact, the entire reason I’d stumbled across the list of traditional gifts, as I wasn’t familiar with it and then looked for an explanation. [↩]

Last night, my wife and I did a bit of babysitting so that a couple of friends could have a date night. The older of the two boys we were watching has a huge collection of the Hasbro Super Hero Squad (and whatever the Star Wars line of those things are) toys. At one point, I noticed a Spider-Man toy sitting on the counter. Then, I noticed that Spider-Man’s webshooters were on the outside of his costume. Further examination revealed that this wasn’t Peter Parker, Spider-Man… it was Ben Reilly. My joy at this discovery was made even better when our charge for the night told me, “That’s Ben Reilly, Clone of Spider-Man. He saved Spider-Man’s life.” (His parents are definitely doing something right.)

Here’s a real quick aside for people who might stumble across this blog that don’t know comic book history (or those who don’t know me personally). Back in the ’90s, Marvel comics dredged up an old ’70s story in which a clone of Spider-Man was made. They brought back that clone, created him as a new hero (Ben Reilly, the Scarlet Spider), and then, in an exceptionally ill-advised move, decided to claim that the clone was actually the original Spider-Man. He even replaced Spider-Man for a little while, before they realized how ill-advised it was, and they brought back Peter Parker and killed off Ben when he saved Peter’s life. Ben, in his relatively short time in the comics, managed to somehow usurp Peter’s place as my favorite comic book character. I was very, very angry by his death, and even more so about the fact that Marvel seemed to have handed down an edict that no one could ever mention Ben Reilly again (as though the character himself, rather than their stupid decision to try to make him the original was the cause for the reaction of the fans).

Wow. That wasn’t as quick an aside as I thought.

Anyway, there’s been some sign in recent years that they’d softened their stance on Ben somewhat. A Ben Reilly (not a clone, just a lab assistant) showed up in the Ultimate Universe. Peter used the name Ben Reilly when trying to keep his job after unmasking during the Civil War debacle (was that really more than two years ago now?!). Now, there’s a Ben-as-Spider-Man toy… and, even better, a Ben-as-Scarlet-Spider (Oddly, that one’s also labelled “Ben Reilly Spider-Man”, but it’s the Scarlet Spider costume)!!!

I’ve mentioned, myself, that I hoped that Brand New Day could be used to bring back Ben to the comics, but in the meantime, I’m pretty happy to just have him show up in toys.

My aunt Judy is in the hospital; she had an infection that got out of control and is now in pretty rough shape. I’d appreciate your prayers.

Here’s something that has seemed to suddenly pop up everywhere in the last couple of days. In opposition to the tightened emissions standards that President Obama announced on Tuesday, I’ve seen a number of people opposing this by complaining that the new standards will kill more people than the Iraqi war. Some have, in fact, claimed that the death toll of this new standard will approach that of the Vietnam War.

I’ll admit, when I first saw this line of argument, I was amused by it. It’s a plausible enough argument, after all, and it’s the kind of attack that seems like it just comes out of nowhere. Increased fuel standards will kill people? That’s absurd… isn’t it?

The more I think about it, the less certain that I am that this argument is specious. It’s not that I think that an increased number of deaths is definitely going to come from this decision; it’s that I have a continuing problem with the Obama Administration seeming to simply disregard the consequences of their actions.

One of the first acts that our new President took was to declare that we would be shutting down Guantanamo Bay within the year, but he didn’t seem to think about where the prisoners would go or how we’d pay to get the facility closed. In my last post, I commented on the fact that the OMB director admitted that their budget was simply based on what they wanted to do, without any major concern to those troublesome numbers.

The fact is, while cutting emission standards may be a good thing, there are definitely tradeoffs involved. Something’s got to give. If it were possible, given current technology and engineering, to build a safer, cheaper, more fuel efficient car, someone would be building it already^[a]. That’s not to say the stricter standards are bad — I’d just like some acknowledgement that there are going to have to be sacrifices made (and, then, I’d like those people who’re telling us there will need to be sacrifices to actually make sacrifices^[b]).

There are a lot of interests tugging on those who design more cars. Aesthetics^[c], safety, cost, fuel efficiency, hauling capacity… We can’t mandate a massive increase in one of these things without significantly impacting the others^[d]. It’s disingenous to claim that we can.

Some of these tradeoffs do need to be considered and discussed. I just wish there was some sense that the Obama Administration had considered them, rather than simply handing down an edict from “On High”.

1. You think the world will beat a path to your door for a better mousetrap? Try building a cheap, fuel efficient, comfortable, safe car. [↩]
2. It’s a little bit hypocritical for a politician to tell us we need to sacrifice and then not make any sacrifices themselves. For example, saying that we can’t all have our thermostats up to 72 degrees all the time, but then keeping their own thermostats up so high that their staff can’t bear to wear a suit jacket indoors. Leaders shouldn’t ask people to do something they’re not willing to do themselves. [↩]
3. For many car makers today, this seems to be a drive to try to make the ugliest car possible. [↩]
4. I’ve seen one article, which I can’t seem to find now that said that there were no trade offs. Small, fuel efficient cars can be safe (I believe the example used was the Jetta). They can also be cheap (The new Insight, which is disappointingly ugly, considering that I quite liked the original’s look). Therefore, the article concluded, there were no trade-offs. Given that the writer had to use a different car for each of his examples disproves his point, I think. [↩]