'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' remake: Kristy Swanson supports it... and wants to act in it

Kristy-Swanson-BuffyImage Credit: Everett CollectionJoss Whedon has already spoken out about plans for an upcoming Buffy the Vampire slayer remake, and now Kristy Swanson, the first woman who first brought the vamp-killing heroine to life on the big screen, also has something to say about it: “Let Buffy live. Why not?”

“If they wanted me to be a part of it, I think that would be fantastic and that it would be a blast,” she tells EW.

Swanson was 22 when she first stepped into the role that would be transformed by Sarah Michelle Gellar seven years later, and she remembers that her first reaction to the new take on the character was, in fact, positive. (“It was a whole new idea, a whole new look,” she says.) And she believes a transformation can happen again — even without its original maker. “There are die-hard Joss Whedon fans who absolutely love him to death, and rightly so. He’s a brilliant man, no doubt,” she says. “I love everything Buffy. I don’t care who’s doing it.”

Swanson’s co-star, Luke Perry said via his rep that he has no comment on the project.

Related:
Joss Whedon reacts to new Buffy: ‘I don’t love the idea of my creation in other hands’
‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ reboot: Let’s get casting!

Comments (149 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 6
  • stormydayze

    and she’s pretty much signed her death warrant with the Scoobies.

    • Shiny

      Sandra failed to ask the most important question in all of Buffydom: why did Swanson wear shiny spandex leggings under her cheerleading costume? It’s as bad a costume choice as the leg warmers in Heathers and the knee high socks in Clueless, but at least those films were actually good.

      • Bob

        Uh… because it was the 80′s?

  • Steph

    Swanson’s co-star, Luke Perry said via his rep that he has no comment on the project.”
    Not sure why but that ^ made me laugh.

    • Jason

      Haha, it made me laugh too!

    • thin

      Same here!

    • Shiny

      Yes, but did the media get a statement from Luke Perry’s hairpiece? I heard the hairpiece is thinking of coming out of retirement.

    • Magnus

      Maybe he doesn’t want to work with a crazy druggie and vindictive homewrecker?

  • Alex

    Kristy Swanson is under the impression that she’s the real Buffy.

    • michaelsacal

      Oddly enough, she IS.

      Might be a hard FACT to accept, but Swanson IS the real Buffy, and it is Gellar who portrayed the SECOND iteration of the character.

      • Elena

        True. The film may be forgotten now, but Swanson was the original Buffy.

      • Alex

        Being first does not make her the real Buffy, it makes her the first Buffy.

        Though I suppose a better way to phrase that may have been, “Swanson is under the impression that anyone considers her the real Buffy”.

      • Kalie

        She played Buffy in a movie that Joss Whedon himself did not care for. Just because she was the 1st Buffy, that doesn’t mean she is Buffy. Sarah Michelle Gellar is and always will be the definitive Buffy. There’s a big difference between playing the character once in an unpopular movie, and turning her into a beloved character that you played for 7 years.

      • michaelsacal

        Actually being first does make her the real Buffy as she was the actress who first portrayed the character.

        Gellar portrayed the SECOND iteration of the character, and whomever follows her will portray the THIRD incarnation of the character.

        Now, if you were arguing that Gellar is the DEFINITE Buffy, that would be different.

      • Monkey

        True, Kristy Swanson was the original Buffy, but SMG is the one everyone thinks of. It’s like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, even though Brain Cox played him first.

      • Ioanna

        Her Buffy sucked ass though! So it doesn’t count.

      • Elena

        “Everyone”??? You mean the small but vocal niche of geeks who swear that BTVS is the second coming of God?

      • Brooke

        michaelsacal, typing words in CAPS does not make them any more TRUE.

      • viddingwithkyle

        Monkey (can’t believe I’m agreeing with a guy named Monkey), that’s a very good comparison. Most people don’t even consider Manhunter to be apart of the Hannibal franchise, yet Brian Cox was the first, it doesn’t mean he’s THE Hannibal. There’s a difference between “the original” and “THE”

      • michaelsacal

        @Brooke

        It’s for emphasis. I use caps because we can’t use bold.

        They are in fact facts, though. Swanson will always be the first and real Buffy and Gellar will always be the second Buffy.

        This is an undeniable fact.

        Like I said, if people want to argue over who is the DEFINITE Buffy as opposed who is the “REAL” Buffy, that’s different.

      • Pierre

        I think you’re under some sorta crazy delusion that the movie is even 1 millionth the work of art that the television series was. Kristy Swanson is a hack actress, and nodbody cares what her opinion is about the Buffy remake. Nobody with half a brain considers her to be the definitive Buffy.

      • michaelsacal

        We’re not discussing quality, we’re discussing who came first and, therefore, who is the original, real Buffy.

        Whether the performance is good or bad is irrelevant to that simple fact.

      • kryptogal

        Kristy Swanson was the FIRST Buffy, but isn’t the REAL Buffy. Swanson failed in the role. SMG will always be the REAL Buffy.
        .
        Buffy fans ignore the movie, and KS, for good reason. The movie was bad.

      • michaelsacal

        There’ a difference between “real” and “definite”.

        Was she the “definite” Buffy? No. Was Gellar? Sure.

        Was Swanson the “real” Buffy? Yes, since she originated the role.

      • Tarc

        What difference does it makes who was first? They are both terrible actresses who have no careers to speak of. Gellar will never be seen as anyone but Buffy (and her crappy post-Buffy films don’t help), and Swanson will always be “that chick who was in the original Buffy but whose name I can’t even remember”

      • Casey

        Actually, I would say they’re both the “real” Buffy. Just because SMG was second doesn’t make her Buffy any less real. They are both “real” iterations of Buffy. One’s existing doesn’t negate the other. But the definitive Buffy would be SMG. Not that Swanson was terrible. She wasn’t. And the movie was decent. And not to be rude…but does anyone even care what she thinks?

      • Alex

        I’m sorry, I don’t believe being first makes her “real”.

      • tabata

        look mom, a troll!

      • Nathan

        The Buffy movie was not true to Joss Whedon’s creation, meaning that SMG’s potrayal should be consider the real Buffy. As the movie is not consider by anyone to be cannon, SMG is the real and true and accurate potrayal of Buffy

      • REASON

        Swanson isn’t the real Buffy, since the orginal script was gutted and the movie became campy, the TV series was developed in spite of the movies badness, so that would make Gellar not only the definitive Buffy, but the real one as well.

      • Jon

        Attention nerds! There is no real Buffy, she is a fictional creation.

      • wubomber

        Would have to disagree Kristy Swanson is not the REAL Buffy. She may have played the character first but she didn’t popularize the role or will never be remembered for it. Just like Brian Cox playing Hannibal Lecter in the movie Manhunter in 1986. Five years before Anthony Hopkins took on the role and popularized it. Sometimes it is the actor and actresses that make the movie, tv show and the character a memorable one.

      • DarenG

        Actually Michael it doesn’t. Being the first doesn’t make you the “real” one. It makes you the first. When you say Buffy 99% of the population think SMG and not KS. That is fact. That is what makes SMG the REAL Buffy. Just because you disagree doesn’t make what you say FACT. Now there is another FACT.

      • pifr

        michaelsacal I think you mean the definitive Buffy. Not the definite Buffy.

      • Magnus

        Crazy Swanson is too busy going after married men and neglecting her weird -looking little brat to care. Man, is she fat and ugly looking now, guess all the ugliness of her soul has come to the the surface

    • Liv

      Ha true. And just because she was the first one doesn’t mean she is the real one

    • crushwrestling.com

      Ya she just wants some attention.

    • Zack

      Kristy who?

  • Aaron

    i’ll be the first to say i think kristy’s buffy is immensely underrated. she was really terrific in that movie; one can understand her being overshadowed by SMG, but she was still pretty great in her own right.

    • Meredith

      I also liked Kristy in the movie. I prefer Gellar, of course, but I thought Kristy was a pretty great Buffy. I kind of wish the movie wasn’t as stupid as it was so she could have gotten more recognition.

    • Allison

      I LOVE the movie. One of my rainy-day faves.

    • tracy bluth

      THANK YOU.

    • teekay

      Agreed. Kristy Swanson did a decent job, considering the mess of a script that was handed to her.

    • Chasmosaur

      Yeah, I’m going to have to agree here. I remember renting it back in the early 90′s and enjoyed the movie. Looking at it now, I see the parts I love are things that are very much Joss Whedon. The things I don’t like are things that the Kazuis messed with.

      I think it has to do with whether or not you saw the movie before the TV show. It’s not like the movie is a classic, but at the time, it was a fresh idea and the critics could see that it had been tampered with.

  • Rob Grizzly

    LOl, the O.G. Buffy. I really don’t think the original was that awful. There were a couple of funny gags here and there.
    Anyway, I always wanted Swanson to cameo on the show at least once.

  • Simon

    No offence to Swanson, but I honestly don’t care what she has to say…

  • JJ

    This is like getting a Wonder Woman comment from Cathy Lee Crosby. The first time is NOT always the best. Swanson didnt’ have the Buffy experience SMG and most importantly the fans did. To her Buffy is a missed opportunity because what was a small blip of a movie that had no major impact on her career went on to be a huge part of television history shaping the format of so many genre shows and making stars out of SMG, Alyson Hannigan, David Boreanaz and of course Joss Whedon.

    I won’t know Swanson’s portrayl of Buffy, she was fine overall but her investment in the project consists of a few months of work 18 years ago and then year following spent more being “The was another Buffy?”.

    Personally I always wanted to Swansom to appear as a Slayer of years ago in some kind of flashback but overall I think her involvement/input is irrelevant.

  • California

    I really liked the Buffy movie. It’s pretty unpopular to say, but there you go.

  • Meredith

    You know what? I really enjoy the movie. It is WAY campy and just kind of stupid…but really fun. And I thought Kristy was actually a really good Buffy and has one of my favorite movie lines ever: “Does the word ‘duh’ mean anything to you?”

    • Allison

      Mine too!

    • Stevex

      The movie had one of the best death scenes of all time, courtesy of Paul Reubens, who definitely did NOT look like Pee-Wee.

      • Lindsay

        Couldn’t agree more. I enjoyed the movie even more because of Paul Reubens’s death scene.

      • Chasmosaur

        Yes. Adored that. And “Oh yeah? Clap.”

  • R.

    No one going to ask Hilary Swank’s opinion on the project? She did have a small role in the movie as one of Buffy’s friends. I don’t even know if she would acknowledge she was in it but I think it would be cool if someone asked. :)

    • Kris

      That’s like asking her for a Karate Kid comment. I think she’d rather forget.

    • Chasmosaur

      Ben Affleck, too ;)

  • P77

    I think the ’92 feature “Buffy” and the ’97 series “Buffy” are two completely different entities and have to be viewed as such. The feature film was campy and corny and while it may not have gone the way Whedon originally wanted it to, it’s developed into a nice little cult classic. Kristy Swanson was very much underappreciated in the role of the more comical Buffy. She had some spot on comic timing and the physical prowess to pull off the fighting. Sarah Michelle Gellar and the show took it in whole other direction and knocked it out of the park in their own right. I’m pissed that Whedon isn’t part of this. The casting will play a major role in whether I even give this next go-round a chance…

  • ani

    agree with most of the comments here. SMG was a great Buffy, but the original movie was pretty awesome too. I remember memorizing all the lines to the movie…

    and really, how funky is your chicken?

    • nyangel22

      how loose is your goose?

  • Jane

    The Buffy movie with Kristy is a total guilty pleasures!

    Dance til you can’t dance!

  • LOL

    Swanson is underrated.

  • shelby

    swanson may have been the first but she played buffy like an airhead. sarah michelle gellar really made buffy her own and imbued her with nuances that swanson could only dream of.

Page: 1 2 3 6
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos in Movies

Advertisement

From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP