The Buffy Scandal The Internet Has Deemed More Worthy Than Potential War In Korea

Because there is nothing too trivial for the denizens of the Internet to throw a hissy fit over, every blog ever has commented on the news that Warner Bros. is going to reboot Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a new movie without any input from Buffy creator and the Web's favorite god Joss Whedon. Apparently, Warner Bros. forgot all about the first movie that, while scripted by Whedon, took no other input from him and, well, it was a pretty big pile of crap. Whedon himself has shown disappointment in the prospect, and his fans have gone into full on complain mode.

I myself am torn at the prospect. On the one hand, I like Whedon, and I hate seeing his signature creation reappropriated by others who probably won't put nearly as much care and craft into the characters as Whedon himself does. The chances of this reboot being even as good as the television series that is Buffy to most of its fans is pretty low.

But on the other hand, Joss goes ahead and opens his mouth and says this:

This is a sad, sad reflection on our times, when people must feed off the carcasses of beloved stories from their youths—just because they can't think of an original idea of their own, like I did with my Avengers idea that I made up myself.

Now, he's obviously being sarcastic with that Avengers comment. But I still find it slightly dickish that he could say that while also cashing in royalties from the Alien and X-Men franchises, both of which he had no part in creating. And yes, Whedon has also had his own ideas, but it's still a tad hypocritical to decry others for doing things that he himself does. And this is without bringing up the notion that Firefly/Serenity was in many ways a rip off of the anime Outlaw Star. So really, I'm not sure Whedon should be so quick to throw stones, even if it's sarcastically.

It's also important to note that Warner Bros. really hasn't done anything wrong. They acquired the rights to the franchise, and if they want to make a reboot, they have every right to. It might be tasteless and a blatant attempt at a cash in, but that's the business.

And in the end, who cares? Plenty of characters get reimagined or rebooted without input from the original creator. Do you think Christopher Nolan called up Bob Kane to see what he thought about the new Batman movies? Or if Ronald Moore gave a crap what Glen Larson thought of the Battlestar Galactica reboot? This happens all the time. Sometimes the reimagings work, as in the above examples, sometimes they fail miserably. Even if Warner Bros. completely butchers Buffy the Vampire Slayer in this reboot, it's sucking will not magically wipe the seven seasons of the TV show off the face of the Earth. They will still be here for everyone to enjoy. Stop crying, or "sighing audibly."

Because really, with North Korea launching missiles, unemployment bordering double digits, concerns about dwindling natural resources, and 30% (and growing) of the American population obese, this is what people are going to rally and protest about? A freaking TV show? This is what enrages the far reaching populace of the Internet? I'm all for people coming up with new and original ideas, and not continuously recycling stories over and over, but to react to such a strong degree to entertainment is kind of sad. Yes, the reboot will probably suck. In that case, just don't go see it. It's a pretty simple solution, and one that doesn't require idiotic Twitter campaigns that think they can change the way studio execs think by posting their grievances in 140 characters.

Or, you know, you could create your own characters and stories instead of living and dying by what happens to someone else's. Just a thought.

Facebook: Forcing Friendship On The World

With recent rumors going around that Facebook may be working on an e-mail service, it has become as clear as ever that the social network giant will one day grow up to be Skynet. But a cooler, more youth savy one.

But the site's power rests on it's users sharing information with each other. Facebook wants everyone to have access to everyone else's info. Also, advertisers. Lots of advertisers. This is, after all, what sparked all the privacy concerns and outcries over the past couple years. People are fine with showing their friends every mundane detail of their boring day, but not gigantic corporations who only see them as fuel for the future T-800s. So, somewhat reluctantly, Facebook restored user control of privacy settings in the most complicated and frustrating way possible.

But they still want you to share as much information with as many people as possible, i.e. they want you to make more friends. Facebook hates it when people are like "I only friend people I know in real life" because that means you aren't friending the random strangers who might be scammers just trying to get at your information. Ideally, they want us all to be friends with everyone.

Just look at the evolution of the friend request. At the dawn of Facebook, when someone sent you a friend request you had two choices: "Accept" and "Decline." After all, maybe you don't want to be friends with that person. We aren't friends with every homeless person we meet on the way to work, the same should apply to online interaction, right? It's our choice who we want to be friends with.

Then the choices changed. We could still "Accept" a request, but "Decline" was replaced with "Ignore." A much more passive-aggressive approach, it seems less like you don't want to be friends with them, and more like it's just not something you want to deal with. But the semblance of a choice is still there, so cool.

But now, "Ignore" has been replaced with "Not Now." This implies that you will be friends with this person, just at a later date. There is no longer a choice as to who you are going to be friends, but more an issue of how long you can hold out before Facebook forces you to accept it.

Because they will. Oh, they will. Using basic math I just made up, the next step from "Not Now" is "Or We Will Find You And Toss Your Body Down A Canyon." And they can find you very easily, because you conveniently put your address up on your profile (oh cruel fate!).

Why does Facebook want you to be friends with everyone? Information. The easiest way for Facebook to pair up advertisers with your own interests is through your friends. Everytime one of those "What Harry Potter/Twilight/Super Hero character are you?" quizzes gets passed around, the third parties who made those apps get access to the information of whoever it was who took it. That's why the ads that appear on your side bar appear to be customized specifically to your tatses. So when Sarah McInsecure keeps posting quizzes about what princess she thinks she is because a quiz told her so, gradually her friends start taking the quizzes too. And Facebook takes in even more information about users that can be sold off to third parties.

If, however, Sarah only has 10 friends on Facebook, the number of potential suckers goes down dramatically. That's why it's important to Facebook that you become friends with every person you ever come into contact with, and then some. It's the only way they can continue to grow, and absorb all the knowledge that ever existed.

The only solution, obviously, is to stop being friends with people. The only way to bring down Facebook is hatred. We must all become bitter enemies, whose undying scorn or each other will prevent Facebook from becoming the ultimate power it wants to be. So please, do yourself a favor and start burning bridges left and right. Hate is our only hope.

Christine O'Donnel Sells Out Post Election Bid

Delaware -- Following the footsteps of her endorser Sarah Palin, who after her failed bid for vice presidency with the McCain campaign quit her job as governor of Alaska to pursue book deals and speaking gigs, Christine O'Donnell has announced a line up of engagements in the wake of her defeat for the Senate seat in Delaware in order to capitalize on her 15 minutes.

"All this publicity has been great, not just for me, but for the American people, who's voices are now being heard," O'Donnell stated at a press conference. "The everyday American people, who have everyday concerns, like the possibility their brains will be implanted into mice."

Ms. O'Donnell, who lost the general election for Senate to Democrat Chris Coons, has announced a number of new projects and appearances that are now available to her as a result of her new found fame. These include paid speaking engagements, a book deal, and an "ironic" guest appearance on the Disney Channel show Wizards of Waverly Place.

Critics have been quick to jump on this announcement, saying that the speed in which she has moved to profitable ventures means she was never serious about politics. Like Palin, they see her political aspirations as nothing more than a way to get attention.

O'Donnell, of course, says this is absurd. "This is not about me. This is about getting the views and beliefs of the American people out there. And since I can't masturbate, I need something to do."