I'm glad if they are moving forward but is this different from what they've said for a while now?

Just now, DRW50 said:

I'm glad if they are moving forward but is this different from what they've said for a while now?

There's a bit more detail in the article which makes it sound like it's actually a thing happening now. It beats the radio silence on these for however long. Susan also hinted at it recently in her Soapy interview with Budig.

As long as they're not using that real ropey 'dark' ABC primetime pitch from a few years ago, I am open to this project. Network primetime dramas today do not understand pacing or character anymore. They are running scared re: streaming and race through story to try to keep eyes.

2 minutes ago, Vee said:

There's a bit more detail in the article which makes it sound like it's actually a thing happening now. It beats the radio silence on these for however long. Susan also hinted at it recently in her Soapy interview with Budig.

As long as they're not using that real ropey 'dark' ABC primetime pitch from a few years ago, I am open to this project. Network primetime dramas today do not understand pacing or character anymore. They are running scared re: streaming and race through story to try to keep eyes.

Hopefully. I imagine if Susan was asked, they must have some confidence.

So many dramas now just go for grimdark, needle drop, emo woe montage. Ideally AMC could be more in the spirit of what Agnes wanted.

4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

So many dramas now just go for grimdark, needle drop, emo woe montage. Ideally AMC could be more in the spirit of what Agnes wanted.

I just think Lifetime and their movie franchises is a much better fit than trying to compete with the primetime sweat grind these days.

A movie franchise is a smart approach because it lets the show leverage star power on an ad hoc basis without requiring a long-term series commitment. For example, Kelly and Mark could participate in one movie, Susan in another, Debbi Morgan in another. You could also imagine one-off participation from actors like Josh Duhamel, Michael B. Jordan, Amanda Seyfried, or Sarah Michelle Gellar. Yes, these are reach goals—but availability is far more realistic for a movie franchise than for a series.

1 minute ago, Jonathan said:

A movie franchise is a smart approach because it lets the show leverage star power on an ad hoc basis without requiring a long-term series commitment. For example, Kelly and Mark could participate in one movie, Susan in another, Debbi Morgan in another. You could also imagine one-off participation from actors like Josh Duhamel, Michael B. Jordan, Amanda Seyfried, or Sarah Michelle Gellar. Yes, these are reach goals—but availability is far more realistic for a movie franchise than for a series.

I could definitely see SMG participating.

I just listened to Kelly’s podcast where she makes the announcement, with Susan as her guest. I have to say it’s a great interview. Kelly really knows how to bring the best out of her guests, and I genuinely enjoyed the conversation between Susan and Kelly.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lets-talk-off-camera-with-kelly-ripa/id1676166337?i=1000745922487

I feel like movies are much easier than trying to reboot the series and could help generate interest for a series. My hope is that the movies do well and it would lead to a primetime/cable revival.

10 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You could also imagine one-off participation from actors like Josh Duhamel, Michael B. Jordan, Amanda Seyfried, or Sarah Michelle Gellar. Yes, these are reach goals—but availability is far more realistic for a movie franchise than for a series.

Recently (January 2026) Michael B. Jordan and Amanda Seyfried, at Palm Springs FF and Critics Choice Awards, in separate interviews, each mentioned having worked with the other in their teen years at AMC.
Sure, it might be far-fetched to ask them to do the Lifetime movies, but who knows?

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by janea4old

Michael B. Jordan just starred in one of last year's biggest box office hits, and is a likely candidate for an Oscar nomination this year. He's not going to do Lifetime anytime soon, lol.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by BetterForgotten

I won't lie: given my feelings about AMC post-1991 (or so), none of these attempts to revive the show in any form have enthused me. There are only a handful of people who really understood AMC - Agnes Nixon, of course, but also Wisner Washam, Lorraine Broderick, Victor Miller and even Margaret DePriest, to some extent - so I'm not too confident in this being successful (that is, if it gets off the ground; which, if history tells us anything, doesn't seem likely).

Talk about a full circle moment if SMG uses the ample earned media she'd gain from an onscreen reunion with Susan Lucci to help promote her Buffy revival.

Sarah Michelle Gellar does not need Susan Lucci to help her promote anything. Never has and never will. Gellar can sell it on her name alone.

6 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Sarah Michelle Gellar does not need Susan Lucci to help her promote anything. Never has and never will. Gellar can sell it on her name alone.

She's been in four one and done series since Buffy ended. Not counting cameos, her last hit movie was in 2004.