I started this discussion at Buffyguide.com and I got some interesting responses.

I honestly think they should stop after season 7 and then do a major movie. I think alot of shows stay on way past their prime. I think they should do like Star Trek and stop after 7 seasons.

I think that "Buffy" should stay on until the writers run out of new and interesting stories. I think it's getting harder for the writers to fill out the "Buffy vs. villain(s)" aspect of the show, but I think that the writers are doing well enough with character development to make up for the lesser focus on weekly bad guys. One thing which I think helps "Buffy" in comparison to a lot of other shows that tend to run their course after five to seven seasons is that "Buffy" has brought in new characters over the years and allowed other characters to exit the show as appropriate.

Regarding the possibility of there being a "Buffy" movie spun off of the TV show, the idea has merit. However, I wonder how big an audience a movie would have. Surely, regular "Buffy" viewers would flock to it. But what about your average moviegoer who isn't familiar with the show? A "Buffy" movie would have to attract average moviegoers as well as fans of the show in order to justify a decent budget. And one of the difficulties with a "Buffy" movie is that in order to avoid confusing those average moviegoers, any screenplay would have to avoid using material for which understanding of it depends on familiarity with the show. This might severely limit plot and dialogue, such that "Buffy" fans will find the movie too un-Buffylike to be satisfied by it.

There already was a Buffy movie. That's how it all started!

Well, yes and no.

The Buffy TV show wasn't so much a follow-up to the movie as a revamping (no pun intended) of the concept. Though the movie certainly has a character named Buffy, who is a Slayer. And she has a Watcher. And she slays vampires. There have been a number of conceptual changes and expansions to the story and characters that make the show a separate entity from the movie.

For instance, both Buffy and her mother are very different characters (not just in appearance) in the two incarnations.

When people are talking about a movie to follow the TV show, they're talking about a film that falls more in line to the TV version of Buffy, than the first film version.

Well, the X-files comes to mind, but then again, so must Dr. Who. If SMG's departure singles the end of Buffy, end the series and do a spin off. Import some people to Angel. Heck, get a different actress to play Buffy, it's already been done before. But to be honest, I'm a fan of quitting while you are ahead. Fox isn't...

With almost half of season 7 already aired at this point, it seems to me that there are still enough interesting places to take "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" for at least an 8th season. I doubt UPN has any desire to cancel the show after its second season on the network (the first five seasons were on the WB network).

However, it also seems to me that, barring an offer she can't refuse ($$$), Sarah Michelle Gellar will leave the show after season 7. From season seven's storyline so far (and three or four episodes ahead), it looks like the writers and producers have set up season 7 to be a fitting final season of the show, if it turns out to be such, but the writers and producers are also leaving enough story flexibility to continue the show through an 8th season if that's an option.

Although it would be a severe blow to the show if Sarah Michelle Gellar decides to leave after season 7, I don't think that it has to kill the show (e.g. "Angel" seems to get along fine without the Buffy character). I would not be in favor of recasting the Buffy character, or killing off the character. However, I would be in favor of having Buffy leave Sunnydale (to retire from slaying, go on a quest, or whatever), while a new Slayer takes over in Sunnydale (likely Faith's successor, who may be Dawn). In addition, some new characters could join some old characters (e.g. new Watcher - perhaps Principal Wood, if he turns out to have the requisite background and survives season 7 -- and some new friends; plus Xander and Willow could stay on for another season or two to provide a bridge between the old Scoobies and the new Scoobies). Of course the name of the show would have to change. For example, if Dawn became the new Slayer, the show might be called "Dawn the Vampire Slayer". The idea of that title might sound goofy, but is it any goofier than "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"? Besides, the title of the show was supposed to be goofy anyway. I'd like to see some incarnation of this show stay on at least until "Angel" runs its course.

I disagree completely - seven seasons is more than enough. I'd much rather see Buffy end on a high note after seven good seasons than slowly peeter out into mediocrity like the X-Files or The Simpsons.

And if Gellar leaves, that's it. She's the title character. And as one omnipotent entity said, "All good things must come to an end."

Also, I doubt UPN will want to keep an increasingly expensive series on for another year, especially given that Buffy's ratings are not that high (though not too bad for a show near the end of its run).

I think an eighth season is only a real possibility if Sarah Michelle stays. Without her, the show doesn't have a big-name star to get people's attention, and I don't know if UPN would want to pour money into a series that's lost its star.

I agree that if Sarah Michelle Gellar leaves the show after season 7, that's almost certainly it for the show. However, my point in suggesting the possibility of an eighth season without Sarah Michelle Gellar was to say that it really doesn't have to be the end for the show. Losing the main star of the show usually kills a show, but it doesn't always. For example, NBC had a show called "Valerie" during the 1986-87 season, starring Valerie Harper as a character named Valerie Hogan (who was a housewife with three sons). When Valerie Harper left the show after its first season, the show continued on as "The Hogan Family" for another four seasons (Sandy Duncan joined the cast as the sister of Valerie Hogan's husband). NBC also had another show called "A Different World" (1987-93), which was a spinoff of "The Cosby Show". As conceived, the show was to follow Denise Huxtable, played by Lisa Bonet, through college, starting with Denise's freshman year. Lisa Bonet left the show after the first season, but the show continued on for another five seasons, most of which were much better seasons than the first season. And this was all without the show adding cast members who were established stars before joining the show. Supporting characters from the first season became the show's stars, and some of the actors who played those characters (e.g. Jasmine Guy and Kadeem Hardison) became bigger stars than Lisa Bonet had been during the show's first season.

Regarding the ratings of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", it's not really the total number of viewers that matters to the networks, but rather the total number of what kind of viewers that matters. The networks want shows with strong viewership among people who buy lots of stuff.

"I disagree completely - seven seasons is more than enough."

When it comes to a good television show, I like "more than enough". "Too much" is where I begin to object.

Buffy will go on for a 8th season with or without SMG. (It's UPN for crying out loud, they need shows) Season 9, is another question.

And some info about the issue from UPN:

http://www.trektoday.com/news/130103_02.shtml

My friend:

No, there's going to be lots of fan movies. I know, I'm writing one.