If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Joss Whedon's biggest setbacks. A lesson in how lacking total control over your project gives Hollywood the chance to fark up a completely great idea   (io9.com) divider line 120
    More: Cool, Joss Whedon, Waterworld, Lesson Learned, gills, lessons  
•       •       •

7949 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Mar 2013 at 6:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 07:39:17 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: I've never seen anything Whedon has done and liked it.  Sorry everyone... take my nerd card if you want.


I watched all of Dollhouse on netflix and was entertained enough I guess. I've seen a few episodes of Buffy but never had any interest in following the whole thing - can't explain why.  I liked The Avengers.

But I farking loved Firefly and Dr. Horrible.
And I loved the theme song for Firefly too, which I guess he helped write.
Did not see Cabin yet, but I've heard good things about it.

So, I pay attention to what he does, and I'll at least consider watching anything with his name on it . That's about as high as praise gets from me for anyone that makes movies/shows.. cheers
 
2013-03-26 07:40:08 PM  

rugman11: One game.  Firefly was preempted for one game, on October 11th.  Otherwise, Fox ran the show uninterrupted from Sept. 20th to Nov. 15th before it was pulled and effectively canceled.  I loved Firefly, and airing its episodes out of order certainly didn't help.  But the show debuted low and didn't really drop much further than most shows drop in their first seasons.  That show was doomed from the start and I don't think anything could have really saved it.


I like firefly, but I never watched it when it was broadcasting on Fox, I've heard good things about Fringe, but I have and won't watch it. Why, it's on Fox, and there's no way in hell am I going to even get interested in a sci fi property if it's on Fox. too many times have they screwed  up schedules, or sequences on shows for me to get interested in that network again.

this personal policy has been in place for at least 10 years
 
2013-03-26 07:49:19 PM  

Shostie: When confronted with the argument "Mr. X keeps hiring the same actors," his response should be, "So? Who gives a f*ck? Lots of directors work with a stable of actors they're comfortable with," not "NUH-UH!!!"


Especially since he really ought to be coming back at me with Sorkin's noted preference for doing the same thing with several actors, particularly Joshua Malina, who Sorkin has been known to call his good luck charm.
 
2013-03-26 07:56:07 PM  

rugman11: Flint Ironstag: f you watch some of his DVD commentaries you'll see he is very happy to admit to mistakes. And no one, even the most rabid fans, claim he is "perfect". But when a network takes a serialised show and airs the pilot last and the others out of order, pre empting most of those for baseball, then yes that does suggest the network is to blame. If your local movie theatre ran the reels of a movie in the wrong order you'd complain.

One game.  Firefly was preempted for one game, on October 11th.  Otherwise, Fox ran the show uninterrupted from Sept. 20th to Nov. 15th before it was pulled and effectively canceled.  I loved Firefly, and airing its episodes out of order certainly didn't help.  But the show debuted low and didn't really drop much further than most shows drop in their first seasons.  That show was doomed from the start and I don't think anything could have really saved it.


My bad. Checking it appears they pulled one for baseball and then two in November for sweeps before it was cancelled in December.  That's still three missed airings in the first eight.
 
2013-03-26 07:57:15 PM  
I think the author has done JW a disservice by collecting and presenting these "setbacks" and JW's comments all together, giving an impression of a litany of complaints and excuses. The interviews quoted took place with years between them, and presenting them all together in this way gives a very false impression about JW's attitude which is, on the whole, positive.
There is very little in the article about Whedon's successes to counterbalance this impression; perhaps the author believed her readers would be familiar with Whedon's work, likely to be fans, but to those unfamiliar with JW's work this kind of treatment makes him look bad, fault finding, and shabby - an unfair characterization.
 
2013-03-26 07:59:06 PM  

GAT_00: Shostie: When confronted with the argument "Mr. X keeps hiring the same actors," his response should be, "So? Who gives a f*ck? Lots of directors work with a stable of actors they're comfortable with," not "NUH-UH!!!"

Especially since he really ought to be coming back at me with Sorkin's noted preference for doing the same thing with several actors, particularly Joshua Malina, who Sorkin has been known to call his good luck charm.


So you think the point of these posts is to simply win the argument even if that means posting stuff that isn't factual? Whedon hasn't, to my knowledge, said that so why would I make that argument?
 
2013-03-26 08:01:57 PM  

red5ish: I think the author has done JW a disservice by collecting and presenting these "setbacks" and JW's comments all together, giving an impression of a litany of complaints and excuses. The interviews quoted took place with years between them, and presenting them all together in this way gives a very false impression about JW's attitude which is, on the whole, positive.
There is very little in the article about Whedon's successes to counterbalance this impression; perhaps the author believed her readers would be familiar with Whedon's work, likely to be fans, but to those unfamiliar with JW's work this kind of treatment makes him look bad, fault finding, and shabby - an unfair characterization.


To be fair they did do an article about  Myths that keep non fans away.

And he has created 250 episodes of network TV and the biggest movie opening weekend ever. If that is "failure" then can I fail that way please?
 
2013-03-26 08:03:16 PM  

Flint Ironstag: GAT_00: Shostie: When confronted with the argument "Mr. X keeps hiring the same actors," his response should be, "So? Who gives a f*ck? Lots of directors work with a stable of actors they're comfortable with," not "NUH-UH!!!"

Especially since he really ought to be coming back at me with Sorkin's noted preference for doing the same thing with several actors, particularly Joshua Malina, who Sorkin has been known to call his good luck charm.

So you think the point of these posts is to simply win the argument even if that means posting stuff that isn't factual? Whedon hasn't, to my knowledge, said that so why would I make that argument?


I think you came in here blindly attacking anything I wrote because I challenged Whedon without actually at any point reading what I wrote.  Or really caring.  I did not bow before Whedon, therefore I was wrong.
 
2013-03-26 08:07:16 PM  
I liked 'Firefly' and 'The Avengers.' Not so much the other works.

But then, I like action movies with diverse teams of characters who work well together and have witty dialogue. Who makes them is completely incidental. You could have Aaron Sorkin do a show about space pirates or superheroes with the cast of 'The West Wing' and I'd watch the hell out of that.
 
2013-03-26 08:09:52 PM  
Moral of the story: suits should shut their yaps and hammer checks for the talent.
 
2013-03-26 08:11:29 PM  

doglover: Moral of the story: suits should shut their yaps and hammer checks for the talent.


A good example of this working is the first four seasons of The Man Show.

A good example of this not happening and everything going to shiat is the fifth season.
 
2013-03-26 08:12:01 PM  

GAT_00: I think you came in here blindly attacking anything I wrote because I challenged Whedon without actually at any point reading what I wrote.  Or really caring.  I did not bow before Whedon, therefore I was wrong.


I wrote:
If you watch some of his DVD commentaries you'll see he is very happy to admit to mistakes. And no one, even the most rabid fans, claim he is "perfect". But when a network takes a serialised show and airs the pilot last and the others out of order, pre empting most of those for baseball, then yes that does suggest the network is to blame. If your local movie theatre ran the reels of a movie in the wrong order you'd complain.

Buffy itself is a perfect example. Movie (Whedon had no creative control) failed. Tv Series (Whedon in charge) Hit.   And for those who I have seen claiming he comes out with "excuses to blame failure on" it is a fact that Whedon blamed the director for ruining the movie long before it was released. He didn't "jump on a bandwagon".


That's "blindly attacking you"?  I thought I was making some reasonable points on your opinion and the points made in TFA.
Ah well, I'm happy for anyone to read this and make their own mind up...
 
2013-03-26 08:17:01 PM  

loonatic112358: rugman11: One game.  Firefly was preempted for one game, on October 11th.  Otherwise, Fox ran the show uninterrupted from Sept. 20th to Nov. 15th before it was pulled and effectively canceled.  I loved Firefly, and airing its episodes out of order certainly didn't help.  But the show debuted low and didn't really drop much further than most shows drop in their first seasons.  That show was doomed from the start and I don't think anything could have really saved it.

I like firefly, but I never watched it when it was broadcasting on Fox, I've heard good things about Fringe, but I have and won't watch it. Why, it's on Fox, and there's no way in hell am I going to even get interested in a sci fi property if it's on Fox. too many times have they screwed  up schedules, or sequences on shows for me to get interested in that network again.

this personal policy has been in place for at least 10 years


Fringe is over and completed now.

It had its ups and downs but I think it's safe to say it wasn't ruined by executives.

/I enjoyed it
 
2013-03-26 08:32:28 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: loonatic112358: rugman11: One game.  Firefly was preempted for one game, on October 11th.  Otherwise, Fox ran the show uninterrupted from Sept. 20th to Nov. 15th before it was pulled and effectively canceled.  I loved Firefly, and airing its episodes out of order certainly didn't help.  But the show debuted low and didn't really drop much further than most shows drop in their first seasons.  That show was doomed from the start and I don't think anything could have really saved it.

I like firefly, but I never watched it when it was broadcasting on Fox, I've heard good things about Fringe, but I have and won't watch it. Why, it's on Fox, and there's no way in hell am I going to even get interested in a sci fi property if it's on Fox. too many times have they screwed  up schedules, or sequences on shows for me to get interested in that network again.

this personal policy has been in place for at least 10 years

Fringe is over and completed now.

It had its ups and downs but I think it's safe to say it wasn't ruined by executives.

/I enjoyed it


Just started watching it, and I'm definitely enjoying it.  It's got its flaws (like the science, but that's expected) but the acting is quite good, the effects are solid, and writing is generally decent or better, and they do a good job of making sure even the standalone episodes are tied enough to the serial story line that they keep you interested.  I'm glad to hear that it doesn't unravel at as it goes on.
 
2013-03-26 08:32:41 PM  
Angel is still my favorite JW series.

/didn't like Dollhouse at all
//the greatest line of his ever written: "Would you like me to lie to you now?"
 
2013-03-26 08:39:43 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Klippoklondike: Or maybe his writing skills are only liked by a small but rabid fanbase

That's a strange claim to make about the writer/director of a movie that took $207 million in three days. Of course Avengers had a huge build up, but it was the actual movie itself that made it such a huge hit and earned excellent reviews.

I think Whedon's problem is the perception he has. People who say "His dialogue is always the same!" when it patently isn't. That claim was everywhere before Dollhouse aired and then hose people went very quiet once it did air and the show was nothing like what they claimed it would be. He's also hugely respected in the business. Pixar raved about the work he did on Toy Story script, Sam Rami raves about him, Russell T Davies raved about him and credits Buffy with having a huge influence on Nu Who.


I don't know that you can really attribute all of the Avenger's popularity to Whedon. I mean, Marvell did create the characters and Disney did fun all that CGI.

I mean, hell, Transformers made a ton of money too. Does that mean people love Michael Bay's "writing"? I'd like to believe not and rather, people will see a giant spectacle of a movie regardless of the quality (or lack thereof) of the writing.
 
2013-03-26 08:48:24 PM  
GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.
 
2013-03-26 08:49:16 PM  

GAT_00: MaxxLarge: Flint Ironstag: I think Whedon's problem is the perception he has. People who say "His dialogue is always the same!" when it patently isn't.

They say the same thing about Aaron Sorkin...And in his case, they're more right than not.  Doesn't mean I don't still love his work. Just that I know I should expect a certain stylized rhythm, and that's fine. It's his brand.

See also: Smith, Kevin; Tarantino, Quentin; Mamet, David; etc.

Anyone who knows Sorkin's work knows those common elements.  There is for example this video which could only have been put together by a Sorkin devotee.  But a Sorkin fan will be the first to point those out and criticize the weaknesses of his writing style.

You never see Whedon fanatics criticize him.  It's a farking religion.  Whedon can literally do no wrong.

Flint Ironstag: That's a strange claim to make about the writer/director of a movie that took $207 million in three days.

Anyone could have made that movie make that much money after the build up to it.  And that movie was much weaker for Whedon writing it.


Wanna tell that to the people behind "Superman Returns"?
 
2013-03-26 08:53:30 PM  

GAT_00: Flint Ironstag: GAT_00: Flint Ironstag: Know how I know you've never visited Whedonesque? The site where Whedon himself posts? people happily criticise things he's done and no one leaps on them or demands they be banned. Of course it's a fan site but to claim no criticism is allowed is just another myth that you've bought into.

Why in the hell would I go to a Whedon fansite when I can't stand the ones on here?


So when you said "You never see Whedon fanatics criticize him. It's a farking religion" you admit you don't know what you were talking about?

You do realize you're pretty much proving my point here, right? I'm automatically wrong because I criticized Whedon.


Uh, no. 

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Klippoklondike: Or maybe his writing skills are only liked by a small but rabid fanbase

This. People suck his tonker like he's the greatest thing ever. God in Heaven, you'd think that he never did anything wrong, he was just sabotaged by the system. Let me clue you in on a few things, folks: the guy gets his stuff produced, which the vast majority of people do not, it gets aired, and it lives or dies on its merits. The Avengers? Great movie. Buffy? I liked the movie better than the series, but both were OK even though the series went at least three seasons too long. Firefly/Serenity and Dollhouse? Dogs. But because he wrote it the fanboys blot out the sun with all the jizz they shoot into the air and complain that their god didn't get a fair shake. Except that he has, he does, and he did.

He's just a writer, admittedly a talented one, but he has misses just like anyone else. The difference is that he has a legion of fanatics carrying water for him who think he can do no wrong, and I will never, ever understand why.


Wow, y-you completely missed Flint Ironstag's post about Whedonesque now didn't you?
 
2013-03-26 08:53:58 PM  

brap: I finally gave that a shot and loved it, and I am not a complete fanboy. Didn't get into Buffy at all and I give a lot of slack to anything with a female protaganist that kicks butt.


Yup, will definitely have to give it a go, then.
 
ecl
2013-03-26 09:04:04 PM  

Gunther: GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-26 09:08:24 PM  

loonatic112358: I've heard good things about Fringe, but I have and won't watch it.


It's on Amazon for free so I started watching it. The first season is pretty meh up until the last three or so episodes, when they suddenly figure out that they should try to be something more than an X-Files rip off.

The second season is much better. They start fleshing out some of the ideas they introduced late in the first. It has it's down moments, though, with a handful of episodes in the middle of the season that don't seem to "connect" to anything.

Then the second season finale happens and it's suddenly a really good show.
 
ecl
2013-03-26 09:13:01 PM  

imgod2u: Flint Ironstag: Klippoklondike: Or maybe his writing skills are only liked by a small but rabid fanbase

That's a strange claim to make about the writer/director of a movie that took $207 million in three days. Of course Avengers had a huge build up, but it was the actual movie itself that made it such a huge hit and earned excellent reviews.

I think Whedon's problem is the perception he has. People who say "His dialogue is always the same!" when it patently isn't. That claim was everywhere before Dollhouse aired and then hose people went very quiet once it did air and the show was nothing like what they claimed it would be. He's also hugely respected in the business. Pixar raved about the work he did on Toy Story script, Sam Rami raves about him, Russell T Davies raved about him and credits Buffy with having a huge influence on Nu Who.

I don't know that you can really attribute all of the Avenger's popularity to Whedon. I mean, Marvell did create the characters and Disney did fun all that CGI.

I mean, hell, Transformers made a ton of money too. Does that mean people love Michael Bay's "writing"? I'd like to believe not and rather, people will see a giant spectacle of a movie regardless of the quality (or lack thereof) of the writing.



I liked the transformers growing up and I hated the Michael Bay movies but I endured because they were giant spectacles.  I never particularly cared for the Avengers as a kid but I did like them in the movie.

www.badhaven.com
 
2013-03-26 09:31:27 PM  

ecl: I liked the transformers growing up and I hated the Michael Bay movies but I endured because they were giant spectacles. I never particularly cared for the Avengers as a kid but I did like them in the movie.


I kinda liked the first one, at least on the first view through..  The others?  I can't even make it through 30 minutes before stopping.
 
2013-03-26 09:37:14 PM  

Cheater71: Cabin In The Woods was great. Now that hes making big money for hollywood, i'm sure he'll be given control over his projects in the future. When the marvel movies are over, we'll get to see alot more pure whedon films.


It was enjoyable but I wouldn't call it great. I'd say it suffers some of Whedon's traditional weaknesses. The most apparent of which is that *everything* has to be controversial. The ending of that movie especially was just mind-boggling. "Hmm, we're going to farking die anyway, how about we save the whole f*cking rest the world? NAHH".

Sometimes Whedon's anti-mainstream-hero ideas work out well (Dr. Horrible, Mal), and sometimes they feel like they make no damn sense at all. The motivations for the characters seem pathological rather than organic.

I'd say he's got some real talent with dialog and storytelling but he lets his own need to be radical and anti-establishment fuel his plots too much -- even when they don't fit the story.

I found myself often rooting for the villain-of-the-week on Buffy because, for god sakes, their motivations were way more understandable and relatable than the self-pitying "Scoobies".
 
2013-03-26 09:38:38 PM  
Firefly has become my favorite space sci-fi series... topping the giants of Star Trek and Star Wars. I still love those, but Firefly was just about perfect... and then they cancelled it.
 
2013-03-26 09:44:16 PM  

Gunther: GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.


Whedon devotees piss me off.
 
2013-03-26 09:48:50 PM  

Gunther: GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.


Nah, he's always this way.
 
2013-03-26 09:57:32 PM  

imgod2u: Flint Ironstag: Klippoklondike: Or maybe his writing skills are only liked by a small but rabid fanbase

That's a strange claim to make about the writer/director of a movie that took $207 million in three days. Of course Avengers had a huge build up, but it was the actual movie itself that made it such a huge hit and earned excellent reviews.

I think Whedon's problem is the perception he has. People who say "His dialogue is always the same!" when it patently isn't. That claim was everywhere before Dollhouse aired and then hose people went very quiet once it did air and the show was nothing like what they claimed it would be. He's also hugely respected in the business. Pixar raved about the work he did on Toy Story script, Sam Rami raves about him, Russell T Davies raved about him and credits Buffy with having a huge influence on Nu Who.

I don't know that you can really attribute all of the Avenger's popularity to Whedon. I mean, Marvell did create the characters and Disney did fun all that CGI.



I don't think I suggested the success of Avengers was all down to Whedon. I even said "Of course Avengers had a huge build up, but it was the actual movie itself that made it such a huge hit and earned excellent reviews."

Not to pick on you but there are some people who see a quote like "a big part of the success of the Avengers is due to Whedon's writing and directing" but choose to only see " the success of the Avengers is due to Whedon" and then post endless comments attacking Whedon fans for "believing he's perfect" and "not tolerating any criticism".  Rather than attack what fans say they make up what they think fans say and then attack that. I think it was very revealing that GAT suggested I should have used a fact that was totally not relevant to "win" the argument. Right or wrong, fact or fiction, doesn't matter to these people, just winning the argument.

The build up Marvel did was huge, but the actual quality of the film, the reviews etc, played a huge part in its success. Films like Martix II and III also had a huge build up with fans clamouring to see it but failed critically. Avengers was no way a guaranteed commercial or critical hit.
 
2013-03-26 10:04:37 PM  

change1211: Gunther: GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.

Nah, he's always this way.


yep. big time douche.
 
2013-03-26 10:05:55 PM  

Flint Ironstag: The build up Marvel did was huge, but the actual quality of the film, the reviews etc, played a huge part in its success. Films like Martix II and III also had a huge build up with fans clamouring to see it but failed critically. Avengers was no way a guaranteed commercial or critical hit.


Pretty much this.  If the movie was completely and utterly "meh", it would've been a big financial hit on Marvel.

Sadly, we'll see the "meh" reaction come for "Man of Steel".  Which is disappointing, but not unexpected considering WB's have their heads up where the sun don't shine when it comes to adaptations of DC books.
 
2013-03-26 10:27:15 PM  
This man understands that problem all too well:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-26 10:42:28 PM  

GAT_00: Flint Ironstag: Know how I know you've never visited Whedonesque? The site where Whedon himself posts? people happily criticise things he's done and no one leaps on them or demands they be banned. Of course it's a fan site but to claim no criticism is allowed is just another myth that you've bought into.

Why in the hell would I go to a Whedon fansite when I can't stand the ones on here?


In fact, you hate it so much you're going to biatch about it here!

You're like Bevets in an evolution thread

Or another certain farker when Space or 3d Printing are mentioned.
 
2013-03-26 10:42:29 PM  

Gunther: - Dollhouse was unwatchable.


The first half dozen episodes, yes. The rest of it: fantastic.
 
2013-03-26 10:43:35 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: Sometimes having total control over your project still farks thing up.

[www.movieposter.com image 500x772]


At least the upside is Michael Cimino was never let anywhere near a major Hollywood release again.  So that's something.
 
2013-03-26 10:58:48 PM  

Flint Ironstag: I don't think I suggested the success of Avengers was all down to Whedon. I even said "Of course Avengers had a huge build up, but it was the actual movie itself that made it such a huge hit and earned excellent reviews."


I never said you did. I said that it's not really that relevant a factor in the success of The Avengers. We've seen plenty of badly written, horribly acted CGI wonder films -- Transformers, as I pointed out -- do incredibly well financially. Trying to correlate the financial success of The Avengers with any claim of talent of its writer is fairly pointless.
 
2013-03-26 11:05:59 PM  
He should stick to the smaller projects that afford greater control.  Dr. Horrible was great, and his idea for a Batman origin film sounds interesting.  His stuff doesn't need to be gigantic and piggy-backing on a huge label like Fox in order to reach an audience.
 
2013-03-26 11:14:45 PM  
Waterworld is must-watch every time its on TV.
 
2013-03-26 11:21:59 PM  

imgod2u: Flint Ironstag: I don't think I suggested the success of Avengers was all down to Whedon. I even said "Of course Avengers had a huge build up, but it was the actual movie itself that made it such a huge hit and earned excellent reviews."

I never said you did. I said that it's not really that relevant a factor in the success of The Avengers. We've seen plenty of badly written, horribly acted CGI wonder films -- Transformers, as I pointed out -- do incredibly well financially. Trying to correlate the financial success of The Avengers with any claim of talent of its writer is fairly pointless.


In purely financial terms Avengers did far better than Transformers. The Avengers budget was 145% the budget of Transformers but took 200% at the box office.

But I'd argue that Transformers was a good movie. Movies are a business and it made money. If I could get millions of people to pay $10 a ticket to go see my two hour "Cat on treadmill" movie then I'd be a genius. Bay might just blow shiat up but he does it very well in the way that matters. I love great cinema but I still love watching great films that just blow stuff up the same way I love good food but still happily love a burger every now and then.
IMHO Transformers was a better movie than the Martix sequels. Transformers did exactly what it promised on the poster. The Matrix was a fantastic movie but the sequels let the audience down by not fulfilling the promise.

People may have walked out of Transformers saying it was shiat but they still saw it and enjoyed it while they were watching it. Most people walked out of the Avengers saying it was great.  The Avengers got the millions of people to see it and got great reviews from public and critics alike. To that you have to recognise that the writing and direction must have played a big part. Marvel must think so since they've asked him to do Avengers 2 and make a new TV series for them.
 
2013-03-26 11:23:43 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: He should stick to the smaller projects that afford greater control.  Dr. Horrible was great, and his idea for a Batman origin film sounds interesting.  His stuff doesn't need to be gigantic and piggy-backing on a huge label like Fox in order to reach an audience.


He made his latest film in his own home with his own money. That's control.

/Didn't write the script though. That was some dead guy.
//Maybe that way he doesn't have to be paid royalties?
 
2013-03-26 11:32:46 PM  

Hebalo: Gunther: - Dollhouse was unwatchable.

The first half dozen episodes, yes. The rest of it: fantastic.


I've heard that it gets better a time or two, and I keep meaning to go back and give it another try... but it'd mean sitting through those first few episodes again, and I'm not sure I have the stomach for that.

I think I lasted four episodes and every one was just awful. Dushku just doesn't have the acting range necessary to play a completely different character every week.
 
2013-03-26 11:34:24 PM  

change1211: Gunther: GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.

Nah, he's always this way.


Yeah. I've always considered him an idiot.
 
2013-03-26 11:45:02 PM  

GAT_00: Gunther: GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.

Whedon devotees piss me off.


So, you're just here to rain on everyone's parade, because they like something that you don't like. Nice.

/Time for you to get another hobby.
//You're taking this one way too seriously.
 
2013-03-26 11:47:54 PM  

Flint Ironstag: The Avengers got the millions of people to see it and got great reviews from public and critics alike. To that you have to recognise that the writing and direction must have played a big part. Marvel must think so since they've asked him to do Avengers 2 and make a new TV series for them.


Here's the thing (to me) about The Avengers (and likewise Avatar).  The movie made a boatload of money, but does anybody still talk about it.  Was it a huge deal worldwide?  Yes.  Was it still three months later or when it came out on DVD?  Not as much.  Compare to the huge deal Titanic was (and still is 15 years later) in the cultural landscape.  I thought it was good, but not great.

//Though Avatar was about 30 minutes too long and kind of boring and formulaic.
 
ecl
2013-03-26 11:52:35 PM  

mjbok: Flint Ironstag: The Avengers got the millions of people to see it and got great reviews from public and critics alike. To that you have to recognise that the writing and direction must have played a big part. Marvel must think so since they've asked him to do Avengers 2 and make a new TV series for them.

Here's the thing (to me) about The Avengers (and likewise Avatar).  The movie made a boatload of money, but does anybody still talk about it.  Was it a huge deal worldwide?  Yes.  Was it still three months later or when it came out on DVD?  Not as much.  Compare to the huge deal Titanic was (and still is 15 years later) in the cultural landscape.  I thought it was good, but not great.

//Though Avatar was about 30 minutes too long and kind of boring and formulaic.


We're talking about The Avengers right now.  Only women ever gave two sh*ts about Titanic.
 
2013-03-27 12:21:38 AM  

Flint Ironstag: But I'd argue that Transformers was a good movie.


It made money. You could argue it was a successful business venture. There is no metric by which you could argue it was a good movie. I was on a plane from LAX to Sydney, and even with 12 hours to go, it was so farking bad, I wouldn't watch it (after making it about 20 mins in). Seriously, it was shiat.
 
2013-03-27 12:23:16 AM  

Drew Hates Boobies: GAT_00: Gunther: GAT_00:

Y'know, I don't have a horse in this race. I liked Avengers but I'm not a Whedon fanboy by any stretch - Dollhouse was unwatchable. I just wanted to point out that you are acting like a  total cock in this thread. Your tone is smugly superior and you're making up for weak arguments with personal attacks.

What the hell, man? You're usually pretty cool.

Whedon devotees piss me off.

So, you're just here to rain on everyone's parade, because they like something that you don't like. Nice.

/Time for you to get another hobby.
//You're taking this one way too seriously.


Whedon Threads:  GAT_00
DC Comics: First National Bastard
Walking Dead: T.M.S.

Hateshiatter Roll call.
 
2013-03-27 12:50:45 AM  
I wasn't surprised at how well The Avengers did with Joss Whedon at the helm. It made a believer out of a lot of people, and the ones that didn't are simpletons so they can't be helped. Maybe now he can start getting the respect he deserves.
 
2013-03-27 01:48:09 AM  

GAT_00: Whedon devotees piss me off.


So you've got such a huge hard-on to bash Whedon, that you're fine with posting irrational rants like one of fark's resident paid trolls, just to make sure the two or three people in this thread who like Whedon get to feel some hate?

Did Whedon rape your dog? Steal your girl/boyfriend?
 
2013-03-27 03:02:17 AM  

Flint Ironstag: imgod2u: Flint Ironstag: I don't think I suggested the success of Avengers was all down to Whedon. I even said "Of course Avengers had a huge build up, but it was the actual movie itself that made it such a huge hit and earned excellent reviews."

I never said you did. I said that it's not really that relevant a factor in the success of The Avengers. We've seen plenty of badly written, horribly acted CGI wonder films -- Transformers, as I pointed out -- do incredibly well financially. Trying to correlate the financial success of The Avengers with any claim of talent of its writer is fairly pointless.

In purely financial terms Avengers did far better than Transformers. The Avengers budget was 145% the budget of Transformers but took 200% at the box office.

But I'd argue that Transformers was a good movie. Movies are a business and it made money. If I could get millions of people to pay $10 a ticket to go see my two hour "Cat on treadmill" movie then I'd be a genius. Bay might just blow shiat up but he does it very well in the way that matters. I love great cinema but I still love watching great films that just blow stuff up the same way I love good food but still happily love a burger every now and then.
IMHO Transformers was a better movie than the Martix sequels. Transformers did exactly what it promised on the poster. The Matrix was a fantastic movie but the sequels let the audience down by not fulfilling the promise.

People may have walked out of Transformers saying it was shiat but they still saw it and enjoyed it while they were watching it. Most people walked out of the Avengers saying it was great.  The Avengers got the millions of people to see it and got great reviews from public and critics alike. To that you have to recognise that the writing and direction must have played a big part. Marvel must think so since they've asked him to do Avengers 2 and make a new TV series for them.


Uhhh, you kinda went off on a giant tangent there. I'll reiterate: Transformers obviously demonstrates that good writing does not correlate with financial success. And implying that the financial success of The Avengers was due to -- even if not entirely because of -- Whedon's good writing and direction doesn't hold up under scrutiny. That was your original point, that was what I refuted.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report