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  
•       •       •

7947 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
 
2013-03-26 04:42:46 PM
Or maybe his writing skills are only liked by a small but rabid fanbase
 
2013-03-26 04:55:59 PM
Sounds like he's learned more than a few lessons from dealing with the Hollywood machine.  If only the same could be said of the inverse.
 
2013-03-26 04:56:01 PM

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.
 
2013-03-26 04:56:25 PM
A large number of Whedon's projects have suffered failures or setbacks of some form.  The problem with this clearly rests among everyone else, and in no way has the Whedon failed.  The blame cannot, simply cannot rest in the single component that links all of those projects together.  All glory to the Whedon, for he is forever perfect.
 
2013-03-26 04:57:34 PM

MaxxLarge: Sounds like he's learned more than a few lessons from dealing with the Hollywood machine.  If only the same could be said of the inverse.


I'd love to know what the people who let/made him walk from Wonder Woman thought after seeing the success of Avengers?
 
2013-03-26 04:58:45 PM

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.
 
2013-03-26 05:01:50 PM

Flint Ironstag: I'd love to know what the people who let/made him walk from Wonder Woman thought after seeing the success of Avengers?


Well, money talks. I'm sure a shiatload of people who either rearranged his stuff or dismissed it entirely are pulling the "perhaps we were a bit hasty" pack-pedal now that it's too late. All it takes is for a movie that's true to the source material because of total visionary creative control to make a few billon dollars, and they start realizing they may have farked up somewhere.
 
2013-03-26 05:04:12 PM

GAT_00: A large number of Whedon's projects have suffered failures or setbacks of some form.  The problem with this clearly rests among everyone else, and in no way has the Whedon failed.  The blame cannot, simply cannot rest in the single component that links all of those projects together.  All glory to the Whedon, for he is forever perfect.


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".
 
2013-03-26 05:04:53 PM

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.
 
2013-03-26 05:06:15 PM
Meh. Every writer, director and producer in Hollywood could list great projects that got killed, rewritten, or otherwise mangled by writers, directors and producers.
 
2013-03-26 05:06:49 PM

Flint Ironstag: GAT_00: A large number of Whedon's projects have suffered failures or setbacks of some form.  The problem with this clearly rests among everyone else, and in no way has the Whedon failed.  The blame cannot, simply cannot rest in the single component that links all of those projects together.  All glory to the Whedon, for he is forever perfect.

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".


So your argument is that unless Whedon runs his story like a dictator and has total control over it, he cannot make it succeed and it's always someone else's fault it fails?
 
2013-03-26 05:08:12 PM

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.


The other common criticism is "he always hires the same people". Which isn't generally true (Firefly had an all new regular cast apart from Summer Glau who had a single bit part on Angel and for Dollhouse Whedon did not hire a single person he had worked with before as a regular, though there were a couple of recurring roles) but if it were true, so what? The guys you mention, Smith, Tarantino, Mamet, all work with some people again and again, and Mamet gets bonus points for hiring his wife! (Smith did as well for JASBSB but that was almost a cameo)
 
2013-03-26 05:10:29 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.


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.
 
2013-03-26 05:17:00 PM

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?
 
2013-03-26 05:21:08 PM
I'd say Batman and Iron Man did just fine without him.

Firefly was good, but Jesus Christ, good shows get cancelled all the time if they don't have a large audience. It sucks, but that's how networks are run.

And maybe critics did hate Buffy the Vampire Slayer the movie, but people of a certain age like it, and remember it fondly, and it made money.

Dollhouse sucked dick.
 
2013-03-26 05:24:43 PM

GAT_00: Why in the hell would I go to a Whedon fansite when I can't stand the ones on here?


That's ok, better to be a Whedon fan than a holier-than-thou political tool I suppose.
 
2013-03-26 05:26:08 PM

Flint Ironstag: and for Dollhouse Whedon did not hire a single person he had worked with before as a regular,


i84.photobucket.com

cf.broadsheet.ie
 
2013-03-26 05:26:23 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?



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?
 
2013-03-26 05:27:14 PM

Therion: Flint Ironstag: and for Dollhouse Whedon did not hire a single person he had worked with before as a regular,

[i84.photobucket.com image 720x960]

[cf.broadsheet.ie image 602x554]


Whedon did not hire Eliza Dushku.  It was her deal with Fox before he got involved. She hired him.
 
2013-03-26 05:28:24 PM

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.
 
2013-03-26 05:30:47 PM

GAT_00: So your argument is that unless Whedon runs his story like a dictator and has total control over it, he cannot make it succeed and it's always someone else's fault it fails?


It's always funny that it is utterly accepted on Fark that studios are dumb idiots with no creativity or brains. Until Joss Whedon comes up and then it's suddenly "Oh right, the studio cocked up. Suuure.... Studios making a mistake, Right..."

Nice quote from Sam Rami:

I did seeThe Avengers, and I loved it. I thought it was brilliant. Joss Whedon is an extraordinarily talented filmmaker ... and in fact, in 1994, I was making a western calledThe Quick and the Dead and having a script problem, and I came to the studio and said, "Can you find me a writer? I've shot this movie, and the end isn't quite working." And ultimately, the movie didn't quite work. But they suggested Joss Whedon, who was doingBuffy, so I met Joss and he saw the movie, and he helped me solve this ending in one afternoon. I thought,Damn, you're a good writer! I wish I could have had you rewrite the whole movie and save this picture! But I'll never forget how good he was, and how precise, so when I sawThe Avengers, I was not surprised that his name was on it. It's a very hard job to take all those heroes and all those stories and know exactly what bits the audience needs and what they don't need.
 
2013-03-26 05:33:18 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.


Circular logic is circular.

You're wrong because you made a claim with no evidence and where the evidence shows otherwise. Posters will freely criticise things Whedon has done on that site and no one calls them a heretic.
 
2013-03-26 05:37:24 PM

Flint Ironstag: You're wrong because you made a claim with no evidence and where the evidence shows otherwise. Posters will freely criticise things Whedon has done on that site and no one calls them a heretic.


That's the beauty of belief. He believes any argument on his logic is just more proof that all Whedon fans are rabid and crazy.

Let's just ignore the fact this is the internet and we just can't leave provably false assertions alone.
 
2013-03-26 05:39:45 PM

GAT_00: You never see Whedon fanatics criticize him. It's a farking religion. Whedon can literally do no wrong.

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.


Those two lines showed me that you are simply a hater and won't listen to anyone who has an opposing view on this subject. You are automatically dismissing anyone that disagrees with you, just like you claim they are doing to you.

FWIW I like Whedon, but I think he has short comings. I also don't think anyone else could have made Avengers as successful as he did.
 
2013-03-26 05:43:09 PM

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.
 
2013-03-26 05:45:27 PM

Flint Ironstag: Whedon did not hire Eliza Dushku. It was her deal with Fox before he got involved. She hired him.




What about the guy that played Wash on Firefly and Adam on Dollhouse?
 
2013-03-26 05:45:33 PM

cannotsuggestaname: GAT_00: You never see Whedon fanatics criticize him. It's a farking religion. Whedon can literally do no wrong.

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.

Those two lines showed me that you are simply a hater and won't listen to anyone who has an opposing view on this subject. You are automatically dismissing anyone that disagrees with you, just like you claim they are doing to you.

FWIW I like Whedon, but I think he has short comings. I also don't think anyone else could have made Avengers as successful as he did.


I can sum up why I can't stand Whedon in one word: shawarma.
 
2013-03-26 05:53:59 PM
or: why egomaniacs are difficult to work with.
 
2013-03-26 06:00:29 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Flint Ironstag: Whedon did not hire Eliza Dushku. It was her deal with Fox before he got involved. She hired him.

What about the guy that played Wash on Firefly and Adam on Dollhouse?


That's why I said "regular" and "though there were a couple of recurring roles". Amy Acker was the closest to being a regular.

But still the myth persists that "he only hires the same people again and again" when in fact the evidence is he hired a whole bunch of new people for new projects. Even Dr Horrible had two out of the four main cast actors he'd never worked with before, and that was made with his own money! Much Ado About Nothing is out soon and that, again made with his own money in his own house, has lots of actors he's worked with before but still lots of newcomers.
 
2013-03-26 06:08:30 PM

Flint Ironstag: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Flint Ironstag: Whedon did not hire Eliza Dushku. It was her deal with Fox before he got involved. She hired him.

What about the guy that played Wash on Firefly and Adam on Dollhouse?

That's why I said "regular" and "though there were a couple of recurring roles". Amy Acker was the closest to being a regular.

But still the myth persists that "he only hires the same people again and again" when in fact the evidence is he hired a whole bunch of new people for new projects. Even Dr Horrible had two out of the four main cast actors he'd never worked with before, and that was made with his own money! Much Ado About Nothing is out soon and that, again made with his own money in his own house, has lots of actors he's worked with before but still lots of newcomers.


I'm curious when you're going to realize that your "evidence" that he doesn't repeatedly hire the same people clearly shows that he shows a strong preference for actors he's worked with before.
 
2013-03-26 06:28:09 PM
I read all that as Joss Whedon can't communicate ideas very well.
 
2013-03-26 06:42:26 PM
I've never seen anything Whedon has done and liked it.  Sorry everyone... take my nerd card if you want.
 
2013-03-26 06:45:21 PM
If you have never been a "creative" who had to deal with client and executive meddling, a quick primer on how it tends to go, if you're LUCKY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSbXGsysAAk
 
2013-03-26 06:47:35 PM

GAT_00: Flint Ironstag: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Flint Ironstag: Whedon did not hire Eliza Dushku. It was her deal with Fox before he got involved. She hired him.

What about the guy that played Wash on Firefly and Adam on Dollhouse?

That's why I said "regular" and "though there were a couple of recurring roles". Amy Acker was the closest to being a regular.

But still the myth persists that "he only hires the same people again and again" when in fact the evidence is he hired a whole bunch of new people for new projects. Even Dr Horrible had two out of the four main cast actors he'd never worked with before, and that was made with his own money! Much Ado About Nothing is out soon and that, again made with his own money in his own house, has lots of actors he's worked with before but still lots of newcomers.

I'm curious when you're going to realize that your "evidence" that he doesn't repeatedly hire the same people clearly shows that he shows a strong preference for actors he's worked with before.




Forget it GAT_00, it's Whedonverse.
 
2013-03-26 06:50:51 PM
I found myself more interested in this related article:

5. All of his characters banter, all the time
Whedon is definitely known for the quotability of the dialogue, and the rhythms of the bantering and stuff. In particular, Buffy the Vampire Slayer became famous for the quippy teen dialogue with slang that seemed to come out of the language centers of Whedon's own brain. And yet, Whedon does pretty well at giving characters their own voices, and an hour of most of his shows isn't just non-stop quips or anything. Especially his later works, like Firefly or Dollhouse, deliberately pack in a number of characters with different viewpoints and ways of speaking, so that it's not all banter all the time.


You know, I might have to give Firefly a go, then.
 
2013-03-26 06:54:46 PM

GAT_00: Flint Ironstag: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Flint Ironstag: Whedon did not hire Eliza Dushku. It was her deal with Fox before he got involved. She hired him.

What about the guy that played Wash on Firefly and Adam on Dollhouse?

That's why I said "regular" and "though there were a couple of recurring roles". Amy Acker was the closest to being a regular.

But still the myth persists that "he only hires the same people again and again" when in fact the evidence is he hired a whole bunch of new people for new projects. Even Dr Horrible had two out of the four main cast actors he'd never worked with before, and that was made with his own money! Much Ado About Nothing is out soon and that, again made with his own money in his own house, has lots of actors he's worked with before but still lots of newcomers.

I'm curious when you're going to realize that your "evidence" that he doesn't repeatedly hire the same people clearly shows that he shows a strong preference for actors he's worked with before.


He's going about this argument all wrong.

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!!!"
 
2013-03-26 06:57:39 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?


Says the guy posting multiple times in a Whedon thread.
 
2013-03-26 07:01:11 PM
I got jumped on by Whedon fans because I said his work was okay but I didn't get the hype over it. They acted like something was wrong with me because I didn't get all rabid over it like they did.
 
2013-03-26 07:04:57 PM
Doll House sucked.

I'll be honest, I didn't watch Firefly when it was first on.  I watched the first episode, wasn't impressed, and then watched it later on and enjoyed it heavily.  The big problem is that the first episode, the train robbing episode, is the damn weakest.
 
2013-03-26 07:08:37 PM

andrewagill: I found myself more interested in this related article:

5. All of his characters banter, all the time
Whedon is definitely known for the quotability of the dialogue, and the rhythms of the bantering and stuff. In particular, Buffy the Vampire Slayer became famous for the quippy teen dialogue with slang that seemed to come out of the language centers of Whedon's own brain. And yet, Whedon does pretty well at giving characters their own voices, and an hour of most of his shows isn't just non-stop quips or anything. Especially his later works, like Firefly or Dollhouse, deliberately pack in a number of characters with different viewpoints and ways of speaking, so that it's not all banter all the time.

You know, I might have to give Firefly a go, then.


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.
 
2013-03-26 07:17:16 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Doll House sucked.


It had scantily-clad Eliza Dushku.  You go to hell.
 
2013-03-26 07:19:12 PM
Sometimes having total control over your project still farks thing up.

www.movieposter.com
 
2013-03-26 07:22:26 PM
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.
 
2013-03-26 07:24:47 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Doll House sucked.

I'll be honest, I didn't watch Firefly when it was first on.  I watched the first episode, wasn't impressed, and then watched it later on and enjoyed it heavily.  The big problem is that the first episode, the train robbing episode, is the damn weakest.


You didn't watch it in the right order. The first episode is Serenity.

I never watched it during it's original run or on any of the other runs it had on other channels, only on the DVD a co-worker lent me. I was hooked instantly.
 
2013-03-26 07:30:12 PM

GAT_00: You never see Whedon fanatics criticize him.  It's a farking religion.  Whedon can literally do no wrong.


This is the sort of comment that just shuts down discussion.

If we like Whedon we can either state that this isn't true, in which case we're defending Whedon and, thus, "proving" the claim. Or we can agree, in which case the point has been conceded.

As rhetorical tricks go, it's an awfully cheap trick, don't you think?
 
2013-03-26 07:30:22 PM

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.
 
2013-03-26 07:30:41 PM

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

[www.movieposter.com image 500x772]


cdn.stereogum.com
Yep.
 
2013-03-26 07:31:28 PM
My biggest problem with Whedon is I never got even a line of dialog.
 
2013-03-26 07:38:21 PM

GAT_00: Flint Ironstag: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Flint Ironstag: Whedon did not hire Eliza Dushku. It was her deal with Fox before he got involved. She hired him.

What about the guy that played Wash on Firefly and Adam on Dollhouse?

That's why I said "regular" and "though there were a couple of recurring roles". Amy Acker was the closest to being a regular.

But still the myth persists that "he only hires the same people again and again" when in fact the evidence is he hired a whole bunch of new people for new projects. Even Dr Horrible had two out of the four main cast actors he'd never worked with before, and that was made with his own money! Much Ado About Nothing is out soon and that, again made with his own money in his own house, has lots of actors he's worked with before but still lots of newcomers.

I'm curious when you're going to realize that your "evidence" that he doesn't repeatedly hire the same people clearly shows that he shows a strong preference for actors he's worked with before.


Really? So when he created Firefly he hired nine regulars, eight of which he'd never worked with before and one who had had a couple of lines in a single episode of Angel? That shows he "has a strong preference for actors he's worked with before"?
Then with Dollhouse again of the seven regulars all were new to him except Dushku who he didn't hire.
That's almost going out of his way tonothire people he's worked with before.

Again, nothing wrong with writers/directors hiring people they have worked with before. Many do, Smith Tarantino and Mamet as mentioned already. But if people are going to bring that out as a criticism of Whedon then the obvious fact that it clearly isn't true should be mentioned.
 
2013-03-26 07:38:38 PM
Lots of bizarre hatred for Dollhouse in this thread... it may have been his best show; certainly the most complex. I'll assume you were the poor saps who watched the first few episodes?

Dollhouse eps 1-5= Whedon had the same level of control as the Buffy film
Dollhouse eps 6-end= Whedon was given control of his own series

As far as criticism... I'll never forgive him for introducing Jane Espenson to genre television. She is a menace.
 
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.
 
2013-03-27 03:09:28 AM

ecl: 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 image 521x273]


I don't see the racism in those two. All I saw was they were acting like the Three Stooges minus one.
 
ecl
2013-03-27 03:22:23 AM

imgod2u: 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 ...


img402.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-27 07:11:47 AM
Hear your critics, but never let them guide your work.  You're looking for outside opinions not instructions.
 
2013-03-27 07:13:45 AM
FTFA:  Smallville's Jeph Loeb was on board to run the series, but had to leave after the studio kept dragging its feet.

 Consider tat a bullet dodged, Whedon.
 
2013-03-27 07:50:30 AM

images.imagecomics.com


/Not really

//Thought Avengers was Michael Bay level lame

 
2013-03-27 07:52:47 AM

Gunther: 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.


The problem is *(and this article highlights it)* Whedon never got what the show was about
 
ecl
2013-03-27 10:06:27 AM

Freschel: ecl: 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 image 521x273]

I don't see the racism in those two. All I saw was they were acting like the Three Stooges minus one.


http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2009/06/is-transformers-revenge-o f- the-fallen-racist
 
2013-03-27 10:19:05 AM
Whedon was the worst part of Avengers (Tony Stark in that film is not the Tony Stark of any Iron Man film I've ever seen). Buffy the TV series was only watchable if you're 12 years old and feel like every character should have sassy backtalk. And I turned off the first episode of Firefly when I heard a character use "gorram" more than once in a five minute period.

If I wanted to hear adults talk like catty prepubescent brats, I would watch reality TV.

Seriously, what the fark is the appeal of this guy?
 
2013-03-27 10:29:20 AM
You don't say.
 
2013-03-27 10:30:35 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

Damn unfetchable urls.
 
2013-03-27 11:04:44 AM

un4gvn666: Whedon was the worst part of Avengers (Tony Stark in that film is not the Tony Stark of any Iron Man film I've ever seen). Buffy the TV series was only watchable if you're 12 years old and feel like every character should have sassy backtalk. And I turned off the first episode of Firefly when I heard a character use "gorram" more than once in a five minute period.

If I wanted to hear adults talk like catty prepubescent brats, I would watch reality TV.

Seriously, what the fark is the appeal of this guy?


I think you're exaggerating when you say "prepubescent" and you really do mean "adolescent" and in the case of Avengers and Buffy THAT'S THE farkING TARGET AUDIENCE AND THAT'S OK. And it's ok as an adult to like adolescent things. The Clone Wars fits into that category.

As for Firefly, I guess I just disagree. Characters talking funny in sci-fi to illustrate the evolution of language and be able to cuss on tv... well, that's about as old as sci-fi itself.
 
2013-03-27 11:14:11 AM

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.


Uh, really?  REALLY?  "Titanic" was a POS romantic drama with a half-ass script  with grade-A SFX.  Avatar?  I saw a far better overall movie called "Dances with Wolves".  Avatar should've been more accurately titled "Dances with Smurfs".

Then again...anybody that disses "The Avengers" but raves over "Titanic" or "Avatar" needs a lobotomy IMHO.  "The Avengers" was good-natured, over-the-top fun; "Titanic"/"Avatar" = buying swampland in Florida that was labeled "prime real estate".
 
2013-03-27 11:15:36 AM

ecl: 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.


And, Sadly, people killed themselves over f*cking Avatar.  Killed.  Themselves.

James Cameron should rot in hell for that.
 
2013-03-27 11:15:41 AM
I forgot that Whedon was working on Batman: Year One.

If this report about Christopher Nolan being finally convinced to run Justice League is true, then this really has become Nolan vs. Whedon.

/Begun the fan wars have...
//My money is on Nolan.
 
2013-03-27 11:19:39 AM

Faith Logic Passion: I forgot that Whedon was working on Batman: Year One.

If this report about Christopher Nolan being finally convinced to run Justice League is true, then this really has become Nolan vs. Whedon.

/Begun the fan wars have...
//My money is on Nolan.


After "TDKR"...uh, that's called "losing your money".  Might as well do a Joker, douse your money with Kerosene and throw a lighted match on it.

DC/WB's got super desperate after watching Disney/Marvel rake it in.  People who make a desperate move, usually also make a stupid one as well.
 
2013-03-27 11:22:38 AM

cannotsuggestaname: GAT_00: You never see Whedon fanatics criticize him. It's a farking religion. Whedon can literally do no wrong.

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.

Those two lines showed me that you are simply a hater and won't listen to anyone who has an opposing view on this subject. You are automatically dismissing anyone that disagrees with you, just like you claim they are doing to you.

FWIW I like Whedon, but I think he has short comings. I also don't think anyone else could have made Avengers as successful as he did.


I LOVED Whedon's Avengers....

BUT I know another guy who could handle it:
cdn.pastemagazine.com
 
ecl
2013-03-27 12:26:47 PM

Rwa2play: ecl: 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.

And, Sadly, people killed themselves over f*cking Avatar.  Killed.  Themselves.

James Cameron should rot in hell for that.


Or wallow in opulence.  Whichever.
 
2013-03-27 12:29:25 PM

Rwa2play: 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.

Uh, really?  REALLY?  "Titanic" was a POS romantic drama with a half-ass script  with grade-A SFX.  Avatar?  I saw a far better overall movie called "Dances with Wolves".  Avatar should've been more accurately titled "Dances with Smurfs".

Then again...anybody that disses "The Avengers" but raves over "Titanic" or "Avatar" needs a lobotomy IMHO.  "The Avengers" was good-natured, over-the-top fun; "Titanic"/"Avatar" = buying swampland in Florida that was labeled "prime real estate".


Did I diss Th Avengers? No, I said it was good, not great. Nor did I rave about Titanic (in my post), but merely stated that it was a more long lasting cultural phenomenon. Which it is.
 
2013-03-27 01:30:08 PM

mjbok: Rwa2play: 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.

Uh, really?  REALLY?  "Titanic" was a POS romantic drama with a half-ass script  with grade-A SFX.  Avatar?  I saw a far better overall movie called "Dances with Wolves".  Avatar should've been more accurately titled "Dances with Smurfs".

Then again...anybody that disses "The Avengers" but raves over "Titanic" or "Avatar" needs a lobotomy IMHO.  "The Avengers" was good-natured, over-the-top fun; "Titanic"/"Avatar" = buying swampland in Florida that was labeled "prime real estate".

Did I diss Th Avengers? No, I said it was good, not great. Nor did I rave about Titanic (in my post), but merely stated that it was a more long lasting cultural phenomenon. Which it is.


Uh, sorry.  It was not my intention to bash you for your comments;  just that people that rave over "Titanic" and "Avatar" while bashing "The Avengers" makes me very stabby.
 
2013-03-27 05:34:25 PM

Rwa2play: ecl: 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.

And, Sadly, people killed themselves over f*cking Avatar.  Killed.  Themselves.

James Cameron should rot in hell for that.


I dunno, I'd like to think he's doing the gene pool a favor.
 
Displayed 120 of 120 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report