Does Joss Whedon know why his shows are good?

[Solusumbra]

He has like two female character models.

Attractive and inexplicably strong with over the top cheesy kung fu effects. Or ditsy and useless.

The only difference between Buffy and River is that River is meant to be GRIMDARKSPACEEXPERIMENT.

I dont know what you're talking about. You've obviously never paid any attention to Kaylee, Zoe, or Inara, because those three don't fit into any of the categories you describe. They have loads of character depth, even if we didn't get to see much of it due to the series cancellation. Buffy produced several strong and complex female characters, and Dollhouse had its own deal going which made its characters far more than stereotypes.

Please know what you are talking about before you make a statement like that.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I may just be sacrificing major nerd cred here but . . .

His shows are good?

This was my thought exactly.

I can't even tell you why his shows are good. I can't think of one that is.

Or perhaps it's just that I still hold a grudge against him for ruining the Alien franchise.

Oh the Aliens franchise was dead long before Whedon got his hands on it (everyone seems to forget how bad Aliens 3 was). And if he's guilty of anything it's digging up the bloated corpse of Aliens and trying to pass it off as a movie.

I think that people are generally pretty divided about the quality of Alien 3. But Joss Whedon just decided to piss all over any notions of good characters, dialogue, setting, and plot with Resurrection. At least there were SOME memorable characters and scenes in Alien 3, but I can't think of ANYTHING redeeming in the fourth film.

 

[Something Amyss]

Angle: mostly crap but popular because of its association with Buffy

Angle is popular because he won Olympic Gold with a broken FREAKIN' neck.

 

[Souplex]

No mention of his awful show "Dollhouse"?
I'm very worried about his heading the Avengers movie.

 

[WolfThomas]

He has like two female character models.

Attractive and inexplicably strong with over the top cheesy kung fu effects. Or ditsy and useless.

Better than just the later over again and over again, no?

I don't know I was thinking of Firefly when I wrote that, I thought the female characters were as well developed as the men.

but I can't think of ANYTHING redeeming in the fourth film.

Ron Perlman?

 

[Solusumbra]

Hyperbole, learn it, practice it, come back to me.

The point I was making, my pedantic little friend, was that he uses a lot of the same character types. You can look at pretty much any of his shows and pick out characters that fit the same, supposedly unique, niche. And that doesn't just apply to women.

90% of my behavior is the product of hyperbole (including that statement). And whether or not you thought you were exaggerating does not change the fact that you are wrong. Just because there are other films and shows whose characters are supposedly more complex and believable does not make his any less so.

 

[Shadowkire]

I think that people are generally pretty divided about the quality of Alien 3. But Joss Whedon just decided to piss all over any notions of good characters, dialogue, setting, and plot with Resurrection. At least there were SOME memorable characters and scenes in Alien 3, but I can't think of ANYTHING redeeming in the fourth film.

I am not a Whedon fan, but Aliens: Resurrection was not Whedon's fault. The screenplay he wrote was completely different from the hunk of crap that came out.

 

[Shadowkire]

some things

So wait, I only thought I was exaggerating? Sense, you make it in Russia.

And what I said wasn't wrong, as this is a true statement.

more things

Stop getting butt hurt because someone doesn't "zomg j'adore" your favourite nerd icon.

Instead of the two of you crafting arguments with no substance, how about Abandon4093 give us an example or two of those female characters he says were written better. This would give us perspective on what the two of you consider "well written."

 

[Snake Plissken]

I think that people are generally pretty divided about the quality of Alien 3. But Joss Whedon just decided to piss all over any notions of good characters, dialogue, setting, and plot with Resurrection. At least there were SOME memorable characters and scenes in Alien 3, but I can't think of ANYTHING redeeming in the fourth film.

I am not a Whedon fan, but Aliens: Resurrection was not Whedon's fault. The screenplay he wrote was completely different from the hunk of crap that came out.

I don't know where people get this idea. I've heard this argument a million times before, and it is completely untrue. He's on record saying that they changed the ending...and that's it. For the final version, he said that the third act was the only thing changed. If you're somehow defending the writing in the first two acts of the film, you've apparently never seen it.

 

[Mimssy]

I don't think he knows why they're good, he just does what he likes and for the most part it's a succcess.

Things Joss does that are in his favour:
-Dialogue
-Juggles characters
-Writes women well

He has like two female character models.

Attractive and inexplicably strong with over the top cheesy kung fu effects. Or ditsy and useless.

The only difference between Buffy and River is that River is meant to be GRIMDARKSPACEEXPERIMENT.

You are forgetting characters like Willow, Tara, Joyce, Cordelia (who becomes a real person in Angel), Sierra, Whiskey, and Adelle. All of these characters had depth to them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Looking at his history or at least what I know of it I see;
Buffy: Mostly Good, fairly popular, some episodes rank in the best ever broadcast
Angle: mostly crap but popular because of its association with Buffy
Firefly: Very good written, intelligent funny, not quite as popular
Dr Horrible Sing along blog: fantastic writing and story and somewhat popular.
Serenity the movie: fairly popular, poorish story
Glee; Very popular, some episodes are very good others are pure crap

He seems to be all over the place and I don?t know if he is trying to find a medium where he can have both incredible writing and popularity or if he just doesn?t actually understand what makes the projects he works on classics with extremely loyal following or popular with casual fans and just randomly hits one or the other.

Well, like you say, Angel was popular because it was a Buffy spin-off. The Serenity movie was popular due to Firefly. Just cause you got lucky doesn't mean you'll continue to.

Buffy did well because it was reasonable novel and inventive at the time...then everyone ripped it off so it didn't have that anymore, and Angel went down a path that'd been done to death already.

Not seen much Firefly, but it seems to have been seen as novel and inventive by viewers at a moment when people hadn't been making much of that sort of thing. Movie was fairly "meh" and self-indulgent.

He has like two female character models.

Attractive and inexplicably strong with over the top cheesy kung fu effects. Or ditsy and useless.

The only difference between Buffy and River is that River is meant to be GRIMDARKSPACEEXPERIMENT.

Also, this...he loves claiming to be a great feminist/lesbian trapped in a man's body, and there is some evidence of this...just not as much as he'd like us to believe.

 

[chowderface]

Glee; Very popular, some episodes are very good others are pure crap

Yep, I just wikipedia'd and imdb'd it and Joss Wheden had nothing to do with Glee at all

Don't fucking scare me like that.

 

[Jadak]

No mention of his awful show "Dollhouse"?
I'm very worried about his heading the Avengers movie.

Some of us loved that show, so please shut your mouth.

 

[Manji187]

I may just be sacrificing major nerd cred here but . . .

His shows are good?

No lost cred here.

I mean the guy had one decent show. And even that wasn't as good as the hype train would leave you to believe. There are much, much better nerd shows out there than anything he's done.

Al right, I'll bite. Much better nerd shows like....

A bold statement deserves some elaboration don't you think?

 

[clipse15]

I may just be sacrificing major nerd cred here but . . .

His shows are good?

No lost cred here.

I mean the guy had one decent show. And even that wasn't as good as the hype train would leave you to believe. There are much, much better nerd shows out there than anything he's done.

Al right, I'll bite. Much better nerd shows like....

A bold statement deserves some elaboration don't you think?

Well, I inverted the word nerd because I'm not entirely sure what falls into that category. There are a lot of immensely great shows that have a quirkiness to them that seems almost nerdy. Things like 'Breaking Bad' and 'Dexter'.

But if we're sticking solely to the supernatural, because that's where most of Whedon's interest seems to lie. 'Lost girl', although not a great show, is miles ahead of Buffy or Angel in my opinion. 'Being Human', that had actual character depth. The first two seasons were easily the best supernatural show on TV, (the third went a little nutty at the end.) 'Misfits', another supernatural 'drama' with more heart than anything Whedon ever touched. I'm even enjoying 'The Fades' more than anything Whedon did. And that's a tiny indie project. I suppose you could throw Ghost whisperer and medium in there if you enjoyed them.

Seriously, He did Firefly and that's the only noteworthy thing he's done. I'm sorry, but Both Buffy and Angel were tripe and I watched like 2 episodes of Dollhouse, but I can't say that was interesting.

No mention of his awful show "Dollhouse"?
I'm very worried about his heading the Avengers movie.

Some of us loved that show, so please shut your mouth.

Yea, opinions. They're not for everyone ay?

O God i'm not a Whedon fan but even the few episodes of Buffy i've seen are miles better than that terrible Being Human

 

[Smooth Operator]

I really only liked Firefly and Serenity, I think it's the whole Indiana Jones vibe to it that really does it for me.

The others are really average, sure I watched Buffy religiously but that was only because I didn't have porn.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

Pretty much every director and screenwriter in Hollywood has a portfolio that looks very hit-and-miss. It's just the nature of the business, especially in television. Shows that deserve to be kept are canceled before they even really find their own (for example, Firefly), and it's not always the fault of the creators. They may have had the best written and well-crafted show of all time, but if it doesn't produce the ratings the network wants or if they just decide they don't like it, it's gone.

I think if Joss Whedon didn't know what makes his work good, he wouldn't have so many cult hits. You severely underestimate Buffy--it was a phenomenon when it was on, and it still has a massive following to this day. And the fact that you would mention Glee is perplexing, as Joss Whedon has absolutely nothing to do with Glee. I'd write more, but it's clear you know very little about what you're talking about, so I don't really see the point in continuing.

 

[Nightmare-Child]

Joss Whedon is not for everyone. For me, his writing is not dark enough.

 

[BlastedTheWorm]

I'm of the "Whedon? Fuck, I LOVE Firefly! Wait, he does other stuff?" crowd. I don't care how good the rest is, because Firefly is enough for me. Even Serenity, even though it obviously had to be written to plug the gaping hole in Firefly lore left by Fox's inevitable betrayal the show's cancellation and suffered for it.

I'd say the comics fill the gaps left by Firefly's cancellation. Serenity is more of a sequel/expansion of the lore, rather than a gap filler.

Apart from Firefly and Serenity, I think Joss Whedon's stuff is complete shite.

 

[Garethp]

You forgot Dollhouse, another of his master pieces