Joss Whedon Is Still Bitter About Firefly

[BloodSquirrel]

"My experiences at Fox have not been successful," he said. "Ultimately it's because there is a certain amount of incompatibility that is very easy to miss. I like genre stuff, and that's what they wanted. You mention sexy and they want that but you can't actually mention sex. I have more of a cable mentality than I realized. I had been away from television for a while. I didn't know how much things have changed. I didn't look at Janet Jackson's nipple and I didn't know how much trouble it caused. What I learned was know your audience and your first audience is the people who are paying you to make [the show].

What a load. Not mention sex? That's what half of network television is about nowadays. What, exactly, did he want to do that other people aren't doing to network television?

Dollhouse was poorly written, period. The characters weren't interesting, his lead didn't have either the prescense to carry the show or the range to play different characters, and the stand-alone stories were phoned-in.

Joss, your cult just isn't big enough for network televison. Go play with the little guys.

 

[jackanderson]

Firefly is 8 years old
you people seriously need to move the fuck on.
(it wasn't even that good of a show anyway)

Angry mob arriving over yonder hill in 3... 2.. 1...

Anyways, I love Firefly. Like, "Favorite TV Show of All Time" love. Like, "Serenity being the 2nd Best Non-Pixar Movie of All Time" love. Like, "if it was a person I would have entered a long and happy marriage with it" love.

But I don't get why people would love it to come back. I've seen all 14 episodes about 7 times now (in two years, I watch it whenever I lose hope for TV) and the movie 6 (watching it again this weekend), and I feel that it shouldn't come back. In those 14 episodes (and movie), Firefly covered more ground and in such good quality than something like Law & Order did in 20 seasons. The show didn't live long enough to have a bad episode, to disappoint or to randomly kill of any of it's characters just because it could (looking at you, Dollhouse.)

Spoiler

Though I may sound like a deluded hypocrite, Shepard Book's death was very powerful and worked in terms of the story. Wash's...? Well... it definitely made me cry, I'll give it that much.

Yes, I'll freely admit that there was so much more that could have been given to us. And I will most certainly attest that the show was cancelled before it's time. But I firmly believe the ethos of "the light that burns twice as bright, lasts half as long". In Firefly's case, said light burnt too bright to go on for longer. So I feel that with what we have, Firefly has cemented it's legacy and does not need to be medelled with any more.

Besides; if you were to bring it back after THAT ending, then you wouldn't be getting my viewership, that's for damn certain.

Dollhouse, meanwhile, I don't fully get all of the hatred thrown at it. I've almost finished watching both seasons here in the UK (watching Epitath Two tonight), and I've thoroughly enjoyed it. Oh sure, it took a while to get going (those 5 Scooby Doo episodes) but it's then just improved each episode. At the very least, it's brought Enver Gjokaj to my radar. Damn, can the dude act!

Though it most certainly hit it's stride after it was cancelled, I've enjoyed just about every episode of the show (a Sky+ issue made sure I missed "Stage Fright") and am quite sad that the show ended.

Dammit, no space left to talk about the Avengers. Sorry for the length of the post.

And Whedon, DON'T SCREW THIS UP!

 

[jackanderson]

Sorry for the double post, but I'd just like to say...

They can't have failed if they're still being talked about and watched today. They just weren't given a proper chance to develop. Dollhouse Season 2 was honestly some of the BEST television I've watched (compared to the absolute tripe on TV's lately, that's not saying much). Also, speaking of that.. Joss Whedon picks the most AMAZING cast for his shows. Harry Lennix is brilliant as Boyd Langton, Dichen Lachman -owned- her role as Sierra (and then promptly KICKED ULTIMATE ASS in NCIS:LA as a street racer), Enver Gjokaj (Victor, as well as completely and utterly mimicking Fran Kranz's Topher right down to the mannerisms and speech, he's THAT good..) and Fran Kranz (Topher) are masterminds in their own right as well. No one catch Enver's episode of Lie To Me "React to Contact"? Honestly, I never liked watching NCIS or Lie To Me, etc.. Those sort of cop shows.. Never interested me. But watching these guys on their guest episodes.. They were brilliant.

It's probably also why I FREAKING LOVE Castle. When I watch that, I just can't help but think "Huh.. Captain Hammer's hung up Mal Reynold's browncoat and is now solving crimes as an author." He plays that role so well too.. Again, I don't normally like cop dramas, etc. Law & Order.. Eh..

I'm jackanderson and I approve of this message. Especially the Castle & Lie To Me shout-outs.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I'm pissed off too. We have film after film of Twilight and no-one could be arsed having another go at Dollhouse or Firefly...surely there are more of us than there are of THEM!

Nope. That's why they were canceled. There were more of THEM than of US.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Two things:
Dollhouse sucked until it was canceled, then became awesome when they realized they couldn't stretch the B-plot over seven seasons.
Joss Whedon was an idiot for pitching Dollhouse to Fox. Whatever happened to fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?

Fox had nothing to do with Dollhouse sucking. Whedon did.

The only mistake in going with Fox was that Whedon can't pull Fox numbers. He can scrape by on cable, maybe the CW, but nothing Whedon has ever done has been popular enough to survive on one of the major networks.

 

[ForsakenUK]

fox are making a habit out of cancelling shows people love....

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't believe in many universal truths. ...But one universal constant, one absolute truth, was this: all geeks love Firefly.

This, among other things, is a really good reason to NOT like Firefly. I don't like being labeled, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I even 'drank the Kool-Aid' - watching every single episode, in the correct order, in the space of less than a week - just to see what all the fuss was about. Let's just say I have yet to be impressed by Whedon's work.

His shows get canceled because his ideas are all flash-in-the-pan thoughts. Sure, he can come up with an interesting concept (in this case, combining sci-fi and western themes), but being able put a concept into a cohesive over-arcing theme is not in his skill set. Even though Fox did screw him over time and time again, the mark of true genius is being able to overcome such adversity.

I cite another major Fox blunder: Arrested Development. It had an amazing cast, excellent comedic timing, and an over-arcing theme that should have lasted for 5 seasons. Fox cut it off after 3 seasons of it's horrible time slot killed the mainstream interest. Unlike Firefly, Arrested Development managed to finish strong in the 3 seasons they had, by compressing the last 2-3 seasons worth of material into the last season. They were able to do this, because Mitchell Hurwitz already had the material planned, and merely accelerated the circumstances to suit the time available.

Sorry Firefly fans. Claiming geekdom for yourself doesn't make the rest of us like Firefly - it makes us hate Firefly fans. We're a rainbow of opinion, and forcing us into a black/white decision is not going to end well.

NOTE: My opinion is an expression of my personal thoughts on Firefly, and does not reflect any opinion held by The Escapist.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Even though Fox did screw him over time and time again, the mark of true genius is being able to overcome such adversity.

One of the things I hate about Whedon, actually, is how he always blames his failures on other people.

Firefly wasn't pulling in the ratings. Fox could have given it a little bit more of a chance, but even after years of a highly vocal fanbase trying to spread interest in the show, the movie still failed to do well enough to get a sequel.

Honestly, there are tons of shows that I've loved that didn't last for very long, and I've never felt the need to go around constantly lementing about how some evil conspiracy got them canceled just to spite me.

 

[Kavonde]

I don't believe in many universal truths. ...But one universal constant, one absolute truth, was this: all geeks love Firefly.

This, among other things, is a really good reason to NOT like Firefly. I don't like being labeled, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I even 'drank the Kool-Aid' - watching every single episode, in the correct order, in the space of less than a week - just to see what all the fuss was about. Let's just say I have yet to be impressed by Whedon's work.

His shows get canceled because his ideas are all flash-in-the-pan thoughts. Sure, he can come up with an interesting concept (in this case, combining sci-fi and western themes), but being able put a concept into a cohesive over-arcing theme is not in his skill set. Even though Fox did screw him over time and time again, the mark of true genius is being able to overcome such adversity.

I cite another major Fox blunder: Arrested Development. It had an amazing cast, excellent comedic timing, and an over-arcing theme that should have lasted for 5 seasons. Fox cut it off after 3 seasons of it's horrible time slot killed the mainstream interest. Unlike Firefly, Arrested Development managed to finish strong in the 3 seasons they had, by compressing the last 2-3 seasons worth of material into the last season. They were able to do this, because Mitchell Hurwitz already had the material planned, and merely accelerated the circumstances to suit the time available.

Sorry Firefly fans. Claiming geekdom for yourself doesn't make the rest of us like Firefly - it makes us hate Firefly fans. We're a rainbow of opinion, and forcing us into a black/white decision is not going to end well.

NOTE: My opinion is an expression of my personal thoughts on Firefly, and does not reflect any opinion held by The Escapist.

So, let me get this straight: something being popular is a legitimate reason to dislike it? Isn't this site aimed at an audience that's finished high school?

As to Whedon "planning out" arcs or not and his shows getting cancelled, I'll ignore the obvious counter-examples of Buffy and Angel, and focus on Firefly and Dollhouse. Both shows, in their first seasons, demonstrated a very general focus; here are the characters, here are their relationships and here is the world they live in. Firefly, due to the extremely well documented and decidedly factual screw-ups (or -overs) by Fox, never really had a chance to build an audience while it was on the air, and ended up dead on the vine before it could explore its greater themes or overarching storyline. However, we had hints of it with the Blue Hands and River's abilities; these threads were explored in greater detail in the Big Damn Movie, but, given the time to be fleshed out, could have easily supported a larger overall storyarc.

To further support my claim that contrary to your opinion, Whedon does in fact plot his stories out in advance, I direct you to Dollhouse. As mentioned, as with Firefly, the first season focused mostly on world building and less on plot development. Yes, I understand if you or anyone considered this a downside; I'm not the biggest fan of the first season myself. However, towards the end of it and through the second season, as with Firefly, the overarching storylines began taking shape, building a huge conspiracy and an end of the world scenario. There's really no better example than the "Epitaph" episodes, one at the end of each season, which took the story years into the future to show the aftermath of the events that were gradually building over the course of the main show. Honestly, they were brilliantly done, foreshadowing events and showing exactly what the stakes of this story were, but I'm trying to argue a point, not review the damn show. And then, much as with Arrested Development, the show was suddenly canceled halfway through its second season, and then, much as with Arrested Development, Whedon crammed the rest of the show's planned arc into the last five episodes to finish the tale.

Now, I have no intention of swaying you into a brown coat or trying to convince you that Whedon is God, but your opinion of his work seems to be based upon some large misconceptions which do not, in fact, agree with reality. If you don't like the shows, fine, but don't label him as a "flash-in-the-pan" guy when he's not.

 

[Reolus]

He's always seemed like a small fish in a big pond to me.

I have to wonder why he just doesn't try to reboot his cancelled shows with another TV producer. Surely there are others?

 

[Callate]

At least as far as Firefly is concerned, Whedon has every right to be bitter. I'm not of a mind that Whedon can do no wrong, but I appreciate that he's a good enough writer-director to be genuinely aware of genre tropes and knows how to play with them and poke fun at them without generally sinking into smug, campy self-awareness.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't believe in many universal truths. ...But one universal constant, one absolute truth, was this: all geeks love Firefly.

This, among other things, is a really good reason to NOT like Firefly. I don't like being labeled, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

So, let me get this straight: something being popular is a legitimate reason to dislike it? Isn't this site aimed at an audience that's finished high school?

...

Now, I have no intention of swaying you into a brown coat or trying to convince you that Whedon is God, but your opinion of his work seems to be based upon some large misconceptions which do not, in fact, agree with reality. If you don't like the shows, fine, but don't label him as a "flash-in-the-pan" guy when he's not.

1. My comment is not representative of The Escapist as a company. If you had read my post in it's entirety, you would see that there is no reason to bring the integrity of the site into question.

2. Questioning the maturity level and/or intelligence of ANYONE is neither a valid method of proving a point, nor does it do anything but show your lack of respect for those that don't share the 'popular' opinion you have. They do, in fact, teach this concept in high school. (At least they did in mine.)

3. My opinion of Firefly is independent of its supposed popularity. I don't like it because every episode has a half hour of pointless exposition before anything happens, the characters are flat and predictable, and the dialogue is not to my taste. My comment was directed at the nature of the fandom Whedon fans exhibit - which frequently (but not always) involves blanket statements, using the extremely vocal internet fanbase as a meaningful statistic, and offering excuses for failure. Frankly, Whedon's fans ARE a reason to stay away from his work, because not having a 'popular' opinion apparently warrants ostracization and contempt.

4. Perhaps I don't know the specific details of the work that went into making Firefly. I may be wrong to say that he didn't plan arcs, but my misperception is based on a lack of supporting material. 14 episodes of exposition that results in little more than ancillary character development and a bit of added dimension to the main characters is what I perceived from watching the series. Fox screwing it up has absolutely nothing to do with a writer's/director's ability to adapt to the changing conditions of production in order to reach the desired creative goals. It wasn't Whedon's first show, so he should have obtained the experience necessary to complete his work by then. Bitching about it 8 years later just puts a bad taste in the mouths of non-fans.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

4. Perhaps I don't know the specific details of the work that went into making Firefly. I may be wrong to say that he didn't plan arcs, but my misperception is based on a lack of supporting material. 14 episodes of exposition that results in little more than ancillary character development and a bit of added dimension to the main characters is what I perceived from watching the series. Fox screwing it up has absolutely nothing to do with a writer's/director's ability to adapt to the changing conditions of production in order to reach the desired creative goals. It wasn't Whedon's first show, so he should have obtained the experience necessary to complete his work by then. Bitching about it 8 years later just puts a bad taste in the mouths of non-fans.

Whedon plans his stories ahead- he's just not very good at it. His story arcs tend to follow the pattern of introducing a threat, sitting around faffing about for most of the season, then hastily wrapping things up in the last episode with a deus ex machima. Also, he'll randomly kill somebody unimportant, but it won't serve any real purpose and none of the other characters will care.

Your original comment is pretty accurate- he has ideas for what he wants to do, but he's terrible at putting them together to form a directed, well-paced narrative.

 

[Kavonde]

I don't believe in many universal truths. ...But one universal constant, one absolute truth, was this: all geeks love Firefly.

This, among other things, is a really good reason to NOT like Firefly. I don't like being labeled, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

So, let me get this straight: something being popular is a legitimate reason to dislike it? Isn't this site aimed at an audience that's finished high school?

...

Now, I have no intention of swaying you into a brown coat or trying to convince you that Whedon is God, but your opinion of his work seems to be based upon some large misconceptions which do not, in fact, agree with reality. If you don't like the shows, fine, but don't label him as a "flash-in-the-pan" guy when he's not.

1. My comment is not representative of The Escapist as a company. If you had read my post in it's entirety, you would see that there is no reason to bring the integrity of the site into question.

2. Questioning the maturity level and/or intelligence of ANYONE is neither a valid method of proving a point, nor does it do anything but show your lack of respect for those that don't share the 'popular' opinion you have. They do, in fact, teach this concept in high school. (At least they did in mine.)

I wasn't making any comment in relation to your official position with The Escapist. I was making a comment that a site supposedly geared towards older gamers has a surprising number of people voicing the "if it's popular I have to hate it because popular things are lame" opinions I, myself, outgrew after high school. And yes, I consider that sort of reflexive dismissal immature, because in my experience, it is. Like or dislike something because it's good or bad, not because the popular kids are into it.

Further, as you clearly read, seeing as you remarked on it, I had no intention of forcing my opinion on you. Nor do I expect every member of the international geek community to share my love of Firefly. I WAS, however, legitimately surprised at the negative comments about the show here; I am not exaggerating when I say that prior to this thread, I had never heard any geek, nerd, dork, or other intellectually gifted individual express a dislike of the show. The thing about my world view wasn't much of an exaggeration.

However, while I didn't intend to convert you or anyone, most of your post dealt with the claim that Whedon didn't plan his shows in advance, and I felt it necessary to correct this misinformation.

3. My opinion of Firefly is independent of its supposed popularity. I don't like it because every episode has a half hour of pointless exposition before anything happens, the characters are flat and predictable, and the dialogue is not to my taste. My comment was directed at the nature of the fandom Whedon fans exhibit - which frequently (but not always) involves blanket statements, using the extremely vocal internet fanbase as a meaningful statistic, and offering excuses for failure. Frankly, Whedon's fans ARE a reason to stay away from his work, because not having a 'popular' opinion apparently warrants ostracization and contempt.

All right, you've had bad experiences with rabid fanboys. I understand. But a few crazed zealots doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the product they worship. For example, I generally enjoy Linkin Park, even though I hold a fairly negative view of their fans. Also, I think Jesus laid out a pretty good philosophy, even if the Westboro Baptists protested Comic-Con.

4. Perhaps I don't know the specific details of the work that went into making Firefly. I may be wrong to say that he didn't plan arcs, but my misperception is based on a lack of supporting material. 14 episodes of exposition that results in little more than ancillary character development and a bit of added dimension to the main characters is what I perceived from watching the series. Fox screwing it up has absolutely nothing to do with a writer's/director's ability to adapt to the changing conditions of production in order to reach the desired creative goals. It wasn't Whedon's first show, so he should have obtained the experience necessary to complete his work by then. Bitching about it 8 years later just puts a bad taste in the mouths of non-fans.

Dude, for this, I have to put on my Fanboy Hat, and I apologize.

[haton]

William freaking Shakespeare could not have put on a successful show with the handling Fox gave Firefly.

[/hatoff]

But that aside, assuming you got the DVDs and you watched them in order and you still didn't like the show, then fine, that is absolutely acceptable. At no point did I try to force my opinion on you, as I mentioned above. I'm not some Whedon cultist trying to spread the Good Word. I was just trying to correct your erroneous assertions.

So I get where you're coming from, and I respect your right to your opinion, even if I disagree with it and can't understand it. But by the same token, I'd appreciate if you didn't jump to the conclusion that just because someone's defending something "popular," they're trying to bully you into liking it, too.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

words go here

Your knowledge and enjoyment of the work is not derivative of the nature of your being, nor does it indicate any intention to 'convert' anyone. I do not mean to imply that those who share the 'popular' opinion suffer such a fate, but rather that those who respectfully disagree aren't always motivated by the idiom 'I hate it because it's popular.'

Beginning your point (which is a perfectly valid, subjective view) with "Isn't this site aimed at an audience that's finished high school?" isn't going to gain the sympathy of those you disagree with, but rather will incite them to rebellion for rebellion's sake alone. While I do agree that it is very immature and inconsiderate of others to reflexively dismiss what is considered popular, objective debasement of those that don't share a similar subjective world view merely continues the cycle, and further divides the two groups.

Similarly, the use of labels like 'geek', 'nerd', 'dork', and so on are assumed cultural identifiers. Identifying yourself and others by this label serves only to objectify a shared subjective world view - a need to feel 'popular', which we all have as humans regardless of maturity. In this regard, offering a 'you're wrong' clause, even when masked by words like 'erroneous', serves only to further objectify your opinion as though it is fact (regardless of any truth to it). You may not be trying to 'convert' anyone, but this is hardly an effective means of communicating anything subjective to someone that doesn't already share your world view. This is what drew my attention in the first place - the assumption made by those that share the popular opinion that "all geeks should like Firefly". It's a very closed-minded world view, in my opinion, and I mean only to try to expand it without hurting any feelings. Apologies if I have done so.

 

[Greg Tito]

Firefly wasn't pulling in the ratings. Fox could have given it a little bit more of a chance, but even after years of a highly vocal fanbase trying to spread interest in the show, the movie still failed to do well enough to get a sequel.

Firefly was cancelled before it aired, for budgetary reasons as much as any other reason. An episodic or serial SciFi show has a significantly larger per-episode cost than most, especially when compared to a "Reality" show, which is why there's a lot of the latter on all channels now, and a real dearth of the former, SciFi or otherwise, on any channel.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I've never actually seen ANY of Whedons work, and though Sci-Fi western DOES sound interesting, I wonder how he could have possibly run a show on "Post Civil War in Space" for several seasons.

Now, if it was "Civil War in Space", that would've been more interesting. But the period selected for Firefly wasn't really one of momentous change, just expansion. The end of the Western Era, or the lead up to and actual Civil War itself, would have been more compelling.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Firefly wasn't pulling in the ratings. Fox could have given it a little bit more of a chance, but even after years of a highly vocal fanbase trying to spread interest in the show, the movie still failed to do well enough to get a sequel.

Firefly was cancelled before it aired, for budgetary reasons as much as any other reason. An episodic or serial SciFi show has a significantly larger per-episode cost than most, especially when compared to a "Reality" show, which is why there's a lot of the latter on all channels now, and a real dearth of the former, SciFi or otherwise, on any channel.

Aside from this not actually being true, it does little to invalidate my point:

Firefly just wasn't that popular. It wasn't getting high ratings while it was on and the movie went largely unoticed. Firefly fans keep confusing a very vocal audience for a large one, the latter being something that Firefly failed to obtain.

Joss Whedon has a cable-sized following. It's time to accept that and move on.

I've never actually seen ANY of Whedons work, and though Sci-Fi western DOES sound interesting, I wonder how he could have possibly run a show on "Post Civil War in Space" for several seasons.

Now, if it was "Civil War in Space", that would've been more interesting. But the period selected for Firefly wasn't really one of momentous change, just expansion. The end of the Western Era, or the lead up to and actual Civil War itself, would have been more compelling.

Cowboy Bebop and Trigun did it better.

 

[Greg Tito]

Firefly wasn't pulling in the ratings. Fox could have given it a little bit more of a chance, but even after years of a highly vocal fanbase trying to spread interest in the show, the movie still failed to do well enough to get a sequel.

Firefly was cancelled before it aired, for budgetary reasons as much as any other reason. An episodic or serial SciFi show has a significantly larger per-episode cost than most, especially when compared to a "Reality" show, which is why there's a lot of the latter on all channels now, and a real dearth of the former, SciFi or otherwise, on any channel.

Aside from this not actually being true, it does little to invalidate my point:

Firefly just wasn't that popular. It wasn't getting high ratings while it was on and the movie went largely unoticed. Firefly fans keep confusing a very vocal audience for a large one, the latter being something that Firefly failed to obtain.

Joss Whedon has a cable-sized following. It's time to accept that and move on.

The announcement of the cancellation wasn't made until after it aired, but the show was still dead. The executives that greenlit the show were gone, and the new team was going in a different direction. It was aired at the infamous Friday Night Death Slot; network TV shows aimed at younger audiences don't pull in good ratings at 8pm on a Friday night, because those audiences aren't home watching TV at that hour.

I'm not saying you're wrong about it not pulling in good ratings, I'm just saying it's odd to expect something shot twice in the chest before the race to put in a good time. It did great for a dead show.

 

[Kavonde]

Well constructed and thought-out words.

No hurt feelings over here, and glad to hear that's the case on your end as well.

However, and not to further the argument or start a new one, I've never said that all geeks should like Firefly...I was just under the impression that all geeks did like Firefly. This whole discussion was sparked over my discovery that this isn't so. I suppose thinking so was close-minded, but then, I never actually thought about it; it was just a natural part of the way the universe worked. What goes up must come down, an object that is set in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an outside force, and everybody who isn't a Fox executive digs Firefly.

So, blind spot recognized and learned from. Time for me to move on, a little bit wiser, and a little bit more disappointed in mankind.