Joss Whedon to Direct Batgirl Movie

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Whedon's projects must have sounded pretty crazy at the pitch phase.

A movie length remake of Dr Horrible.

 

[Kyrian007]

Whedon's projects must have sounded pretty crazy at the pitch phase.

A movie length remake of Dr Horrible.

Exactly, out of context that elevator pitch would be: "a musical where our protagonist is a mad scientist/supervillain who just wants to take over the world."

Going through his projects I think his most conventional story might be... Titan AE. And even that must have been difficult to get support for when you start with "First off, we blow up the Earth. We establish its gone right off the bat."

 

[maninahat]

Whedon has always had an explicit ideology, it comes up whenever someone asks "why do you write strong female characters?" which is all the time (sadly, no one asks him why he writes the exact same strong female character each time).

Is there anything wrong with an ideology, explicit or no? And if we're playing 'which central thing ties all of his work together', it certainly wouldn't be feminism, it'd surely be humanism (the rather brilliant final scene between Vision and Ultron in AoU reads pretty much like Joss splitting himself right down the middle; hope and faith in humanity - tempered by wit and a very philosophical perspective - on one side, bitter cynicism and fatalism on the other).

No problem with having an explicit ideology at all, I was making the argument that it isn't a bad thing. Also, theoretically it is impossible to avoid imprinting ideology or politics into something, because even an effort to avoid politics in itself is a political position.

And isn't his typical follow-up to that question 'Because you're still asking me that question'? It seems as good a retort as any to such an inane line.

It's one of them. He had an talk that entirely consisted of him answering the question over and over again with all the different answers he's used.

I think the accusation he simply repeats a single character is fairly ignorant, or just deeply - at times suspiciously - selective. Are we to judge only leads, for instance?... isn't it more productive to assess his ensembles instead, or female characters within those (if female characters must be focused on at all)?

Whichever you prefer. Admittedly I haven't watched all his shows, but of the ones I've seen there seems to be a consistent trend towards "attractive young waifs who like smart ass one liners and know kung-fu. They are usually empowered until they aren't, and end up sobbing on the floor. This is the case, even when the women in the work are literally programmable weapons (which they often are). They often end up naked, or at least barefoot for some reason.

I get that his bread and butter is sci-fi and action, so certain character conventions will certainly come up a lot, but it seems like he has a one track mind when it comes to writing these characters, like he only has the one fomred idea of what a strong female character looks like.

 

[Synigma]

Yeah... at this point I feel like we're getting a little too deep a look into his fetish...

I take it you habitually question all male writers if they stick to male characters - particularly male archetypes - then? Agendas and fetishes all around?

First off, it was a joke.
Secondly, Yes I would joke about any writer who keeps inserting the exact same trope character into all their writing.
And finally, you're projecting all over this because frankly you're the one inserting the male thing; I would have made the same joke regardless of the sexes of the writer or characters.

I love Joss' stuff and I love his strong female characters, but he turns them up to 11 a little too often. They push the bounds of being Mary Sues... so the question becomes is he inserting them because he wants to BE them or DO them? Maybe both? And that is why I went with the fetish joke.

Edit: because I don't know how to quote apparently. Teach me to not preview.

 

[KissingSunlight]

"Life" is the Big Bad of Season 6. I have heard people mention that before. I really don't like that explanation. It goes back my complaint that the writers tried too hard to make Buffy adult and they failed.

As I said, though, would you rather they didn't try at all?

They should transition the characters to post-college world. However, they failed by being overbearing with metaphors of adult issues. For example, Willow getting "addicted" to magic. A better storyline would be having Willow's moral compass getting skewed by abusing her power.

I felt "Darth Rosenberg" was thrown in at the end of the season when the writers realize that the nerds wouldn't be able to provide an exciting final confrontation.

You know that wasn't the case, though, right? That show was known for planning multiple seasons ahead, sometimes in the most ingeniously subtle ways. The trio were never the real Big Bad (I never even thought so watching it as it unfolded).

I know the Dawn storyline was planned. The first reference to her was in "Restless". However, writers do change and make mistakes in their plotting of the season. I have two Buffy-related examples of that. Initially, Joss Whedon wanted Xander to come out as gay. The other example is in Season 4. In The Yoko Effect, Spike split up The Scooby Gang. In the audio commentary, the writers realized they made a mistake of splitting up the group so late in the season. So, they had to write an awkward reconciliation scene in the next episode. A little easter egg in the episode where Spike calls out Adam for telling him to break up the group. That was in reference to the writers' mistake.

About Andrew, let's agree to disagree. In Season 7, I was rooting for him to get killed in every episode. I really just don't like that character. He was extremely annoying.

You didn't even feel for him at the end of Storyteller? You're cold... ;-)

I had to look up that episode, because I had forgotten what that one was about. Yeah, it was that episode that solidified my hatred of Andrew. Part of the reason was, I was a big fan of Jonathan. I thought him joining The Troika was a big step backwards for that character. Which also explains why another reason why I didn't like the nerd trio.

I understand the feminism message Joss was going for in Chosen. It works on that level. However, it was left vague on what Buffy was going to do afterwards. She could have gotten married, have kids, and retire from slaying.

For 'vague' I see open, and necessarily so. Dawn's last line and Buffy's half-smile denote possibilities, surely, which is something the character's not really had the luxury of since S1.

I completely agree with you here. I did appreciate the ending on that level. However, on the practical level, I did have a negative reaction to her decision.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

...apologies to anyone on the planet not quoted, who has to scroll past this.

No problem with having an explicit ideology at all, I was making the argument that it isn't a bad thing. Also, theoretically it is impossible to avoid imprinting ideology or politics into something, because even an effort to avoid politics in itself is a political position.

Ah, fair enough - if that was clear in previous posts of yours, I missed it as I didn't go back, I simply replied to that individual post (which is more or less a point I'll return to re the other person's post). The tone did appear pretty dismissive, to be fair.

Whichever you prefer. Admittedly I haven't watched all his shows, but of the ones I've seen there seems to be a consistent trend towards "attractive young waifs who like smart ass one liners and know kung-fu. They are usually empowered until they aren't, and end up sobbing on the floor. This is the case, even when the women in the work are literally programmable weapons (which they often are). They often end up naked, or at least barefoot for some reason.

Which shows/films have you seen?

I'm not suggesting everyone consume every work by a creator before assessing anything, but it stands to reason you kinda need to experience a decent range of output to start seeing patterns and motifs. Forgive me for seeming aggressively pedantic, but if you're fine with putting forward an opinion/assessment, then it's only fair to examine or challenge those. I just don't think certain popular perceptions hold up to much scrutiny.

Attractive young waifs: I'm not sure why that's worth pointing out, particularly given the quality of the casts he's worked with over the years.

As for youth? If we're broadly going with the list below behind the spoiler/clicky door, then a very small percentage of characters conform to that. Buffy starts in highschool, and it is specifically about adolescence and the transition into the adult world (across all seven seasons). But beyond that, I suppose fellow Slayer Fray at 19 counts, and River (I don't count early or mid 20's as 'youthful', btw, that's just an adult).

Is that enough to contribute to a 'he creates the same female characters' assessment? I really don't see how.

I feel he can be superb at portraying the transition into adulthood, because for him it's a way to brazenly explore one of the most pivotal periods in all our lives; when a search for identity and our own self-determined purpose/meaning is most vivid and consequential. Merge the mundane with the magical, and you have a character like Dawn, which conceptually exemplifies what made Buffy such an iconic show; reconciling adolescent angst with rather horrific mystically imposed existentialism (TLDR for her arc: she was a mystical Key, never a human being from birth), as well as frequently juxtaposing and breaking that tension with often wry humour.

So, even though he demonstrably doesn't tend to write particularly young characters (regardless of gender), if he did bias towards that I suppose 'because he's really good at it' would suffice as context or explanation.

Empowerment: there are different kinds of empowerment (wasn't Tara empowered? Joyce Summers? or Kaylee and Inara?), and a character struggles to be compelling at all if they are never brought low. Being a humanist Joss is keenly aware of people's fallibility, so he tends to allow his characters of both genders and all ages to be 'dis-empowered', to show vulnerability, and weakness. So, again, that part of the supposed pattern doesn't hold up. If people have an issue or are weary of him laying low so many of his characters [of either gender and any age], then fair enough, but that's not the same thing.

This is the case, even when the women in the work are literally programmable weapons (which they often are)

Often? River's a "programmable weapon", but who else is? Maybe Black Widow (a character he didn't create and was already established in the MCU)? Her 'human-as-dehumanised-weapon' moments are only hinted at in flashbacks, and briefly touched upon in The Avengers, so I don't see how she even conforms (she is, more or less, fully re-adjusted to her Avengin' life in all the MCU films she appears in).

Active 'Dolls' can be in Dollhouse, sure, but as blank slates they can also be anything, which was the whole point. Being a humanist inherently suspicious of hierarchically manipulative power structures, he keeps returning to narratives and arcs which explore processes of dehumanisation, usually of systems/institutions removing or obstructing healthy and connective empathetic responses for their own corrupting/selfish ends (Buffy's Watchers and the Initiative, The Avengers S.H.I.E.L.D., the Dollhouse corporations, those controlling the sacrifices in Cabin In The Woods, etc).

If he did keep creating so many 'weapons', then he'd at least have a very sound and engaging reason for doing so.

As for naked and barefoot: those are peculiar things to notice, that probably reveal more about the person picking them out than Joss's works for including them.

Apparel is part of character narrative and themes, right? Well it's pretty obvious being barefoot connects you to your environment in a unique way, and that it is also far more vulnerable/open (e.g. River being prominently barefoot in Objects In Space, which is the only example that immediately comes to mind). Perhaps Joss just uses clothing in that sense, ergo there are good, fairly obvious reasons for characters going sans socks/shoes/clothes...

I get that his bread and butter is sci-fi and action, so certain character conventions will certainly come up a lot, but it seems like he has a one track mind when it comes to writing these characters, like he only has the one fomred idea of what a strong female character looks like.

I believe it's more accurate to say Joss is unfairly singled out (usually by people unfamiliar with his body of work, or who have only viewed Buffy and Firefly/Serenity, and maybe googled Dollhouse), simply because he happens to enjoy including female characters.

So far you've not even tried to prove your assessment via actual examples, and I've provided plenty which buck the supposed trend/pattern/trope.

Just for the record and the hell of it, here's a look at---

Spoiler: ---a reasonably thorough gender flavoured breakdown of his work from 1995 to 2014

I've not included literally everything he's had his name attached to (no rewrites or uncredited passes), but here's the breakdown of leads across either his own works, stuff he's primarily been the creator/writer of, as well as some clear co-written content.

So out of 12 works, 5 have clear female leads or are female led ensembles[footnote]Buffy, Dollhouse, Fray, In Your Eyes, Alien Resurrection[/footnote], 2 have clear male leads [footnote]Angel, Dr Horrible[/footnote], and 5 have clear ensembles or ensembles with a male bias [footnote]Firefly, The Avengers, Cabin In The Woods, Toy Story, Astonishing X-Men[/footnote].

I wouldn't personally count Toy Story (no idea how much control he had over the project/characters/final script), or Alien Resurrection, either, as the production was a disaster, I'm not entirely sure how much of Joss's script ended up on screen, and he obviously didn't create Ripley. I do count Astonishing X-Men, as he had full authorial control over the story, characters, and dialogue. Cabin was a collaboration, but I know he had significant input and the tone and themes generally tie in to all of his other work.

I'm not counting Much Ado About Nothing for obvious reasons (he changed a word or two, and flipped the gender of one character), or Titan AE, as I've no idea about his involvement nor have I seen it. From its synopsis and promos it seems to have a male lead. I've never seen In Your Eyes, but I'll count it as it was obviously his work and it's a full length feature (I somehow remembered it as a brief short, but evidently not). Nor am I including Atlantis: The Lost Empire, as he's not got a screenplay credit, only a 'story by' alongside five other writers.

I don't include Serenity or Age Of Ultron, btw, as they're essentially bundled in with Firefly and The Avengers, though both would up the number of male led ensembles to 7. Nor did I include the original 1992 Buffy film, given it's simply the identical character and basic story (no one lists '95 Buffy and '97-2003 Buffy in any 'female characters he created' lists).

I also omitted Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. because it's still probably shit because I think he only wrote and directed one episode. But if we're counting it, then it likely adds to the ensemble category, taking that count up to 8. Much Ado would be another ensemble if you're including it, taking that up to 9.

(if I've made any relevant mistakes, point 'em out)

Even by adding Batgirl to the list, there's still a clear bias towards ensembles, often focusing on male characters and narratives (and I'd argue the female characters across the range do not conform to any reductive trend, and that people primarily reference Buffy and River and fill in the blanks).

First off, it was a joke.
Secondly, Yes I would joke about any writer who keeps inserting the exact same trope character into all their writing.

Fair enough Part II (see the very top of this post for Part I), apologies for reacting/projecting/presuming.

And finally, you're projecting all over this because frankly you're the one inserting the male thing; I would have made the same joke regardless of the sexes of the writer or characters.

Can you really blame me, though? (again, as above, apologies if previous posts of yours provided context)

These days on t'internet it's often nigh on impossible to tell jokes, trolling, or genuine opinion apart... and Joss certainly has, and does, attract the inverted sexism criticism, which - devoid of context [or me taking the trouble to see if earlier posts provided context] - would pretty much be indistinguishable from your post.

I love Joss' stuff and I love his strong female characters, but he turns them up to 11 a little too often. They push the bounds of being Mary Sues... so the question becomes is he inserting them because he wants to BE them or DO them? Maybe both? And that is why I went with the fetish joke.

Eh, without a character by character breakdown we'll just agree to disagree on that one. I'm not keen on the 'strong female character' or Mary Sue angles of tropey critique, either, as I find both painfully reductive, not to mention very often sexist. People barely ever have an issue with 'strong male characters', they're generally just 'characters', and competency is assumed because they're usually a lead in a fancy story. Female characters always attract an undue degree of scrutiny.

In the audio commentary, the writers realized they made a mistake of splitting up the group so late in the season. So, they had to write an awkward reconciliation scene in the next episode. A little easter egg in the episode where Spike calls out Adam for telling him to break up the group. That was in reference to the writers' mistake.

They course corrected at times, sure, but I don't see that as comparable to 'Huh, the trio aren't working, let's make Willow, or Life, the Big Bad' at all.

However, off the top of my head I can't reference any commentary, interview, or other source 'proving' precisely how Joss and Marti always intended S6, so for now our own feelings/reactions on that aspect of the season are true for both of us (I have thought about starting the whole show again given the anniversary, but I've gone through them all multiples times as it is, and I have Game Of Thrones and a few Netlix Marvel shows to catch up on... I might at least give Welcome To The Hellmouth a watch, and then cherry pick a handful from each season eventually).

Part of the reason was, I was a big fan of Jonathan. I thought him joining The Troika was a big step backwards for that character. Which also explains why another reason why I didn't like the nerd trio.

...without S6 and those three, you couldn't have had Spike threatening to break Boba Fett, which is obviously a show highlight. ;-)

Joss has talked (including very recently) about S6 stripping away the metaphors and subtexts of the earlier show, and laying it all bare, so to speak. In an echo of Superman not being able to save Jonathan Kent despite all his abilities (or Buffy and her mother in S5), I felt it was an important and rather crushingly mundane act to have Tara struck down by an impotently enraged nerd's bullet as the catalyst for uber-power-witch Willow's eventual fall. And for a lack of conventional super-heroism (a simple childhood connection between lifelong friends) to save the day.

As for Jonathan? He had that beautifully written, and acted (between he and Tom Lenk's Andrew), mini monologue re wanting to know how everyone from his school days were doing, that despite what may've happened in the past he still cared about them regardless of what they might still feel. He may've made a [fatal] mistake in joining the Troika, but I feel he had a great resolution before the end.

I completely agree with you here. I did appreciate the ending on that level. However, on the practical level, I did have a negative reaction to her decision.

My only memory of that moment, first time around, was me crying a lot because that really was the end...

 

[maninahat]

...apologies to anyone on the planet not quoted, who has to scroll past this.

Whichever you prefer. Admittedly I haven't watched all his shows, but of the ones I've seen there seems to be a consistent trend towards "attractive young waifs who like smart ass one liners and know kung-fu. They are usually empowered until they aren't, and end up sobbing on the floor. This is the case, even when the women in the work are literally programmable weapons (which they often are). They often end up naked, or at least barefoot for some reason.

Which shows/films have you seen?

I've seen a few episodes of Buffy, All of Firefly and Serenity, His Marvel Movies, His Dr horrible's Sing Along and season one of Doll House. I've also seen things he's written for, like Alien Resurrection.

Attractive young waifs: I'm not sure why that's worth pointing out, particularly given the quality of the casts he's worked with over the years.

As for youth? If we're broadly going with the list below behind the spoiler/clicky door, then a very small percentage of characters conform to that. Buffy starts in highschool, and it is specifically about adolescence and the transition into the adult world (across all seven seasons). But beyond that, I suppose fellow Slayer Fray at 19 counts, and River (I don't count early or mid 20's as 'youthful', btw, that's just an adult).

I'd consider all of those youthful, considering that in real life women come in all ages. For reference, people only stopped calling me a "young man" this year and I'm 29 (and that's only when I don't shave. When I do, strangers in the street ask me if I'm looking for my parents).

If there are ever older women in Whedon's movies, they either don't look old or they play much smaller parts. I could make a broader criticism that the movie/tv industry on the whole tends to avoid casting ugly or older women in decent roles, but it's more egregious with Whedon when he's given a positive reputation for female treatment. That reputation falters a little if Whedon only likes to write women as young and sexy.

Empowerment: there are different kinds of empowerment (wasn't Tara empowered? Joyce Summers? or Kaylee and Inara?), and a character struggles to be compelling at all if they are never brought low. Being a humanist Joss is keenly aware of people's fallibility, so he tends to allow his characters of both genders and all ages to be 'dis-empowered', to show vulnerability, and weakness. So, again, that part of the supposed pattern doesn't hold up. If people have an issue or are weary of him laying low so many of his characters [of either gender and any age], then fair enough, but that's not the same thing.

I don't recall Mal or Iron Man getting bleary eyed in his shows. They're all stoic and manly and stuff - its up to the female characters to do the crying or the cowering. On one hand, yes it is good characterisation to show people at their moment of weakness, losing all composure, or being completely disempowered, but on the other it looks a bit odd when it seems to be the same sorts of characters that get picked on. Would it ever have crossed Whedon's mind to show Nathan Fillion naked and frozen in a box?

This is the case, even when the women in the work are literally programmable weapons (which they often are)

Often? River's a "programmable weapon", but who else is? Maybe Black Widow (a character he didn't create and was already established in the MCU)? Her 'human-as-dehumanised-weapon' moments are only hinted at in flashbacks, and briefly touched upon in The Avengers, so I don't see how she even conforms (she is, more or less, fully re-adjusted to her Avengin' life in all the MCU films she appears in).

Active 'Dolls' can be in Dollhouse, sure, but as blank slates they can also be anything, which was the whole point. Being a humanist inherently suspicious of hierarchically manipulative power structures, he keeps returning to narratives and arcs which explore processes of dehumanisation, usually of systems/institutions removing or obstructing healthy and connective empathetic responses for their own corrupting/selfish ends (Buffy's Watchers and the Initiative, The Avengers S.H.I.E.L.D., the Dollhouse corporations, those controlling the sacrifices in Cabin In The Woods, etc).

The point is, Whedon is fond of creating these characters, established as trained, deadly killer women who are unbeatable in hand-to-hand, but also is just as fond of seeing them tied down, trapped, cowering, paralysed, prisoners of their own mind or whatever it takes to see them reduced to a submissive state. He does this more with his "strong female characters" than with the male ones. Also, whilst I appreciate the intellectual interpretation of his works, I don't think they act as suitable justifications for why he keeps doing certain things.

As for naked and barefoot: those are peculiar things to notice, that probably reveal more about the person picking them out than Joss's works for including them.

It shows how narrowly specific Whedon can be in his characterisation of women. Plus if a guy with a foot fetish feels the need to include shoeless women in his shows, that suggests some peculiar priorities. You can see this behaviour in a lot of creators, where there is a conflict between how they want to present women and how they like to see them. William Marston, for instance, created Wonder Woman, who is simultaneously an icon of womanly power and determination, but who is also an excuse for him to produce countless images of women being gagged and hogtied. These guys can have their kinks of course, but when they indulge in them in story writing, they risk creating these contradictory depictions of their female characters.

I believe it's more accurate to say Joss is unfairly singled out (usually by people unfamiliar with his body of work, or who have only viewed Buffy and Firefly/Serenity, and maybe googled Dollhouse), simply because he happens to enjoy including female characters.

So far you've not even tried to prove your assessment via actual examples, and I've provided plenty which buck the supposed trend/pattern/trope.

Alright, I'll give you just one: In The Avengers, Black Widow is one of the greatest hand-to-hand fighters in the World. This is established early on, when she beats up a bunch of mobsters in a barn (but not before we get a nice long barefoot interrogation scene from her, natch). It establishes she has a strong will and a cunning wit when she outsmarts with Loki (though not before he calls her a whining ****). Despite this, we still have a scene where she is trapped under some piping, shitting herself in fear, and pleading with Bruce Banner not to turn into the Hulk and kill her. My point isn't that this sort of thing shouldn't exist, just that for the likes of Whedon, it can only happen to his women. It isn't Captain America under those pipes, or Iron Man doing the shivering - they'd already be rolling up their sleeves and figuring out a solution.

Even by adding Batgirl to the list, there's still a clear bias towards ensembles, often focusing on male characters and narratives (and I'd argue the female characters across the range do not conform to any reductive trend, and that people primarily reference Buffy and River and fill in the blanks).

You've missed my general point. I didn't say Whedon only writes stories about sexy, feisty young women. I said that when he writes women into his stories, they are most often portrayed as similar, sexy, feisty young women. The trend is in how he writes women, not how he writes shows overall. That's kind of why I'm reluctant to see another female superhero end up in his hands, especially one who was infamously shot through the spine and sexually exploited by the Joker.

 

[Synigma]

First off, it was a joke.
Secondly, Yes I would joke about any writer who keeps inserting the exact same trope character into all their writing.

Fair enough Part II (see the very top of this post for Part I), apologies for reacting/projecting/presuming.

And finally, you're projecting all over this because frankly you're the one inserting the male thing; I would have made the same joke regardless of the sexes of the writer or characters.

Can you really blame me, though? (again, as above, apologies if previous posts of yours provided context)

These days on t'internet it's often nigh on impossible to tell jokes, trolling, or genuine opinion apart... and Joss certainly has, and does, attract the inverted sexism criticism, which - devoid of context [or me taking the trouble to see if earlier posts provided context] - would pretty much be indistinguishable from your post.

Yeah I understand that. I mean it's a sex joke about a feminist, I can see how one would jump to that assumption. And yeah there wasn't much context outside of it being in reference to his inserting powerful women into all his works (which again, I can see how that could be taken as a sexist position too). I appreciate that you didn't just double down on assuming I'm just a sexist.

I love Joss' stuff and I love his strong female characters, but he turns them up to 11 a little too often. They push the bounds of being Mary Sues... so the question becomes is he inserting them because he wants to BE them or DO them? Maybe both? And that is why I went with the fetish joke.

Eh, without a character by character breakdown we'll just agree to disagree on that one. I'm not keen on the 'strong female character' or Mary Sue angles of tropey critique, either, as I find both painfully reductive, not to mention very often sexist. People barely ever have an issue with 'strong male characters', they're generally just 'characters', and competency is assumed because they're usually a lead in a fancy story. Female characters always attract an undue degree of scrutiny.

I get where you're coming from so I feel like I have to explain my actual position. I only use terms like Mary Sue and trope because I'm trying to be concise. It really only comes down to a couple characters that stand out to me: River is the peak of what I'm referring to, powerless to the point of being a burden but by the end she's a killing machine (I still love River but I think that's a testament to how good he is at writing characters). Ripley in Resurrection is pretty... overpowered? weird? cringy? Buffy to me has always just been a fun show, so although that kinda fits into this category I also wouldn't seriously use it as an example.

Honestly the only reason I've even noticed the trend at all is because I heard him joke about it on a voice over (for Serenity, talking about one of the River fight scenes I believe). That being said there is a specific aspect to his stories that do set them apart from most male counterparts in other shows/movies. His powerful women characters are usually thrust into a horrible position of powerlessness until they learn to control the very power that holds them down: Again River and her mental powers, Ripley (though not powerless) is brought back as a vessel for the very creature she gave her life to destroy (and that scene where she is presented with all the failed clones), Echo is literally a puppet on strings, Buffy is very tongue in cheek but early on plays with the idea that she just wants to be a normal girl and she hates having to go out and kill vampires constantly.
The male versions of these are usually played as power fantasies: boy finds out he's special and becomes super hero to defend/avenge those he cares about. Maybe it's just me but the tone Whedon usually presents feels different. Joss seems to insert more themes of self-empowerment like they were only ever being held back by themselves. Even his handling of Black Widow, seeing herself as a monster because she can't have children, is setting up a personal block to be overcome. I bet if Marvel had let him make the Black Widow movie then overcoming that would have been one of the central themes. To be clear, I'm presenting this as a discussion about Whedon's writing style not as an indictment/condone of grander writing styles about male/female characters.
Anyway, wow, this went on way longer than I expected... like I said, I used those words because I didn't want to build a textwall like this.

I think he will be a great director for Batgirl and now I'm curious to see if she ends up with the same theme of self-empowerment.

 

[Claudzia]

I'm kind of excited, but tbh i never cared all that much about the Batfamily except for Huntress/Helena Bertinelli.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I'd consider all of those youthful, considering that in real life women come in all ages.

It's reasonable to compare one slice of pop-culture to another, not to something else or some other personal ideal, and by that standard they really aren't particularly youthful. If he used primarily teenaged casts, sure, it might be noteworthy.

That said (I'll quote you slightly out of order as I want to address one thing first)---

...I could make a broader criticism that the movie/tv industry on the whole tends to avoid casting ugly or older women in decent roles, but it's more egregious with Whedon when he's given a positive reputation for female treatment. That reputation falters a little if Whedon only likes to write women as young and sexy.

Does pop-culture have an issue with how it represents and uses older female characters? Absolutely, I feel we live in an endemically sexist society so I couldn't disagree with that.

However, where we might have to agree to disagree - re the underlined: I see no benefit in a creator nixing their opportunity to create and communicate in the mainstream sphere by conforming to very narrow, self-imposed ideals. Art is almost without exception compromised; compromised by prevailing trends, by other people's judgements, by our own anxieties about our own work, and then by economic factors, and so on.

As much as an auteur as Joss may be, he exists just like any other creator within a complex network of those invested (in both senses of the word) in a project. Producers, casting networks, studio execs, CEO's, advertising bodies, and so on. Pop-culture is obviously a business, as well as a creative pursuit, and if you wish to work in the mainstream it stands to reason that your creation must be compromised to a greater extent than if you were attempting to create it completely independently.

I value the mainstream a great deal, as--- *unavoidable pretentiousness incoming* ---pop-culture/the zeitgeist's essentially our collective subconsciousness and id flavoured playground all in one... (for want of several possible better terms) A place where things are processed, distorted, mulled over, and the end results are tangled and often hard to draw conclusions from (specifically at the time, i.e. understanding context and 'intent' whilst it is contemporary/active). It's a sphere where collective fears and hopes are projected, where value systems are reflected. It's essentially a big frikkin' entity of self-reflexivity. Marvel films are near the heart/centre of it (re mass market universal appeal), and something like Terrence Malick's Tree Of Life is near the very periphery - to me, both are equal (all things are relative) in that they play specific functions in pop-culture.

Joss is clearly also a lover of the mainstream/zeitgeist, of what it may represent to individuals, of how characters and stories and ideas are collectively remembered (in turn inspiring other characters, stories, and so on).

So what compromises are acceptable for someone like Joss to make? Would anything be gained - or achieved - if he somehow 'stuck to his guns' (whatever those might be, regardless of the aspect of production/design), and produced content that you might personally see as uncompromising? Would it somehow be more ideologically robust? And does that really offset its relatively minimal exposure? The mainstream is a conduit for communication, it's a platform with almost limitless reach; I'd argue getting beautifully crafted and soulful scenes of existentialism into a superhero blockbuster that grossed around $1.4 billion counts as a major win... as an incredibly worthwhile pursuit in terms of how an individual creator working with others can 'broadcast' to pretty much the entire planet.

And ultimately, specifically back to casting, I feel the criticism could only ever be valid if he agreed to cast people who clearly sucked at acting (i.e. a compromise which hurt the product, where superficiality was front and centre). I still personally feel David Boreanez is a bit shit... but by and large Whedon's casts are phenomenal (Much Ado About Nothing's an at times stunning example of just how good his--- well, acting repertoire is, and how great he can be as an actor's/character's director).

If there are ever older women in Whedon's movies, they either don't look old or they play much smaller parts.

Pop-culture is chiefly concerned with younger demographics, correct? It seems like you're faulting Whedon for simply wanting to make mainstream shows/TV/comics. Which--- fine, I guess, if you have a prejudice against that (which I'd be surprised at, given you're here at the Escapist), but it isn't a legitimate fault with him, it's just your personal dislike of an aspect of culture/society.

I see the cast of Dollhouse and Firefly as simply involving adults, be they in their 20's, 30', 40's, or older. Ditto pretty much most of those 12 works I listed. Buffy, obviously, involves a setting and narrative about adolescence, so it makes perfect sense to include a primary patriarch (Giles) and matriarch (Joyce). Without those, you can't depict a transition away from those youthful anchor points.

Should Joss really include much older characters of both genders? Sure, if he switches to creating daytime TV or Sunday afternoon period pieces...

I don't recall Mal or Iron Man getting bleary eyed in his shows. They're all stoic and manly and stuff - its up to the female characters to do the crying or the cowering.

Did I miss an official remit where all feminists (despite their myriad differences) must present a kind of literal 1:1 equality in all aspects between the genders? Is it really such a questionable thing to depict men and women as different in some ways, expressing emotional and psychological ranges in distinct ways? Perhaps he views women as the more expressive sex prepared to not wish to hide situational vulnerability? Perhaps he sees female expressiveness and vulnerability as a strength?

I feel it's incredibly unreasonable to expect him to somehow equalise his depictions for the sake of--- who knows what. If someone sees a character crying and associates weakness with that, and does not look at the character and narrative as a whole (for context, and perspective), then more fool them. And as with the casting choices: if all his principle female characters did was sob and roll around the floor (as opposed to, y'know, save the world and stuff), sure, you have a legit criticism... But clearly they do not.

On one hand, yes it is good characterisation to show people at their moment of weakness, losing all composure, or being completely disempowered, but on the other it looks a bit odd when it seems to be the same sorts of characters that get picked on. Would it ever have crossed Whedon's mind to show Nathan Fillion naked and frozen in a box?

Not in a box, no, because that didn't make sense for the character. But I'd wager Firefly viewers saw more of Fillion naked (ahem. very mildly NSFW [http://24.media.tumblr.com/a22f8a5da7c7fadbd3063a61e38b45d2/tumblr_mvs6wyDMmi1si3tc1o1_500.gif], I guess?) than they ever did of Summer Glau.

Wasn't Boreanez semi-dressed or nude (including at least one major scene of him being a vulnerable wreck) more than Gellar in Buffy, ditto James Marsters, or at least roughly the same? Dollhouse was rather equal with its depictions of nudity. Can't think of too many other instances of nudity regardless of gender.

The point is, Whedon is fond of creating these characters, established as trained, deadly killer women who are unbeatable in hand-to-hand...

I'd count the Slayer as one single narrative entity (Buffy, Fray, Faith, Satsu, whomever), and then there's River. I'm still waiting for all the other characters he created to support that.

The other female characters in the 12 works I cited he either didn't create, or were not fighters (and if they are, they tend not to conform to your trend). Echo is a blank slate, and I wouldn't say combat was her primary defining state, at least not conceptually.

...but also is just as fond of seeing them tied down, trapped, cowering, paralysed, prisoners of their own mind or whatever it takes to see them reduced to a submissive state. He does this more with his "strong female characters" than with the male ones.

See above for 'that's not an issue anyway' (and why it's very likely a positive), but also: so you concede he also breaks down his male characters? Then who gets to decide exactly how often he's allowed to do that per gender? Do you want to equalise that aspect of his creativity as well? Everyone gets to cry in the same way, and both genders must get broken down an equal number of times... Ditto for amount of nudity, and preferably an identical context to said nudity.

I'm being facetious, sure, but it's hard not to with that point. Does breaking down the Avengers in AoU count? Or Astonishing's X-Men (two quite similar plotlines, at least conceptually)? If not, why not? Because the depictions aren't exactly the same as some of the examples of the female characters experiences?

Also, whilst I appreciate the intellectual interpretation of his works, I don't think they act as suitable justifications for why he keeps doing certain things.

Art is incredibly contextual, so as well as the environment the creation will be loosed into, it's also important to look at authorial intent.

I don't tend to believe anything Joss does needs to be justified, per se, but it is worth trying to understand them, and why they exist in the forms they do, especially if patterns are being identified or imposed/projected.

Plus if a guy with a foot fetish feels the need to include shoeless women in his shows, that suggests some peculiar priorities.

...eh, I can't believe this is an exchange I'm getting into, but you brought it up so could you provide examples of scenes which you find betray his "peculiar priorities"? Examples that can't be contextualised in the same way I did with the Objects In Space scene? Maybe you're the one with the fetish and are projecting? (which I wouldn't judge as most people have their own, me included)

...and would an artist including subtle nods to a kink discredit a given work? Aren't kinks a part of who we are just like anything else, ergo why should it be critically noteworthy when it's not undermining a character? The handful of examples I can remember of Joss showing women's [bare] feet pretty much boil down to a reading of 'human being has feet' before getting to the character and/or situational narrative reasons for why they're barefoot in the first place.

And can the human body not simply be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing in its own right? Why on earth must that be essentially and immediately fetishised (or even sexualised)? That seems like projection if that's your response to something, not critique.

You can see this behaviour in a lot of creators, where there is a conflict between how they want to present women and how they like to see them. William Marston, for instance, created Wonder Woman, who is simultaneously an icon of womanly power and determination, but who is also an excuse for him to produce countless images of women being gagged and hogtied. These guys can have their kinks of course, but when they indulge in them in story writing, they risk creating these contradictory depictions of their female characters.

True, and Wonder Woman's a fascinatingly complicated icon.

But that's the thing: very rarely are things just sexist (against any gender), feminist, or anything else-ist. I've considered myself a feminist since my late teens, but I'm sexist in some ways as well. It isn't cognitive dissonance, it's simply complexity.

However, with Joss you feel there is a relevant tension, and I by and large do not: I see the vulnerability his female characters can show as evidence of greater emotional range (which is healthy, and denotes fortitude/strength, not weakness - certainly when they rally, as all hero/anti-hero archetypes tend to do in these kinds of stories), and if there is a compromise on his casting (more often presenting conventionally attractive feminine beauty norms for women), then it is one I see as more than worth it for what he has achieved in the mainstream.

What matters most - the soul, the humanity, the empathy, and perhaps above all the integrity of the story - is still very much intact.

Alright, I'll give you just one: In The Avengers, Black Widow...

Firstly, can I ask how important is context to you when assessing and citing a scene? I'd say it's essential, and that trying to remove a scene and judge it without context is a surefire path to an analytical cul-de-sac.

... is one of the greatest hand-to-hand fighters in the World. This is established early on, when she beats up a bunch of mobsters in a barn (but not before we get a nice long barefoot interrogation scene from her, natch).

Ah, that's a great shot (at least of the heels before she strolls away), and yeah, I'd forgotten that brazenly sexual and downright pornographic flashing of feet... I mean, a woman sitting on a chair wearing tights, with maybe two tiny close-ups? How indecent!

Sooo, exactly how many examples officially count as a foot fetish in your book? 'Cause you've got maybe one and a half so far, and context justifies and explains the heck out of no.1 (River in Objects In Space), and I'm not sure the foot fetishists of the world would unite over the tights'n'not many close-ups scene for Widow. Maybe the hosiery kinksters, but thus far I don't think you're including those.

It establishes she has a strong will and a cunning wit when she outsmarts with Loki (though not before he calls her a whining ****).

It's "mewling quim", which is a very different use of language.

Personally I felt like awarding Whedon some kind of achievement for getting that word into a Marvel film, and surviving The [likely puritanical] Suits' beady, censorious eyes. It also seems appropriate for Loki given his whole deal is manipulation (and being a bit of an arse), to use information, insecurities, and vindictive language to try to unsettle his mental and physical opponent/s.

...and that's the thing: Joss allows the audience the possibility that the vulnerable, 'weak' woman has been emotionally bested and bullied by a distinctly egoistic and overbearing man. Yet as so often with Joss, expectations and tropes are inverted or subverted, and of course it's Widow using her wiles - the arrogant misogynist has been undone by his own psychological weapons.

Despite this, we still have a scene where she is trapped under some piping, shitting herself in fear, and pleading with Bruce Banner not to turn into the Hulk and kill her. My point isn't that this sort of thing shouldn't exist, just that for the likes of Whedon, it can only happen to his women. It isn't Captain America under those pipes, or Iron Man doing the shivering - they'd already be rolling up their sleeves and figuring out a solution.

As I said above a few times now, why must there be a seemingly literal equalisation? And precisely how many examples are needed for something to become problematic/contentious/contrary?

If you feel there are no meaningful differences between the genders, then fair enough, we've found one major reason for why we're not seeing the same issues in Whedon's work. It's clear he also uses conventions of masculinity and femininity; Mal Reynolds is ostensibly a very masculine character, and Echo predominantly feminine. That, alone, should go a considerable way to explaining why he doesn't seek to portray men and women's ranges as identical. If you find fault in that, then fine, I do not (though I would prefer he pushes the envelope in terms of the kinds of masculine and feminine characters he presents).

You've missed my general point. I didn't say Whedon only writes stories about sexy, feisty young women. I said that when he writes women into his stories, they are most often portrayed as similar, sexy, feisty young women.

Which I disagree with, for all the above reasons, and don't feel plays out if you look at enough of his work.

That's kind of why I'm reluctant to see another female superhero end up in his hands, especially one who was infamously shot through the spine and sexually exploited by the Joker.

Do you honestly feel he'd have pulled the kind of nonsense in the animated Killing Joke's opening 30mins? I think it's safe to say Whedon's depiction will be an improvement regardless of what anyone thinks of his writing ticks...

It really only comes down to a couple characters that stand out to me: River is the peak of what I'm referring to, powerless to the point of being a burden but by the end she's a killing machine (I still love River but I think that's a testament to how good he is at writing characters). Ripley in Resurrection is pretty... overpowered? weird? cringy? Buffy to me has always just been a fun show, so although that kinda fits into this category I also wouldn't seriously use it as an example.

This is a relatively recent development, and yeah, being upfront I think this is about a double standard, i.e. over the past few decades male leads are typically just 'hero archetypes' if they are labeled at all. I don't recall constant minute scrutiny about male leads through the '90's and early 2000's. But female leads and characters? These days they must pass some kind of nebulous test before they are certified instead of dismissed. Swap Rey's gender in The Force Awakens, and I do not believe anyone would be branding the character with a label and dismissing them.

So a character like Rey doesn't past muster (too good at everything, not challenged enough), and yet when someone like Joss creates characters who are fiercely challenged or brought low (yet always rally, given they're in heroic narratives), that's worthy of criticism as well (some even accusing Joss of weird kinks and sadism)? Female characters really are up against it. Well, maybe if they're half dressed and exist primarily as avatars for male sexual fantasy - then it's okay, then it's just entertainment (which of course is never political) and not worth assessing, analysing, or critiquing, because hey, them's the wacky antics of 'cultural Marxists' and crazed feminazi's on the brutal frontlines of The Great Culture War...

Back to Joss's characters and the frequently terrible Mary Sue idea: so you only really pick out one character that he created? He wrote Alien Resurrection, sure, but Ripley was an assertive icon decades before that. I've not seen it in absolutely years btw, so these questions aren't rhetorical: is AR's Ripley really that different from what she managed to pull of in Aliens, or even Alien 3? And given the story, doesn't it make sense that she's at least more potent or dominant?

James and Nick on The Weekly Planet podcast did a show partially dedicated to the Rey/Mary Sue BS (neither of them thought the label was at all useful or productive), and I think it was James who simply pointed out even putting aside the double standard, who the hell wants to watch mundane characters? Part of the allure and glitz of pop-culture and mythologies is to see larger than life stories play out, with idealised characters.

So River's an exceptionally capable character. Well, maybe that's just her character? That's who and what she is in this story? If people find fault with such a character, what on earth do they want - what checks and balances do they manically want applied before a creator can sign-off on their own creation?

And if we go with the apparent original definition of a Mary Sue, is Joss authorially making himself mentally unstable and socially isolated? Those are considered desirable or OP traits by who?

That being said there is a specific aspect to his stories that do set them apart from most male counterparts in other shows/movies. His powerful women characters are usually thrust into a horrible position of powerlessness until they learn to control the very power that holds them down: /

The male versions of these are usually played as power fantasies: boy finds out he's special and becomes super hero to defend/avenge those he cares about. Maybe it's just me but the tone Whedon usually presents feels different. Joss seems to insert more themes of self-empowerment like they were only ever being held back by themselves.

As I said to maninahat above, he evidently does not seek to equalise his depictions of both genders - and I see absolutely no reason why he should. If Joss sees essential - or pronounced enough - differences between masculine men and feminine women (he generally conforms to those norms, which I personally find a little disappointing/unambitious), then doesn't it stand to reason he'd present their experiences, and how they process them, differently? I'd argue he has always been interested in the tensions between sex and gender/gender role, and frequently plays with those (Mal Reynolds can be very masculine at times, but he's rather comfortable in a dress... ).

Masculinity is typically egoistic, 'stoic', stubborn. Femininity is typically seen as being more 'vulnerable' (not a word I see as a negative, btw) or emotionally expressive (less insecurity about showing an emotional range). Whedon's characters generally play out conforming to those, yet male characters are still allowed to be vulnerable (in. different. ways... ), and female characters are certainly allowed to be violently assertive in the way male heroes are typically presented.

Even his handling of Black Widow, seeing herself as a monster because she can't have children, is setting up a personal block to be overcome.

And Banner's nature and inability to have children? That's not a personal block of any kind?

Widow's line doesn't exclusively refer to her inability to conceive at all, given the line that sets it up is--- "The one thing that might mean more than a mission. It makes everything easier. Even killing", then it's "You still think you're the only monster on the team?".

(I remember some people even suggesting it was a sexist line, as if Natasha somehow shouldn't ever view her own fertility as being important to have and so to lose)

I bet if Marvel had let him make the Black Widow movie then overcoming that would have been one of the central themes. To be clear, I'm presenting this as a discussion about Whedon's writing style not as an indictment/condone of grander writing styles about male/female characters.

I'm not sure you can really discuss his style without addressing how he treats genders across his body of work, particularly given this conversation was about exactly that.

Anyway, wow, this went on way longer than I expected... like I said, I used those words because I didn't want to build a textwall like this.

Textwalls can be tough (to read and certainly to write), sure, but I do appreciate the greater nuance that's possible.

I think he will be a great director for Batgirl and now I'm curious to see if she ends up with the same theme of self-empowerment.

Most heroic arcs are in some form, so probably.

I did say earlier in this thread I'd like to see him bring Kate Kane's Batwoman to the screen, but on second thoughts it'd be nice for a gay female director to helm it, or at least a woman (I'd love to see Katherine Bigelow do a superhero film). The only gay female director I can think of right now is the frequently brilliant Celine Sciamma, and I'm fairly sure Warner wouldn't approach her, and I doubt she'd want the job...

 

[Pyrian]

Tl;cest = Too long, couldn't even scroll through

 

[maninahat]

I'd consider all of those youthful, considering that in real life women come in all ages.

It's reasonable to compare one slice of pop-culture to another, not to something else or some other personal ideal, and by that standard they really aren't particularly youthful. If he used primarily teenaged casts, sure, it might be noteworthy.

I don't agree with that, but for arguments sake I will be comparing Whedon's work to other pop culture, further down.

...As much as an auteur as Joss may be, he exists just like any other creator within a complex network of those invested (in both senses of the word) in a project. Producers, casting networks, studio execs, CEO's, advertising bodies, and so on. Pop-culture is obviously a business, as well as a creative pursuit, and if you wish to work in the mainstream it stands to reason that your creation must be compromised to a greater extent than if you were attempting to create it completely independently.

I accept that Whedon may have to compromise much for the sake of getting his art out, but unless he's actually tried to include more diverse females in his scripts, I can still fault him for not at least trying to have a broader range of female characters.

If there are ever older women in Whedon's movies, they either don't look old or they play much smaller parts.

Pop-culture is chiefly concerned with younger demographics, correct? It seems like you're faulting Whedon for simply wanting to make mainstream shows/TV/comics. Which--- fine, I guess, if you have a prejudice against that (which I'd be surprised at, given you're here at the Escapist), but it isn't a legitimate fault with him, it's just your personal dislike of an aspect of culture/society.

[...]should Joss really include much older characters of both genders? Sure, if he switches to creating daytime TV or Sunday afternoon period pieces...

Not true at all. I've just finished the first season of the sci-fi show, The Expanse. That does have young female characters in, but also one of the three protagonists is a diplomat in her 60s (and just so happens to be the coolest character ever). Before that, I watched another called The OA, which again has elderly women in the main cast. Even in classic comic book stories, you at least have your Aunt Mays and your Martha Kents.

Going back to Whedon's work, his older people are usually male. He has no problems with people like Shepherd Book being in Firefly's crew, so I find it a bit too convenient to suggest that Whedon's sci-fi settings or stories make it harder to include old women.

I don't recall Mal or Iron Man getting bleary eyed in his shows. They're all stoic and manly and stuff - its up to the female characters to do the crying or the cowering.

Did I miss an official remit where all feminists (despite their myriad differences) must present a kind of literal 1:1 equality in all aspects between the genders? Is it really such a questionable thing to depict men and women as different in some ways, expressing emotional and psychological ranges in distinct ways? Perhaps he views women as the more expressive sex prepared to not wish to hide situational vulnerability? Perhaps he sees female expressiveness and vulnerability as a strength?

I feel it's incredibly unreasonable to expect him to somehow equalise his depictions for the sake of--- who knows what.

I must of missed it too, because I suggested nothing of the sort. A lot of justifications for the similarities in Whedon's female characters don't really work out when his male characters are more varied, more broadly written, and also able to avoid falling into the typical situations he puts his women in. Asking that Whedon diversify his female roles a bit more, and maybe not keep including scenes of his "strong female characters" breaking down, isn't quite the same as asking for perfect gender parity.

On one hand, yes it is good characterisation to show people at their moment of weakness, losing all composure, or being completely disempowered, but on the other it looks a bit odd when it seems to be the same sorts of characters that get picked on. Would it ever have crossed Whedon's mind to show Nathan Fillion naked and frozen in a box?

Not in a box, no, because that didn't make sense for the character. But I'd wager Firefly viewers saw more of Fillion naked

What I was trying to ask is whether Whedon, when coming up with his characters, ever considers putting men in the kinds of situations he often puts his women? It isn't apparent that he does.

Wasn't Boreanez semi-dressed or nude (including at least one major scene of him being a vulnerable wreck) more than Gellar in Buffy, ditto James Marsters, or at least roughly the same? Dollhouse was rather equal with its depictions of nudity. Can't think of too many other instances of nudity regardless of gender.

I wouldn't know about the first show, but Dollhouse wasn't quite equal. Yes, I admit the male "dolls" in that did have moments were they were just as vulnerable and objectified as the women, but this is a show who's protagonist and primary focus is on one specific young lady.

The point is, Whedon is fond of creating these characters, established as trained, deadly killer women who are unbeatable in hand-to-hand...

I'd count the Slayer as one single narrative entity (Buffy, Fray, Faith, Satsu, whomever), and then there's River. I'm still waiting for all the other characters he created to support that.

The other female characters in the 12 works I cited he either didn't create, or were not fighters (and if they are, they tend not to conform to your trend). Echo is a blank slate, and I wouldn't say combat was her primary defining state, at least not conceptually.

River, Echo and Black Widow are the three I was thinking of from what I've seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more examples in the works I haven't seen. He didn't invent Black Widow, but he had control over how she would appear in the movies, so I consider him responsible for her depiction. I must reiterate, I'm talking about trends, I am not saying that he has written every female character 100% identical - these three "deadly killer women" were a distinct type among Whedon's typical depictions of women.

Plus if a guy with a foot fetish feels the need to include shoeless women in his shows, that suggests some peculiar priorities.

...eh, I can't believe this is an exchange I'm getting into, but you brought it up so could you provide examples of scenes which you find betray his "peculiar priorities"? Examples that can't be contextualised in the same way I did with the Objects In Space scene? Maybe you're the one with the fetish and are projecting? (which I wouldn't judge as most people have their own, me included)

Hey, I'd have no problem admitting to a foot fetish if I had one. As to examples, here's a few examples in a cracked article [http://www.cracked.com/article_19137_6-artists-whose-weird-fetishes-defined-pop-culture.html].

...and would an artist including subtle nods to a kink discredit a given work? Aren't kinks a part of who we are just like anything else, ergo why should it be critically noteworthy when it's not undermining a character? The handful of examples I can remember of Joss showing women's [bare] feet pretty much boil down to a reading of 'human being has feet' before getting to the character and/or situational narrative reasons for why they're barefoot in the first place.

Generally speaking, we tend not to see other adult's bare feet, but Whedon has a magical way of ensuring they pop up on screen a lot. Whedon really likes to include scenes where a character is vulnerable but is secretly poised to turn the tables and kick ass. Maybe he watched Die Hard a lot, but making them barefoot is his default way to do this.

You can see this behaviour in a lot of creators, where there is a conflict between how they want to present women and how they like to see them. William Marston, for instance, created Wonder Woman, who is simultaneously an icon of womanly power and determination, but who is also an excuse for him to produce countless images of women being gagged and hogtied. These guys can have their kinks of course, but when they indulge in them in story writing, they risk creating these contradictory depictions of their female characters.

True, and Wonder Woman's a fascinatingly complicated icon.

But that's the thing: very rarely are things just sexist (against any gender), feminist, or anything else-ist. I've considered myself a feminist since my late teens, but I'm sexist in some ways as well. It isn't cognitive dissonance, it's simply complexity.

Oh, it doesn't have to be sexist. I'm not accusing Whedon of being a sexist either, but I think it is kind of boring an unimaginative to keep presenting a fairly narrow scope of womanhood - especially an eye-roll inducing "young and sexy" scope.

Alright, I'll give you just one: In The Avengers, Black Widow...

Firstly, can I ask how important is context to you when assessing and citing a scene? I'd say it's essential, and that trying to remove a scene and judge it without context is a surefire path to an analytical cul-de-sac.

Context can be important or it can be an irrelevance. It depends.

Sooo, exactly how many examples officially count as a foot fetish in your book? 'Cause you've got maybe one and a half so far, and context justifies and explains the heck out of no.1.

Here it would be an irrelevance. Whedon could have created any kind of scene he liked to introduce his character, but he managed to write in that particular one. In context, you could explain how some gangsters felt the need to take her to a warehouse and tie her up and remove her shoes for some reason, but what I'm interested in is why he had to have that particular scene in the first place, and not any other to introduce the spy/assassin?

Despite this, we still have a scene where she is trapped under some piping, shitting herself in fear, and pleading with Bruce Banner not to turn into the Hulk and kill her. My point isn't that this sort of thing shouldn't exist, just that for the likes of Whedon, it can only happen to his women. It isn't Captain America under those pipes, or Iron Man doing the shivering - they'd already be rolling up their sleeves and figuring out a solution.

As I said above a few times now, why must there be a seemingly literal equalisation? And precisely how many examples are needed for something to become problematic/contentious/contrary?

If you feel there are no meaningful differences between the genders, then fair enough, we've found one major reason for why we're not seeing the same issues in Whedon's work. It's clear he also uses conventions of masculinity and femininity; Mal Reynolds is ostensibly a very masculine character, and Echo predominantly feminine. That, alone, should go a considerable way to explaining why he doesn't seek to portray men and women's ranges as identical. If you find fault in that, then fine, I do not (though I would prefer he pushes the envelope in terms of the kinds of masculine and feminine characters he presents).

I don't think that's a good enough excuse. Writers should be capable of poking at gender stereotypes and undermining them, but for Whedon, he can only get as far as "Surprise! this thin framed woman can beat up a big strong guy!", which is quite a few spaces behind what we should be expecting in this day and age. They're not terribly far away than the kind of stuff Kate Beaton makes fun of. [http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php/index.php?id=311]

That's kind of why I'm reluctant to see another female superhero end up in his hands, especially one who was infamously shot through the spine and sexually exploited by the Joker.

Do you honestly feel he'd have pulled the kind of nonsense in the animated Killing Joke's opening 30mins? I think it's safe to say Whedon's depiction will be an improvement regardless of what anyone thinks of his writing ticks...

I'm hoping he doesn't include such a scene altogether. But I don't trust him with the character as much as you do.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Tl;cest = Too long, couldn't even scroll through

Too short/insubstantial, couldn't be bothered to deride.

Wait a sec...

I accept that Whedon may have to compromise much for the sake of getting his art out, but unless he's actually tried to include more diverse females in his scripts, I can still fault him for not at least trying to have a broader range of female characters.

I see no need, or reason why he should. However, as I said, I would ideally like him to be a bit more ambitious/risky with subverting masculine and feminine norms, and I'd guess if he did what I'd ideally like him to do, you'd be mostly satisfied as well.

That said, I've no real issue with his work and never had (other than for plotlines/concepts - e.g. the Potentials in Buffy S7, or the fact that a humanist atheist made the first 'evil' a thing, or certain depictions of characters from time to time[footnote]Also the first five eps of Dollhouse were mostly terrible. Well, not terrible per se, but treading water and the one thing his shows hadn't been before that; boring. To be fair it wasn't really his fault; Fox wanted multiple mini-pilots which didn't extend the mythology by much, ergo it was mostly 'case of the week'. Joss admitted he struggled with both communicating what he wanted, and providing what Fox wanted.[/footnote]), especially with regards to his prominent female characters.

Not true at all. I've just finished the first season of the sci-fi show, The Expanse. That does have young female characters in, but also one of the three protagonists is a diplomat in her 60s (and just so happens to be the coolest character ever). Before that, I watched another called The OA, which again has elderly women in the main cast. Even in classic comic book stories, you at least have your Aunt Mays and your Martha Kents.

The last line of my text was "...if he switches to creating daytime TV or Sunday afternoon period pieces", so I assume the "Not true at all" was a direct rebuttal of that - which just proves there are exceptions - but my text also included "Pop-culture is chiefly concerned with younger demographics" which is surely an indisputable statement.

Going back to Whedon's work, his older people are usually male. He has no problems with people like Shepherd Book being in Firefly's crew, so I find it a bit too convenient to suggest that Whedon's sci-fi settings or stories make it harder to include old women.

Might he simply be more interested in deconstructing patriarchs? Does it need to be any more mysterious or complex than that?

For the reasons I've given I believe his focus on certain age groups (young adult and up. River, Dawn, and a handful of other minor characters are the only real or perceived youths) is entirely reasonable and purposeful, and beyond that he seems more interested in deconstructing the found family, and so he dials in on the roles and responsibilities of patriarchy and matriarchy as opposed to a literalism of the social function (which would be 'Patriarch = old man, Matriarch = old woman').

Buffy and Dollhouse both had clear matriarchal figures (one a biological, the other the primary authority figure), and most of his other creations - and significant creative tenures (e.g. X-Men) - have their equivalent figures as roles. Looking at Firefly, that ship could be said to have two of either; Mal and Book as the patriarchs (one the formal head of the family/ship, the other a spiritual, more critical influence), and Zoe and Inara as the matriarchs.

For Joss, social/familial responsibilities are collective, and unconventional, even if it does explore the mystically flavoured traditional (Buffy assumes the role of parent figure to her sister, and deals with matriarchal responsibilities).

Would you rather Zoe or Inara was 60? Would that make sense for the characters? And even if so, what would be gained thematically where it counts (as in for the heart of the piece; the story and characters, their failures and triumphs)?

A lot of justifications for the similarities in Whedon's female characters don't really work out when his male characters are more varied, more broadly written, and also able to avoid falling into the typical situations he puts his women in.

I would disagree with that, and don't necessarily feel his male characters are more varied/broadly written at all.

Asking that Whedon diversify his female roles a bit more, and maybe not keep including scenes of his "strong female characters" breaking down, isn't quite the same as asking for perfect gender parity.

If you're making a critique of a given artist, then looking at their potential intent is important. If Joss depicts differences in sexes, and perhaps views one as more expressively dynamic than the other, then why on earth are less of those such scenes of vulnerability preferable. Again, I don't what would be gained - other than a little more surface level variety, and less dynamic and engaging female characters.

What I was trying to ask is whether Whedon, when coming up with his characters, ever considers putting men in the kinds of situations he often puts his women? It isn't apparent that he does.

So all you want is a male River? (apropos surface level variety)

For that you'd really have to ask him, I can only speculate and draw from his work and interviews/commentaries/speeches.

Which annoyingly reminds me of something that would've been interesting quoting from earlier.

Spoiler: From his own foreword to Fray, from May 2003:

"At least in the Marvel universe, where I made my nest, there were very few interesting girls young enough for a twelve year old to crush on. My best buddy and I used to fight, in our pathetic--- I meant to say 'rich' ---fantasy lives over the affections of any girl who showed the slightest spirit. But it was deeply slim pickin's. Until Kitty Pryde. She was such a figure of both affection and identification, I even forgave her inability to think of a decent name for herself. If she could be in the X-Men, then there was no reason a short, skinny, not-overly-hygenic New Yorker whose mutant power seemed to be the ability to whine amusingly couldn't join up too. (And possibly win her over, since Colossus---not that bright.)

Cut to me grown up---yet somehow now remotely matured. The idea of Buffy The Vampire Slayer came from the same lack I felt as a child. Where are the girls? Girls who can fight, who can stand up for themselves, who have opinions and fears and cute outfits? Buffy was designed to fill that void in movies - and then, ultimately, TV"

Spoiler: And also:

"I was keeping it simple. Slayer. Family. Strength. A simple story about a really cool girl. A girl who might share some personal issues with both Buffy and Faith, but who was very much her own person. A mythology I was already comfortable with, with a few twists thrown in...

...I paced around for a few weeks and Melaka Fray was born"

(there's obviously more, but I won't quote the whole thing. He remarks later about the concept, stipulating to Dark Horse no "giant silicone hooters", constant flashes of thongs, or "soft-core" angled butt poses, ending up with commenting about Karl Moline's final depiction; "Melaka's every pose is real, lived-in. She is hard, defensive, vulnerable, goofy, and yes, wicked sexy")

...one could say he's suffering from arrested development and is still writing to satisfy an adolescent Joss, and that this is dissonant with the feminism that helped shape him in later life, as well as his work. In my late teens Sarah Michelle Gellar in a cheerleader outfit didn't exactly put me off the show - in fact the BBC2 advert probably caught my eye because of it, initially ('Natural biological urges? Meet gender studies and feminism. Now play nice!'. to be fair the slasher tropes he was subverting weren't subtle, so neither could Buffy be, at least at the start, circa 1997).

From that you may simply say 'Whatever, just write more diverse female characters', or 'This undermines his feminism' (or maybe both. that was in '03, so whilst it'd be unfair to take that text as what he currently feels, characters like Echo and other properties clearly came later).

I suppose if you have an issue with auteurs, you have a clear reason to be skeptical about repeated patterns (though the 'living weapon' trope simply doesn't play out across his work, the foot thing is ridiculous, and given his sphere of pop-culture and themes his possible bias towards younger adults is perfectly reasonable). But for consistencies sake I hope you're at least as critical of other auteurs (I'd personally argue motifs, themes, and ticks make art and artists interesting, from Kurosawa or Malick to Caspar David Friedrich).

I wouldn't know about the first show, but Dollhouse wasn't quite equal. Yes, I admit the male "dolls" in that did have moments were they were just as vulnerable and objectified as the women, but this is a show who's protagonist and primary focus is on one specific young lady.

One specific young lady with a fascinatingly complex and deeply existential narrative to explore - in
a society that tends not to give them such arcs, or leading roles, too regularly.

River, Echo and Black Widow are the three I was thinking of from what I've seen...

Echo's character was a college age activist - that's it. Before the Dollhouse she had zero training.

So to me that's still just one single character. And if we're going back to Buffy, then her origins are entirely vanilla before she's called - after which she still needs training to keep her alive, and remains an otherwise normal girl, not some murderous automaton.

He didn't invent Black Widow, but he had control over how she would appear in the movies, so I consider him responsible for her depiction. I must reiterate, I'm talking about trends, I am not saying that he has written every female character 100% identical - these three "deadly killer women" were a distinct type among Whedon's typical depictions of women.

Yes, he was responsible for her depiction - which benefited everyone, the actress first and foremost: it's a Widow that's by and large at ease with her decidedly post-living-weapon phase. It would always be a part of who she is, sure (she directly references her upbringing in the scene with Banner), but it doesn't define her.

She is allowed to be more than a sex object, and more than a trope through quality writing; the portrayal was a monumental improvement on the character's MCU introduction in the impressively sexist Iron Man 2 (thus far I'd say the Russo brothers gave us the best iteration in The Winter Soldier. I'd like a Widow film, and whilst Joss would do a great job, I'd prefer the Russo's handled it).

Hey, I'd have no problem admitting to a foot fetish if I had one. As to examples, here's a few examples in a cracked article [http://www.cracked.com/article_19137_6-artists-whose-weird-fetishes-defined-pop-culture.html].

Those examples are utterly ludicrous, then again it is Cracked.

Generally speaking, we tend not to see other adult's bare feet, but Whedon has a magical way of ensuring they pop up on screen a lot.

'We tend not to see adults bare feet = when we see it, it must be a kink'? Jeeese... Fittingly enough this reminds me of the issue of women's body hair: it's very often something to be disgusted by, or it's fetishised - it is rarely, if ever, mundanely natural/naturally mundane. How can something so bleedin' natural - quite literally - be so waywardly perceived? It's truly idiotic.

If it's an exception to the rule, then it's a good, healthy, normal one; the rest of pop-culture evidently has a bit of a hang-up about the human body.

Whedon really likes to include scenes where a character is vulnerable but is secretly poised to turn the tables and kick ass. Maybe he watched Die Hard a lot, but making them barefoot is his default way to do this.

Maybe it is [sometimes with some characters in certain scenes], and if so it's an effective and reasonable aspect of design.

Oh, it doesn't have to be sexist. I'm not accusing Whedon of being a sexist either, but I think it is kind of boring an unimaginative to keep presenting a fairly narrow scope of womanhood - especially an eye-roll inducing "young and sexy" scope.

That's absolutely your prerogative, but I still don't personally believe your observations hold up. To me, that these female characters have distinct stories and there's an emotional integrity to their shows is what truly matters.

Here it would be an irrelevance. Whedon could have created any kind of scene he liked to introduce his character, but he managed to write in that particular one. In context, you could explain how some gangsters felt the need to take her to a warehouse and tie her up and remove her shoes for some reason, but what I'm interested in is why he had to have that particular scene in the first place, and not any other to introduce the spy/assassin?

Because he had a chair themed fight in mind, and this was an opportunity to do it?

Annoyingly I can't find The Avengers audio commentary file (I only have it on DVD, sans commentary/features in Europe), but I dimly remember him - or his choreographer - saying just that, that they'd had this scene in mind and this was an opportunity to pull it off.

Context, as ever, is crucial: could you imagine that scene, with those moves, being choreographed with her in heels? Whilst avoiding the stunt woman or Scarlett breaking an ankle, or it simply looking ridiculous? Films and TV often show female characters in heels pulling off dumb moves (Buffy didn't tend to have her in heels, per se, but heeled ["Stylish yet affordable"] boots of sometimes tricky-for-fightin' length), but it's admirable when something doesn't. The end shot of that fight scene is a cracking shot; a close-up of the heels, neatly arranged side-by-side, which she casually picks up whilst strolling away.

Is that scene a canny, dynamic piece of filmmaking which plays up the different defining elements of the character (the scene is designed to introduce us and the audience to her character, something The Avengers rather expertly does with all of them), i.e. lethal and no-nonsense, but still conventionally feminine?

Or is it, y'know, foot fetish... In terms of critique - of a film or Joss - door number 2 really doesn't hold up in any shape or form, and by linking to Cracked I kinda get the impression this isn't something you think's worth mentioning either.

They're not terribly far away than the kind of stuff Kate Beaton makes fun of. [http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php/index.php?id=311]

Eh, I clearly disagree, but perhaps that's about the perspectives of a fan and a non-fan.