HypeBeast.
May 22, 2010 4:12 AM Subscribe
Explain to me the phenomena known as Joss Whedon.
I have never seen any of Joss Whedon's series, and the only film of his which I have seen (discounting Toy Story, which was a massive collaborative effort) is Serenity (good not great, also never followed Firefly). By the time I had dived into the ride that is following a show, Buffy was already done; Firefly, done; Angel I've never even heard of; Dr. Horrible, despite my love for NPH, I haven't gotten to yet; Dollhouse has never piqued my interest. I may get to these things someday, but my curiosity is bugging me now...
I can't help but notice a little the buzz surrounding Dollhouse, and to be swamped in the internets' glee over him being named as director of The Avengers. What makes this man so unique and beloved as a writer & storyteller?
I have never seen any of Joss Whedon's series, and the only film of his which I have seen (discounting Toy Story, which was a massive collaborative effort) is Serenity (good not great, also never followed Firefly). By the time I had dived into the ride that is following a show, Buffy was already done; Firefly, done; Angel I've never even heard of; Dr. Horrible, despite my love for NPH, I haven't gotten to yet; Dollhouse has never piqued my interest. I may get to these things someday, but my curiosity is bugging me now...
I can't help but notice a little the buzz surrounding Dollhouse, and to be swamped in the internets' glee over him being named as director of The Avengers. What makes this man so unique and beloved as a writer & storyteller?
Best answer: I've always appreciated Whedon for his ability to write strong, multi-layered female characters. His women are complex and confident and they usually kick ass in one way or another. This is perhaps more noticeable because he tends to write in genres which historically haven't written women particularly well.
posted by embrangled at 4:41 AM on May 22, 2010 [7 favorites]
posted by embrangled at 4:41 AM on May 22, 2010 [7 favorites]
Best answer: Dollhouse was terrible and the only reason I watched it after the first three episodes was waiting to see the inevitable cancellation.
Whedon gets credit for being a genius when he is just very good at reflecting the insecurities and struggles of middle-class white youth through the mirror of fantasy. Much of his stuff is enjoyable if you've had those experiences.
posted by winna at 4:42 AM on May 22, 2010 [5 favorites]
Whedon gets credit for being a genius when he is just very good at reflecting the insecurities and struggles of middle-class white youth through the mirror of fantasy. Much of his stuff is enjoyable if you've had those experiences.
posted by winna at 4:42 AM on May 22, 2010 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure how you can ask this question without watching any of his series yourself. Go out and watch a few episodes of Buffy or Firefly, then come back and ask your question again.
posted by jozxyqk at 4:44 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by jozxyqk at 4:44 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
I agree, go watch them...
Buffy is an interesting series... as the cast aged and the plots became a bit more complicated, the show just got better.. I am glad, however, that it ended when it did, I don't think there was anyplace to go from there (proven by "Angel", which didn't quite pull it off, IMHO).
posted by HuronBob at 4:50 AM on May 22, 2010
Buffy is an interesting series... as the cast aged and the plots became a bit more complicated, the show just got better.. I am glad, however, that it ended when it did, I don't think there was anyplace to go from there (proven by "Angel", which didn't quite pull it off, IMHO).
posted by HuronBob at 4:50 AM on May 22, 2010
Best answer: I think you just need to watch his stuff. If you get it, you get it.
- As Nadawi said, He is a massive nerd and creates really strong ensemble casts. He likes to twist stereotypes. Take Buffy - he's taken the typical monster fodder and turned her into the hero, back when kick arse females were much rarer. Just the title was enough to make people double take.
- His characters have sharp, snappy, witty dialogue, which fans not only quote, but emulate.
- The actors he casts are all very attractive.
- He's not afraid to mess with people's heads. He seems to take great delight in killing off popular characters, mainly because people don't expect it & it shocks the audience. He takes you out of your comfort zone because you know that he can & will kill beloved cast members.
- He weaves some damn good storylines that are clearly well thought out from start to end and he takes you on a rollercoaster ride. It never feels predictable, and it doesn't feel like he made it up as he went along. The characters are believable & rarely act out of character.
- He treats his audience with respect. He likes what they like, and he writes what he enjoys.
- His writes really strong female characters. Strong characters and strongly written. They are complex, intelligent, three dimensiona, and not just there to be pretty or rescued. This appeals to females as something they can relate to, and is also attractive to males (see also Agent Scully).
Joss says he is a feminist. I think he is a fetishist, but that's another tangent.
posted by goshling at 4:53 AM on May 22, 2010 [9 favorites]
- As Nadawi said, He is a massive nerd and creates really strong ensemble casts. He likes to twist stereotypes. Take Buffy - he's taken the typical monster fodder and turned her into the hero, back when kick arse females were much rarer. Just the title was enough to make people double take.
- His characters have sharp, snappy, witty dialogue, which fans not only quote, but emulate.
- The actors he casts are all very attractive.
- He's not afraid to mess with people's heads. He seems to take great delight in killing off popular characters, mainly because people don't expect it & it shocks the audience. He takes you out of your comfort zone because you know that he can & will kill beloved cast members.
- He weaves some damn good storylines that are clearly well thought out from start to end and he takes you on a rollercoaster ride. It never feels predictable, and it doesn't feel like he made it up as he went along. The characters are believable & rarely act out of character.
- He treats his audience with respect. He likes what they like, and he writes what he enjoys.
- His writes really strong female characters. Strong characters and strongly written. They are complex, intelligent, three dimensiona, and not just there to be pretty or rescued. This appeals to females as something they can relate to, and is also attractive to males (see also Agent Scully).
Joss says he is a feminist. I think he is a fetishist, but that's another tangent.
posted by goshling at 4:53 AM on May 22, 2010 [9 favorites]
I gained a great deal of respect for Joss Whedon when I watched his commentary for Serenity. SO many details there were awesomely thought-out, and if you watch the commentary, you can get a good feel for what his "style" is.
Also, from his commentary on some Firefly episodes, you can tell that he and his cast and crew get along really well, and I think that lends a lot of... smoothness? to his shows. You can just kind of tell that everyone had fun creating the series/movie/whatever.
posted by specialagentwebb at 5:00 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
Also, from his commentary on some Firefly episodes, you can tell that he and his cast and crew get along really well, and I think that lends a lot of... smoothness? to his shows. You can just kind of tell that everyone had fun creating the series/movie/whatever.
posted by specialagentwebb at 5:00 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
He writes strong women, good action scenes, lots of fun dialogue. And he does a good job of writing long, complex plots without dropping the ball. And his characters are wonderfully layered.
On the downside he can get a more than a little angsty, and likes to kill off beloved characters.
posted by Caravantea at 5:03 AM on May 22, 2010
On the downside he can get a more than a little angsty, and likes to kill off beloved characters.
posted by Caravantea at 5:03 AM on May 22, 2010
He went to a public (private) school in England for a while (Winchester College) which gives him an interesting perspective on things.
posted by A189Nut at 5:05 AM on May 22, 2010
posted by A189Nut at 5:05 AM on May 22, 2010
Best answer: I have seen most of Joss Whedon's output, and enjoyed a significant amount of it, and strongly disliked some of it. Here's my take (some of which repeats what has already been said).
At his best, he is capable of:
1) Sharp, witty, breezy dialogue
2) Inversion of cliches and tropes to make interesting cultural metacommentary
3) Strong female characters
4) Storylines with depth and relevance
5) Groundbreaking and daring story twists
These strengths are also his greatest flaws. He sometimes -- perhaps even frequently -- does not know when enough is enough, and pushes things to the point that he self-destructs. This means that at his worst, he is capable of:
1) Facile, unbelievable, trying-too-hard-to-be-witty dialogue
2) Falling into cliches and hackneyed tropes by making his commentary indistinguishable from the original cliche
3) More-then-perfect, fetishized female characters
4) Preaching at his audience
5) Throwing out twist after twist until they lose all meaning
You might want to try Dr. Horrible to start, especially if you like NPH. It's not actually my favorite, but it's not that long and you're likely to enjoy it.
Buffy (the TV series) is still probably his strongest work overall. Seasons 1, 2 and 3 are probably the best (especially 2 and 3 -- if you like season 1 but find it a little too simple, keep watching.) Seasons 4 and 5 have a lot of problems but some of the best individual episodes (such as "Hush" and "The Body"). I'd recommend skipping the rest except perhaps for the famous musical episode in season 6.
The rest is very hit or miss. I never got into Firefly, but it has its fans. Dollhouse never lived up to the promise of its premise. Angel starts poorly, gets *very* interesting in the middle seasons, and then ends poorly (it's a Buffy spin-off, so I'd only bother to watch it if you've seen some Buffy and liked that already.)
posted by kyrademon at 5:19 AM on May 22, 2010 [11 favorites]
At his best, he is capable of:
1) Sharp, witty, breezy dialogue
2) Inversion of cliches and tropes to make interesting cultural metacommentary
3) Strong female characters
4) Storylines with depth and relevance
5) Groundbreaking and daring story twists
These strengths are also his greatest flaws. He sometimes -- perhaps even frequently -- does not know when enough is enough, and pushes things to the point that he self-destructs. This means that at his worst, he is capable of:
1) Facile, unbelievable, trying-too-hard-to-be-witty dialogue
2) Falling into cliches and hackneyed tropes by making his commentary indistinguishable from the original cliche
3) More-then-perfect, fetishized female characters
4) Preaching at his audience
5) Throwing out twist after twist until they lose all meaning
You might want to try Dr. Horrible to start, especially if you like NPH. It's not actually my favorite, but it's not that long and you're likely to enjoy it.
Buffy (the TV series) is still probably his strongest work overall. Seasons 1, 2 and 3 are probably the best (especially 2 and 3 -- if you like season 1 but find it a little too simple, keep watching.) Seasons 4 and 5 have a lot of problems but some of the best individual episodes (such as "Hush" and "The Body"). I'd recommend skipping the rest except perhaps for the famous musical episode in season 6.
The rest is very hit or miss. I never got into Firefly, but it has its fans. Dollhouse never lived up to the promise of its premise. Angel starts poorly, gets *very* interesting in the middle seasons, and then ends poorly (it's a Buffy spin-off, so I'd only bother to watch it if you've seen some Buffy and liked that already.)
posted by kyrademon at 5:19 AM on May 22, 2010 [11 favorites]
Best answer: The reason I am a huge fan is pretty simple. He loves his characters, his stories, the universes he creates as much as the fans do. He "gets" fascination. Sure, there are exceptions and no one's flawless, but he doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence, to the contrary, he can challenge it. He doesn't fall back on cliches or do things only for shock value, though he does shocking things. I didn't like Dollhouse, I hated the end of Angel, but even when I didn't like what he was doing, I could see what he was going for - it just didn't appeal to me. Serenity the movie isn't nearly as good without the background of Firefly, but I just watched it the other night again and was struck by his unique dialogue and the amazing images in the movie.
Fans - people who tend to really invest in shows and characters they enjoy - have learned they can trust Joss. They may not like all his choices but he respects his material and his audience - without letting their feelings determine the course of the show. He has an over-arching plan for his stories; on Buffy, there were clues dropped /years/ in advance of one of the last storylines. He knows where he's going and he doesn't cheat to get there.
There's another show I got into recently (Torchwood), and the latest installment more than didn't work for me - it came close to ruining my enjoyment of the seasons before it and I'll never invest any ongoing interest in anything the writer/director makes again because in contrast to Joss, everything I've said here goes opposite for him. Which I know is a tangent but it's an example of the "trust Joss" thing - more often than not he's made shows that I would gladly sit down and watch again over just about anything else on, and I can't say that about many writers/directors.
posted by lemniskate at 5:20 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
Fans - people who tend to really invest in shows and characters they enjoy - have learned they can trust Joss. They may not like all his choices but he respects his material and his audience - without letting their feelings determine the course of the show. He has an over-arching plan for his stories; on Buffy, there were clues dropped /years/ in advance of one of the last storylines. He knows where he's going and he doesn't cheat to get there.
There's another show I got into recently (Torchwood), and the latest installment more than didn't work for me - it came close to ruining my enjoyment of the seasons before it and I'll never invest any ongoing interest in anything the writer/director makes again because in contrast to Joss, everything I've said here goes opposite for him. Which I know is a tangent but it's an example of the "trust Joss" thing - more often than not he's made shows that I would gladly sit down and watch again over just about anything else on, and I can't say that about many writers/directors.
posted by lemniskate at 5:20 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
Yeah, he's an awesome storyteller that doesn't feel the need to wrap up every storyline in 1 episode like many current TV shows do. I think a great contrast is Buffy vs. Alias. In Buffy, Joss spends an entire season introducing a character, getting you to love them, only to kill them off in a way that was extremely poignant and emotionally important for all the characters and the story. In Alias (which I did watch), Abrams would introduce a new character, rush you into supposedly care about them, and then kill them off by the end of the episode, or the next episode at most. Essentially, Joss takes the time to let stories unfold organically, which makes everything more realistic and a better story overall. And it's VERY rare these days.
If you do go watch Buffy, don't get put off by the first couple of episodes, the show really grows. Similarly, don't judge Firefly by the Train Job episode, that was Fox screwing with Joss's genius.
posted by katers890 at 5:29 AM on May 22, 2010
If you do go watch Buffy, don't get put off by the first couple of episodes, the show really grows. Similarly, don't judge Firefly by the Train Job episode, that was Fox screwing with Joss's genius.
posted by katers890 at 5:29 AM on May 22, 2010
lemniskate, who is the writer/director of Torchwood, is it RTD?
posted by Disinter at 5:33 AM on May 22, 2010
posted by Disinter at 5:33 AM on May 22, 2010
The thing is that Joss gets all the credit even though David Greenwalt and Ben Edlund might be the people who made his beloved shows so fantastic. I will not spoil his shows, but a lot of the funniest elements in the shows are the brain children of Ben Edlund. As I recall, the Angel episodes without David Greenwalt's touch were not nearly as good as those he (co-)created. If you watch Supernatural, it will feel very familiar to fans of Buffy and Angel, which is Ben Edlund's involvement showing. True Ben Edlund fans will also know that he's the creator of The Tick.
I personally do not like Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog and Firefly---nor do I hate them, but Firefly mostly felt like Angel/Buffy recycled. His X-Men comic series was a downright painful read. His latest guest direction of Glee wasn't very satisfactory either.
There is nothing wrong with liking Firefly, but it is worth remembering that it is one of the biggest bandwagons on the internet, and a lot of the people who like it haven't seen Buffy nor Angel. The same can be said about Joss Whedon in general. As you say so yourself, Joss Whedon is a "phenomenon".
For the record, Buffy and Angel are some of my favourite shows---Angel mostly. But they are the results of a collaboration between great minds: not a sole effort.
posted by blook at 5:48 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
I personally do not like Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog and Firefly---nor do I hate them, but Firefly mostly felt like Angel/Buffy recycled. His X-Men comic series was a downright painful read. His latest guest direction of Glee wasn't very satisfactory either.
There is nothing wrong with liking Firefly, but it is worth remembering that it is one of the biggest bandwagons on the internet, and a lot of the people who like it haven't seen Buffy nor Angel. The same can be said about Joss Whedon in general. As you say so yourself, Joss Whedon is a "phenomenon".
For the record, Buffy and Angel are some of my favourite shows---Angel mostly. But they are the results of a collaboration between great minds: not a sole effort.
posted by blook at 5:48 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
He also seems to have a real gift for discovering/developing actors; a lot of actors hit it big in Joss shows, or else Joss took an actor people knew for something else, used them in unexpected ways, and showed a range people hadn't seen before. I expect there's a reason many actors are pleased to go back to his projects again and again.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:53 AM on May 22, 2010
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:53 AM on May 22, 2010
The Buffy Formula is a pretty big reason why Buffy, Angel, and Firefly are so awesome. Basically, each season you start with an adversary ("little bad"), about half way through this is defeated/removed but out comes another, worse, adversary ("big bad"), who gets defeated at the end of the season. About half(ish?) of the episodes really revolve around the main arc, the other half are one-off monsters (but may have social/character development impact on the main plot).
This doesn't sound groundbreaking, but the ratio of short to long plot in Buffy is just perfect. It works really well when you compare it to shows that only have long plots (Lost...) or only have short plots, although more shows are doing a better job of mixing short and long (yay).
By the way, if you have Netflix all of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly are on Watch Instantly.
posted by anaelith at 6:10 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
This doesn't sound groundbreaking, but the ratio of short to long plot in Buffy is just perfect. It works really well when you compare it to shows that only have long plots (Lost...) or only have short plots, although more shows are doing a better job of mixing short and long (yay).
By the way, if you have Netflix all of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly are on Watch Instantly.
posted by anaelith at 6:10 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
Based on my viewing and liking of Buffy, Angel and Firefly, Wheadon does a great job of creating a type of pseudo family with the characters that is very appealing, especially to the nerd crown (this is not a negative, IMO). Most of his fans can find some aspects of themselves with the characters and the shows tend to amplify feelings of "we are right or good, not in spite of our nerdiness, but because of it."
It doesn't hurt that he has good characters with interesting dialogue that are attractive.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:36 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
It doesn't hurt that he has good characters with interesting dialogue that are attractive.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:36 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Hunh. You are me circa 2003.
Kyrademon sums up the the assets and liabilities pretty perfectly above -- to my mind, his greatest strength is the awareness that his audience has seen most of the things he has seen, so he is prepared to engage in some pop-cultural shorthand and grant that viewers can follow it. You mention having seen Serenity; it shares a trope with The Empire Strikes Back of a tiny ship evading a massive fleet searching for it. While TESB had two or three scenes of Vader expressing his displeasure that his quarry has not been found and taking out his frustration on various hapless Imperial officers, Serenity has a single shot, maybe four seconds long, of an aggrieved-looking Operative standing on the bridge surrounded by hapless officers and saying the two words, "Define 'disappeared.'" That's all the story needs; the audence can fill in the rest.
Serenity likewise inverts tropes by having the climactic battle between Mal and the Operative occur above massive whirling blades. The audience has been taught by a generation of hack directors that villains fall to their deaths, so naturally we expect this. Here we avoid the cliché entirely by having the villain defeated by being convinced he is wrong, which is about as far from a cliché as you can get.
Whedon is also an underrated filmmaker in the tactical sense of using his resources very well indeed to move the story forward. To take a long and slightly involved example, again from Serenity:
At the end of the final act, before we shift into the dénoument, we see a beaten and bloodied Mal return to his crew. He asks about River and there is the Big Reveal of her surrounded by slain Reavers. A group of Alliance troops appears behind her, levelling their weapons at her; there is a close-up of a gloved finger tightening on a trigger. We see an Alliance trooper's point-of-view shot from over River's shoulder as she looks down the hallway at Mal, then looks back over her shoulder at the troops.
As originally filmed, the scened ended there and we moved on immediately to the funeral scene. Whedon's original scheme there was to leave the audience wondering if River had died as well as the others who had already perished by that point (until she is revealed to be attending the funeral). However, the ending of the scene before was found to be a little jarring and confusing. So what we see in the final cut is the sequence above with the addition of:
1. the troops asking by radio for orders from the Operative;
2. a shot of him still watching the video signal;
3. his radioed orders to stand down;
4. the finger coming off the trigger;
5. the trips lowering their weapons;
6. River turning to look back at Mal.
1 was a tiny bit of voice acting work done in post-production; 2 was an unused shot from earlier in the scene; 3 was stolen from elsewhere in the dialogue track; 4 and 6 were simply bits of the already-filmed scene played again, but this time backwards; and 5 was the tailing from another shot -- after Whedon had yelled 'Cut,' the actors playing troops lowered their prop weapons and the camera, before it was shut off, caught a half second of this. To clarify the story by extending a scene another several seconds from essentially nothing at all is decently skillful.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:16 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
Kyrademon sums up the the assets and liabilities pretty perfectly above -- to my mind, his greatest strength is the awareness that his audience has seen most of the things he has seen, so he is prepared to engage in some pop-cultural shorthand and grant that viewers can follow it. You mention having seen Serenity; it shares a trope with The Empire Strikes Back of a tiny ship evading a massive fleet searching for it. While TESB had two or three scenes of Vader expressing his displeasure that his quarry has not been found and taking out his frustration on various hapless Imperial officers, Serenity has a single shot, maybe four seconds long, of an aggrieved-looking Operative standing on the bridge surrounded by hapless officers and saying the two words, "Define 'disappeared.'" That's all the story needs; the audence can fill in the rest.
Serenity likewise inverts tropes by having the climactic battle between Mal and the Operative occur above massive whirling blades. The audience has been taught by a generation of hack directors that villains fall to their deaths, so naturally we expect this. Here we avoid the cliché entirely by having the villain defeated by being convinced he is wrong, which is about as far from a cliché as you can get.
Whedon is also an underrated filmmaker in the tactical sense of using his resources very well indeed to move the story forward. To take a long and slightly involved example, again from Serenity:
At the end of the final act, before we shift into the dénoument, we see a beaten and bloodied Mal return to his crew. He asks about River and there is the Big Reveal of her surrounded by slain Reavers. A group of Alliance troops appears behind her, levelling their weapons at her; there is a close-up of a gloved finger tightening on a trigger. We see an Alliance trooper's point-of-view shot from over River's shoulder as she looks down the hallway at Mal, then looks back over her shoulder at the troops.
As originally filmed, the scened ended there and we moved on immediately to the funeral scene. Whedon's original scheme there was to leave the audience wondering if River had died as well as the others who had already perished by that point (until she is revealed to be attending the funeral). However, the ending of the scene before was found to be a little jarring and confusing. So what we see in the final cut is the sequence above with the addition of:
1. the troops asking by radio for orders from the Operative;
2. a shot of him still watching the video signal;
3. his radioed orders to stand down;
4. the finger coming off the trigger;
5. the trips lowering their weapons;
6. River turning to look back at Mal.
1 was a tiny bit of voice acting work done in post-production; 2 was an unused shot from earlier in the scene; 3 was stolen from elsewhere in the dialogue track; 4 and 6 were simply bits of the already-filmed scene played again, but this time backwards; and 5 was the tailing from another shot -- after Whedon had yelled 'Cut,' the actors playing troops lowered their prop weapons and the camera, before it was shut off, caught a half second of this. To clarify the story by extending a scene another several seconds from essentially nothing at all is decently skillful.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:16 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
I can't say i'm his biggest fan, but Firefly is so damn good. It's also really short. It's worth watching even if you never ever watch anything else by him. I still can't believe they cancelled it. Fucking Fox.
posted by chunking express at 7:46 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by chunking express at 7:46 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
Buffy is one of my favorite series of all time. I never knew about Joss before that, and while I have watched all of his TV series since then, nothing's quite enthralled me the way Buffy did, and the excellence of Buffy is what has caused a lot of people to sort of faun over everything he does. What I liked about it was that there was almost always a good balance between humor, drama, creepiness. The stories were well-written and involved. The dialogue was generally good regardless of the tone. I know a lot of people love Firefly, and there were some great episodes in its short run and great characters, but some of the humor on there didn't really sit naturally in my opinion. I thought it took a while to find itself, similar to how Dollhouse did (although Dollhouse completely drove itself into the ground in its last few episodes- that was bad).
On Buffy, I really cared about the characters. Each season was pretty different from the next: the first season was mostly little monster stories every week and geeky high school drama, but starting in the second season it got into these story arcs that would extend over the course of the season. Characters aged like normal people, going through different phases in their lives. While maybe it doesn't seem as momentous now, at the time it was really fresh and different. And when I see Buffy reruns, I still enjoy watching them.
A lot of people discount season 5 because there's some jump the shark-level story developments in it, but I think seasons 2 and 5 were the strongest ones. Season 6 was generally pretty dark and not as good, and season 7 was kind of awful. Season 4 was probably my least favorite season, and I remember finding it relatively stupid at the time and containing some particularly bad episodes. But I still loved watching it.
There was a big thing with season 5 where a lot of people thought the show was being canceled, but it was really just switching networks. But the WB did a nasty thing at the time, marketing the last episode of that season as the "series finale." It sure seemed like one, and if you didn't keep up with Buffy news on the internet, you might've thought it was. "The Gift," the season 5 finale, is one of my favorite episodes of television ever. But you probably wouldn't get why without seeing all the seasons leading up to it and really getting into the show.
posted by wondermouse at 7:46 AM on May 22, 2010
On Buffy, I really cared about the characters. Each season was pretty different from the next: the first season was mostly little monster stories every week and geeky high school drama, but starting in the second season it got into these story arcs that would extend over the course of the season. Characters aged like normal people, going through different phases in their lives. While maybe it doesn't seem as momentous now, at the time it was really fresh and different. And when I see Buffy reruns, I still enjoy watching them.
A lot of people discount season 5 because there's some jump the shark-level story developments in it, but I think seasons 2 and 5 were the strongest ones. Season 6 was generally pretty dark and not as good, and season 7 was kind of awful. Season 4 was probably my least favorite season, and I remember finding it relatively stupid at the time and containing some particularly bad episodes. But I still loved watching it.
There was a big thing with season 5 where a lot of people thought the show was being canceled, but it was really just switching networks. But the WB did a nasty thing at the time, marketing the last episode of that season as the "series finale." It sure seemed like one, and if you didn't keep up with Buffy news on the internet, you might've thought it was. "The Gift," the season 5 finale, is one of my favorite episodes of television ever. But you probably wouldn't get why without seeing all the seasons leading up to it and really getting into the show.
posted by wondermouse at 7:46 AM on May 22, 2010
Oh, and I did love the movie Serenity. I saw it before I ever saw an episode of Firefly, and I ended up watching Firefly after that. I have that whole series/movie on DVD now.
posted by wondermouse at 7:48 AM on May 22, 2010
posted by wondermouse at 7:48 AM on May 22, 2010
Explain to me the phenomena known as Joss Whedon.
In a nutshell: crap sells.
It's true in books, tv, movies, food... everything. People these days are after temporary distraction and Whedon's work is very good at that.
he doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence, to the contrary, he can challenge it.
I couldn't disagree with this more. My intelligence has been insulted every time I've watched one of Whedon's creations and I'm not that intelligent. (I've seen Serenity, Firefly, and probably a dozen episodes of Buffy, but I'll never again watch anything he's attached to as he batted zero with those pieces.)
IMO, Whedon's shows are poorly acted and written; his stories are predictable and filled with inane, exposition-riddled dialogue. But the fans don't care--they don't watch it for smart plots, intelligent dialogue, or grounded conflict. (If they did, they'd stop watching.)
Buffy and Whedon's other shows are popular for the same reason CSI is popular--they offer a comfortable environment where people can return without being challenged too much. The characters are one-dimensional but there are so many of them that you feel you're getting a variety.
There is a ton of great TV available today. I'd consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen Whedon's stuff and advise you to avoid it and spend your time watching better entertainment.
posted by dobbs at 8:02 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
In a nutshell: crap sells.
It's true in books, tv, movies, food... everything. People these days are after temporary distraction and Whedon's work is very good at that.
he doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence, to the contrary, he can challenge it.
I couldn't disagree with this more. My intelligence has been insulted every time I've watched one of Whedon's creations and I'm not that intelligent. (I've seen Serenity, Firefly, and probably a dozen episodes of Buffy, but I'll never again watch anything he's attached to as he batted zero with those pieces.)
IMO, Whedon's shows are poorly acted and written; his stories are predictable and filled with inane, exposition-riddled dialogue. But the fans don't care--they don't watch it for smart plots, intelligent dialogue, or grounded conflict. (If they did, they'd stop watching.)
Buffy and Whedon's other shows are popular for the same reason CSI is popular--they offer a comfortable environment where people can return without being challenged too much. The characters are one-dimensional but there are so many of them that you feel you're getting a variety.
There is a ton of great TV available today. I'd consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen Whedon's stuff and advise you to avoid it and spend your time watching better entertainment.
posted by dobbs at 8:02 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
In my mind,
1) He writes ensemble casts, and examines all the different relationships between characters when a lot of shows just stick to love triangles. This leads to a lot of interesting dynamics and character depth, and the characters themselves become easy to care about.
2) His shows are entertaining & funny, especially for the dialogue. "Buffy Speak" is interesting because it's pretty unrealistically snappy but it manages to convey the sense of realism.
As TV Tropes says as above "When properly handled, Buffy Speak can give the sense of a teenaged group's special jargon or argot without necessarily imitating anything actually found in the real world. Improperly handled, it can sound ludicrously fake and may damage Willing Suspension Of Disbelief. "
A lot of his stuff, like Buffy Speak, has been incorporated into popular culture so that is seems less fresh and original than it actually was.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:59 AM on May 22, 2010
1) He writes ensemble casts, and examines all the different relationships between characters when a lot of shows just stick to love triangles. This leads to a lot of interesting dynamics and character depth, and the characters themselves become easy to care about.
2) His shows are entertaining & funny, especially for the dialogue. "Buffy Speak" is interesting because it's pretty unrealistically snappy but it manages to convey the sense of realism.
As TV Tropes says as above "When properly handled, Buffy Speak can give the sense of a teenaged group's special jargon or argot without necessarily imitating anything actually found in the real world. Improperly handled, it can sound ludicrously fake and may damage Willing Suspension Of Disbelief. "
A lot of his stuff, like Buffy Speak, has been incorporated into popular culture so that is seems less fresh and original than it actually was.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:59 AM on May 22, 2010
I couldn't disagree with this more. My intelligence has been insulted every time I've watched one of Whedon's creations and I'm not that intelligent.
You know, dobbs, if you're trying to prove that a show isn't good by arguing with people when they say it's intelligent, and you go on to say that you're not intelligent, then maybe you're just not, you know, able to appreciate the genius of the shows.
The characters are one-dimensional but there are so many of them that you feel you're getting a variety.
I will argue fiercely about this, I think that the characters only grow and become multidimensional. In Buffy, we literally watch Xander go from a goof-off high school kid to a college burnout to a very successful contractor, and Joss doesn't have him just go from one to another; each role is wrapped up by the next one and his final character is a grand summation of these parts. Watching him live as a character is probably still one of my favorite things about TV.
I think Joss Whedon does great work, even if his shows tend to take time to ramp up. Dobbs, I think you're a classic victim of watching a few bits of Buffy and not getting it. You really do have to invest in it and watch it all. It's the same thing as Lost. You can make fun of it all you want, but if you really jump in and watch it all, it's really very good. (Lost isn't in the same ballpark as Whedon, however. It's a different kind of show).
I can't wrap my head around why you didn't like Firefly and Serenity other than the fact that of all my friends, the ones that don't like Joss Whedon's work also tend to be the ones that don't like reading or watching movies like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly; the ones that, if I was forced to make a distinction, were less grown as people and more intellectually stunted.
posted by InsanePenguin at 9:12 AM on May 22, 2010 [4 favorites]
You know, dobbs, if you're trying to prove that a show isn't good by arguing with people when they say it's intelligent, and you go on to say that you're not intelligent, then maybe you're just not, you know, able to appreciate the genius of the shows.
The characters are one-dimensional but there are so many of them that you feel you're getting a variety.
I will argue fiercely about this, I think that the characters only grow and become multidimensional. In Buffy, we literally watch Xander go from a goof-off high school kid to a college burnout to a very successful contractor, and Joss doesn't have him just go from one to another; each role is wrapped up by the next one and his final character is a grand summation of these parts. Watching him live as a character is probably still one of my favorite things about TV.
I think Joss Whedon does great work, even if his shows tend to take time to ramp up. Dobbs, I think you're a classic victim of watching a few bits of Buffy and not getting it. You really do have to invest in it and watch it all. It's the same thing as Lost. You can make fun of it all you want, but if you really jump in and watch it all, it's really very good. (Lost isn't in the same ballpark as Whedon, however. It's a different kind of show).
I can't wrap my head around why you didn't like Firefly and Serenity other than the fact that of all my friends, the ones that don't like Joss Whedon's work also tend to be the ones that don't like reading or watching movies like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly; the ones that, if I was forced to make a distinction, were less grown as people and more intellectually stunted.
posted by InsanePenguin at 9:12 AM on May 22, 2010 [4 favorites]
I don't, however, get why people get so excited when Whedon "guest-directs." Unlike other people, who have a signature style of shooting (which Whedon does, but it tends to take a backseat to character and story development,) Joss' strength lies in his ability to make a cast feel like a family who react realistically to the various stimuli. Doing that in a single episode of, say, Glee (which I love,) is impossible.
In short, you cannot encapsulate Joss Whedon's work in a single episode; you have to watch whole seasons, if not whole series. This is why I believe some people just don't get it.
posted by InsanePenguin at 9:17 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
In short, you cannot encapsulate Joss Whedon's work in a single episode; you have to watch whole seasons, if not whole series. This is why I believe some people just don't get it.
posted by InsanePenguin at 9:17 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
My intelligence has been insulted every time I've watched one of Whedon's creations ... IMO, Whedon's shows are poorly acted and written; his stories are predictable and filled with inane, exposition-riddled dialogue. But the fans don't care--they don't watch it for smart plots, intelligent dialogue, or grounded conflict.
Well, that's insulting. I don't enjoy watching crap, and I also don't enjoy having my intelligence insulted, which is what you just did. I do actually watch programs that I believe have smart plots and intelligent dialogue. If you would like an example of a non-Joss program I enjoy for its plots, dialogue, conflict, and interesting characters, I offer you Justified. There isn't a whole lot else on right now that I think is all that great.
While not without its flaws, I think Buffy was a great show in many ways, as do a lot of other intelligent people who enjoy quality television programming.
I don't care if you don't like the work of Joss Whedon - nothing appeals to everybody, and I don't like all of his work either (btw, plenty of Buffy fans don't love everything Joss is involved with) - but essentially calling fans of his programming a bunch of fools who are just looking for mindless entertainment is, in fact, incorrect.
posted by wondermouse at 9:50 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
Well, that's insulting. I don't enjoy watching crap, and I also don't enjoy having my intelligence insulted, which is what you just did. I do actually watch programs that I believe have smart plots and intelligent dialogue. If you would like an example of a non-Joss program I enjoy for its plots, dialogue, conflict, and interesting characters, I offer you Justified. There isn't a whole lot else on right now that I think is all that great.
While not without its flaws, I think Buffy was a great show in many ways, as do a lot of other intelligent people who enjoy quality television programming.
I don't care if you don't like the work of Joss Whedon - nothing appeals to everybody, and I don't like all of his work either (btw, plenty of Buffy fans don't love everything Joss is involved with) - but essentially calling fans of his programming a bunch of fools who are just looking for mindless entertainment is, in fact, incorrect.
posted by wondermouse at 9:50 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'll chime in as (what seems like) the only person who liked Dollhouse so far -- in fact, i loved that show. I loved that it started out with one premise (people can become other people for rich people's amusement, insert angst here) and that slowly flowered into a whole new premise (the people running the Dollhouse are Very Bad People). The characters evolved over time, especially Topher, and it was interesting to see how the ground kept shifting under the characters and how they adapted to it. It wasn't a perfect show, but it made me think and stuck with me.
For me, I like Joss's work because he's not afraid to screw with the emotions of his audience and kill people off or damage them irrevocably. Perhaps the best example is "The Body" out of Buffy (Warning: big spoilers on that link!) which just hit you like a ton of bricks and was absolutely unnecessary from a formulaic-tv standpoint. It makes watching his shows feel a lot less predictable, because you have no idea whether your favourite character really will get through that awful situation they are in. With Joss, there are no last-minute guarantees, and that's quite exciting.
posted by ukdanae at 10:03 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
For me, I like Joss's work because he's not afraid to screw with the emotions of his audience and kill people off or damage them irrevocably. Perhaps the best example is "The Body" out of Buffy (Warning: big spoilers on that link!) which just hit you like a ton of bricks and was absolutely unnecessary from a formulaic-tv standpoint. It makes watching his shows feel a lot less predictable, because you have no idea whether your favourite character really will get through that awful situation they are in. With Joss, there are no last-minute guarantees, and that's quite exciting.
posted by ukdanae at 10:03 AM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
I like his stuff (though I'm not a fanatic) because he succeeds at telling massively long stories through short episodes.
Shows like the X Files and Lost fail for me because even though they are imaginative, they are meandering and sloppy. Wheedon told the highly imaginative Buffy story with a relatively clean arc that swept over something like 150 episodes. I think that's pretty rare on TV. Sitcoms don't really even try, and hour long dramas are (with exceptions like the Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men et al) typically episodic with minimal plot development or meandering soap operas. Things like Law and Order or House are five minutes of character development and 40 minutes of formula.
So then Wheedon's shows keep getting cancelled, and of course the fans go nuts because they are the people who actually want to see an imaginative long-format serial. This makes those fans louder and more rabid and zealous.
There were so many details building in Dollhouse that it took almost a year to fully set the story up, and by that time all the short attention span people had long since been lost. Not because the show was crap, but because they wanted something simple fed to them up front within an episode or two.
So yeah, If you watch three episodes of Dollhouse, or just the Serenity movie, or even just the first half season of Buffy, it doesn't work. You wont get Joss Wheedon. You need to want the whole thing.
This is why Wheedon will probably not succeed in the movies--to do what he does best, he needs years given to him, not a $100 million budget.
posted by quarterframer at 10:27 AM on May 22, 2010
Shows like the X Files and Lost fail for me because even though they are imaginative, they are meandering and sloppy. Wheedon told the highly imaginative Buffy story with a relatively clean arc that swept over something like 150 episodes. I think that's pretty rare on TV. Sitcoms don't really even try, and hour long dramas are (with exceptions like the Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men et al) typically episodic with minimal plot development or meandering soap operas. Things like Law and Order or House are five minutes of character development and 40 minutes of formula.
So then Wheedon's shows keep getting cancelled, and of course the fans go nuts because they are the people who actually want to see an imaginative long-format serial. This makes those fans louder and more rabid and zealous.
There were so many details building in Dollhouse that it took almost a year to fully set the story up, and by that time all the short attention span people had long since been lost. Not because the show was crap, but because they wanted something simple fed to them up front within an episode or two.
So yeah, If you watch three episodes of Dollhouse, or just the Serenity movie, or even just the first half season of Buffy, it doesn't work. You wont get Joss Wheedon. You need to want the whole thing.
This is why Wheedon will probably not succeed in the movies--to do what he does best, he needs years given to him, not a $100 million budget.
posted by quarterframer at 10:27 AM on May 22, 2010
IMO, Whedon's shows are poorly acted and written; his stories are predictable and filled with inane, exposition-riddled dialogue. But the fans don't care--they don't watch it for smart plots, intelligent dialogue, or grounded conflict.
Predictable? Really? I absolutely hate it when people claim that a story is predictable, but cannot say exactly what they predicted. Hell, in Buffy alone,
SPOILERS
- You did not predict that Angelus would kill Jenny Calendar in Season 2.
- You did not predict that Buffy will come home to find her mother dead on the floor in Season 5.
- You did not predict that Willow's girlfriend Tara would be killed by a stray bullet in Season 6.
- You did not predict that Spike would go through the trials to get his soul in Season 6.
- You did not predict that Spike would be the one who saves the world in Season 7.
END SPOILERS
That's just off the top of my head, in 2 minutes. I can think of many other things in Angel and Firefly/Serenity that you didn't predict.
Finally, let people like what they like. The "your $FAVORITE_ENTERTAINMENT_PROVIDER sucks" thing is childish and stupid.
posted by King Bee at 10:57 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
Predictable? Really? I absolutely hate it when people claim that a story is predictable, but cannot say exactly what they predicted. Hell, in Buffy alone,
SPOILERS
- You did not predict that Angelus would kill Jenny Calendar in Season 2.
- You did not predict that Buffy will come home to find her mother dead on the floor in Season 5.
- You did not predict that Willow's girlfriend Tara would be killed by a stray bullet in Season 6.
- You did not predict that Spike would go through the trials to get his soul in Season 6.
- You did not predict that Spike would be the one who saves the world in Season 7.
END SPOILERS
That's just off the top of my head, in 2 minutes. I can think of many other things in Angel and Firefly/Serenity that you didn't predict.
Finally, let people like what they like. The "your $FAVORITE_ENTERTAINMENT_PROVIDER sucks" thing is childish and stupid.
posted by King Bee at 10:57 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
The characters are one-dimensional but there are so many of them that you feel you're getting a variety.
I would agree with you if you were even a little bit right. Firefly manages to feature four very different female characters in every episode (where most TV seems to have trouble imagining any roles for women beyond girlfriend, District Attorney, or grandmother) and you know what? Essentially every single line of dialogue each of them has would seem jarring coming out of the mouth of any of the other three.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:44 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
I would agree with you if you were even a little bit right. Firefly manages to feature four very different female characters in every episode (where most TV seems to have trouble imagining any roles for women beyond girlfriend, District Attorney, or grandmother) and you know what? Essentially every single line of dialogue each of them has would seem jarring coming out of the mouth of any of the other three.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:44 AM on May 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
What I liked about Firefly was that it was *not* predictable. Unlike most of what I've seen on TV, I couldn't predict the outcome 15 minutes in; I didn't know how it was all going to turn out, and I didn't know how they were going to get out of whatever they were in.
If something changed in one episode, the change remained remained when the next episode started. It wasn't a bunch of independent episodes; it was a series-long story. Offhand comments in one episode become major points in another. It didn't have that jarring disconnect that you can often expect in TV shows, where everything that happens one week is completely gone the next. How do you invest emotion into something that never really changes?
I guess this is a restatement of others' comment that "he's not afraid to screw with his fans' heads," but the various events in the show demonstrate that a character doesn't have plot immunity just because he's a main character. That's a *good* thing. Plot immunity is one of the most cliche and annoying elements of television. If a character is clearly never in real danger, it makes the whole thing less compelling.
So it wasn't trite, predictable, unrealistic, and I *liked* it...and I hate watching TV.
posted by galadriel at 12:03 PM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
If something changed in one episode, the change remained remained when the next episode started. It wasn't a bunch of independent episodes; it was a series-long story. Offhand comments in one episode become major points in another. It didn't have that jarring disconnect that you can often expect in TV shows, where everything that happens one week is completely gone the next. How do you invest emotion into something that never really changes?
I guess this is a restatement of others' comment that "he's not afraid to screw with his fans' heads," but the various events in the show demonstrate that a character doesn't have plot immunity just because he's a main character. That's a *good* thing. Plot immunity is one of the most cliche and annoying elements of television. If a character is clearly never in real danger, it makes the whole thing less compelling.
So it wasn't trite, predictable, unrealistic, and I *liked* it...and I hate watching TV.
posted by galadriel at 12:03 PM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
One thing that's gotten a bit lost over the years of canonizing Buffy The Vampire Slayer, writing masters' theses about the show, etc., is that fundamentally, Buffy is a ridiculous teenage melodrama, a show for 14-year-olds – it just wound up being smarter than it had any right to be. I think maybe these days with all the hype people may not get that it's not really a show aimed at adults. You know, despite the title which should make things real obvious.
I think this explains some of the disconnect more than "you don't like Buffy because you don't like art."
posted by furiousthought at 12:42 PM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think this explains some of the disconnect more than "you don't like Buffy because you don't like art."
posted by furiousthought at 12:42 PM on May 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
I am going to put in the good word for Dr. Horrible's Sing-along-blog. I won't claim that it is transcendent art but I find it infectiously good fun and have forged many friendships over strains of 'Bad Horse'.
posted by schmichael at 6:58 AM on May 24, 2010
posted by schmichael at 6:58 AM on May 24, 2010
Whedon does some things well and with others allows himself to ride the waves of well-worn tropes and cliches. The latter isn't that bad as most media put out these days does the same thing, but the problem is that his fans will voraciously argue his originality in spite of the glaring obvious.
I've always contended he does a good job of legitimizing B-movie scripts.
People like to relate to the character(s) so Whedon sucessfully filled his shows with goofy "everyman" heroes. Shitty lead actor aside, that is also why I believe Dollhouse failed with his main veiwing audience.
Start with his small stuff and work up from there. I thought his Dark Horse Presents comic was inventive. Dr. Horrible is great. Personally I didn't really begin to enjoy Firefly until I got a couple episodes in, but even then he keeps slapping you in the face with the "cowboys in space" bit. Serenity is good. Dollhouse you'll maybe have to wade through at least five episodes or so before you may like it. His other stuff I couldn't give you a good opinion on, but I wouldn't want to sit through twenty-some-odd episodes for something to be good like Buffy.
In the end your opinion is going to be what counts to you.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:17 PM on May 24, 2010
I've always contended he does a good job of legitimizing B-movie scripts.
People like to relate to the character(s) so Whedon sucessfully filled his shows with goofy "everyman" heroes. Shitty lead actor aside, that is also why I believe Dollhouse failed with his main veiwing audience.
Start with his small stuff and work up from there. I thought his Dark Horse Presents comic was inventive. Dr. Horrible is great. Personally I didn't really begin to enjoy Firefly until I got a couple episodes in, but even then he keeps slapping you in the face with the "cowboys in space" bit. Serenity is good. Dollhouse you'll maybe have to wade through at least five episodes or so before you may like it. His other stuff I couldn't give you a good opinion on, but I wouldn't want to sit through twenty-some-odd episodes for something to be good like Buffy.
In the end your opinion is going to be what counts to you.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:17 PM on May 24, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
he's also a gigantic nerd who has written some comics that people like.
so - great with ensemble casts and a depth of knowledge about comic lore = people very excited about him taking on avengers.
as to dollhouse, some will undoubtedly come in and disagree with me - but i think a lot of that buzz was because whedon came back to fox and again fox jerked shit around and didn't give the show the attention it needed - it was just a replay of the story that joss finds himself in and a lot of people were hoping for the next firefly. personally, i found it to be a big pile of poo. it's the only thing he's done that i didn't like.
posted by nadawi at 4:24 AM on May 22, 2010