Joss Wheedon

nesf

Just something that has been going on in another aspect of my life that I'd be interested in hearing peoples opinions on here.

Basically it started from a statement:

"Joss Wheedon is hack. He has little talent and originality and his work while being appealing to the masses and fanboys, is poor quality rip offs of the sci fi and horror concepts of far more talented individuals.

This obviously controversial statement provoked quite a response from people, but those on the pro and anti Joss Wheedon camps.

What do people think?

Is his work just pulp tv and is completely overrated because of it's commercial success, or has he artistic integrity?

madrab

i think he is one of the most talented people in the business

Figment

madrab wrote:

i think he is one of the most talented people in the business

I agree.

doh.ie

Ditto. Plus, unlike JMS, Whedon doesn't have a high opinion of himself, which is another non-writing quality I've always admired in someone in his position...

ixoy

I'm also a supporter of the Whedon. A show like 'Buffy' was quite remarkable in that it dealt with teenage-related issues - such as sexuality, fitting in - in not just a mature manner, but a humorous one as well so nobody ever felt preached at but the message would still get through. The characters in the show, and in 'Angel' were generally quite well crafted - each had his/her own unique trait that generally made them memorable in some way, with a couple of exceptions (sorry Riley!).

He also showed that he could progress to more adult fare in 'Firefly', with a subversie take on the whole Western genre - transplating into space. Showed an excellent eye for casting and characterisation there by having a cast that gelled together incredibly quickly for the show's short life.

Now maybe his plots aren't as intricate, or unnessecarily convoluted, as some shows but the important bit was that they would generally be balanced - paying attention to issues of characterisation, pacing, and so forth. And he was great at delivering payoff at times - Angel vs Jenny Calendar in S2's "Passion" is a classic example. When his shows suffered, such as Buffy's later seasons, it owed more to Whedon not being there rather than something Whedon actively did.

Looking forward to seeing how "Serenity" turns out and, on the basis of his previous work, I'm quite quite hopeful.

Lochaber

I quite like Whedon as well, definitely looking forward to Serenity, however... I do think that even the best Buffy / Angel / Firefly episodes weren't in the same league as some of the other one hour dramas out there, his shows have the potential but for some reason never (IMO) reached the heights they could have, I've felt there's an inconsistency in his characters - sometimes the show was too led by the plot and the characters were left by the wayside. Maybe it's the writing but maybe he should have asserted more control ala JMS.

anyway for those who haven't seen, here's a link to the Serenity trailer.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/serenity/

regeneration

The man wrote the screenplay for Alien Ressurection; I guess everyone's allowed one blotch on their CV, but that's a helluva stain.
He writes decent dialogue but I find his setups/scenarios fairly poor and trashy, and nothing beyond pulp. comapred against other tv scifi writers out there, he's not got a lot of good competition, so I guess that's why he's known as the best tv scifi writer.

Stark

The characters in the show, and in 'Angel' were generally quite well crafted - each had his/her own unique trait that generally made them memorable in some way, with a couple of exceptions (sorry Riley!).

Riley had "boring", that made him memorable

ixoy

regeneration wrote:

He writes decent dialogue but I find his setups/scenarios fairly poor and trashy, and nothing beyond pulp. comapred against other tv scifi writers out there, he's not got a lot of good competition, so I guess that's why he's known as the best tv scifi writer.

Well that's why I don't think he focuses too much on the plot at times - he's trying to get it all and I think he strikes a better balance than most of his contemporaries.

There's a few others we could compare him to. Most notably is JMS. JMS wasn't as witty but he wrote some damn fine characters in his time, some real tragic figures that I'm not sure Whedon could have pulled off - in the likes of G'Kar and Londo, but even the hints we see of Galen in "Crusade". Plus JMS had the ability to write massive arcs. Even when Buffy went all arcy in S5, it didn't have the same sort of foresight that B5 had. In the long run, I think JMS outdoes JW for myself, principally because of the arc payoff and characters even if the humour isn't all that clever - Rebo and Zootie were never good.

Another possible figure is Chris Carter. Personally, though he failed when he showed an inability to plan thoughtfully and let the X-Files mythos go out of control. WHilst Mulder and Scully were enjoyable characters, I never felt he really put the sort of characterisation into them that we saw in the works of JW or JMS. Plots were, sometimes, better than either - at least in terms of an individual story. His "Millennium" work was quite good too and he showed a good eye for generating atmosphere. A nod must go also to the Morgan & Wong team who deftly handled S2 - they were quite possibly better than Carter, particularly for characterisation and showing a broader palette of humour, darkness, and drama.

Couple of other names - Ronald D. Moore as a writer. His work on "Carnivale", "Battlestar Galactica" and "Deep Space Nine" showed him capable of writing mature sci-fi with a large element of gravitas. Characterisation abilties were good, but his main skills seem to be in command atmospheric performances and tone, as well as long range planning (he was pivotal in bringing in Trek's first real long-arcs in the Dominion wars). He stilll seems to be on a high whereas the others have reached their creative peaks (or so it seems) so definetely a name to watch.

Final genre writer that springs to mind is J.J. Abrams - great mixture of characters, fun (often missing from the others), and ability to inject plot twists in his work on "Alias" and "Lost". He may not be plotting ahead like others but the ride is so enjoyable that you're not always that worried about the destination. He's still firing on all cylinders as well - anyone who is currently worried about Alias S4 should not be .. it's in full swing.

Anyone think of any other contemporaries that JW should be compared to?

moridin

regeneration wrote:

The man wrote the screenplay for Alien Ressurection; I guess everyone's allowed one blotch on their CV, but that's a helluva stain.
He writes decent dialogue but I find his setups/scenarios fairly poor and trashy, and nothing beyond pulp. comapred against other tv scifi writers out there, he's not got a lot of good competition, so I guess that's why he's known as the best tv scifi writer.

From what I remember of that, either Whedon wrote the original screenplay, which was ditched, or he was handed a botched script and had to try and string it together somehow. Wasn't there a big bitchfest over that before?

iguana

His X-men stuff is also excellent for the most part. It is the best those books have been in about 20 years, apart from the first year of Morrison's run. But I think JW's has the edge. Although I wish dead characters would stay dead.

He isn't as good as JMS, his story arc's aren't as thought out and often finish out of nowhere. Last Buffy season, out of nowhere Willow can suddenly use a magic axe they just found to make all the potentials slayers and Angel brings a magic jewel to close the hellmouth. Similar to Buffy season 4 which ends by putting all the essence's of all the slayers into Buffy. It's a bit like the first decade of Fantistic Four where all impossible situations were easily sorted as soon as Reed created a clever invention to get them out of the jam!

But he's funny, writes great character's and interesting highly original stories, eg Hush. He can sometimes send chills down your back or make you feel for the characters long after the episode is over. Or he can bring you around to an idea that you felt was lousy; Spike in love with Buffy. My initial reaction was, this series has lost it, but he brought me around. I think Firefly would have been his best work if he had gotten the chance to run it for a few series'.

Based on the first series of BSG I also prefer Ronald Moore's writing, I loved Buffy but was never as into it as I am into BSG. In fact I think that if Moore has a decent story arc, and he, the cast or the network don't manage to mess it up BSG may be better than B5. That's B5's first 3 and a half seasons anyway, it wouldn't be hard to be better than the end of B5. Byron anyone?

Then again, Firefly was funny, the characters were very well done and while there was no room for the story arc to take off it could have been great. It was different to BSG but it might have been just as wonderful. Hopefully it will work in movie form.

All in all I think JW is a pretty great writer, he has his flaws but he is definitely on the top of my list of people I would like to be sitting next to on a long haul flight.

Stark

Report from people who've seen the Serenity preview (no spoilers):

http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33666

nesf

ixoy wrote:

Well that's why I don't think he focuses too much on the plot at times - he's trying to get it all and I think he strikes a better balance than most of his contemporaries.

There's a few others we could compare him to. Most notably is JMS. JMS wasn't as witty but he wrote some damn fine characters in his time, some real tragic figures that I'm not sure Whedon could have pulled off - in the likes of G'Kar and Londo, but even the hints we see of Galen in "Crusade". Plus JMS had the ability to write massive arcs. Even when Buffy went all arcy in S5, it didn't have the same sort of foresight that B5 had. In the long run, I think JMS outdoes JW for myself, principally because of the arc payoff and characters even if the humour isn't all that clever - Rebo and Zootie were never good.

Another possible figure is Chris Carter. Personally, though he failed when he showed an inability to plan thoughtfully and let the X-Files mythos go out of control. WHilst Mulder and Scully were enjoyable characters, I never felt he really put the sort of characterisation into them that we saw in the works of JW or JMS. Plots were, sometimes, better than either - at least in terms of an individual story. His "Millennium" work was quite good too and he showed a good eye for generating atmosphere. A nod must go also to the Morgan & Wong team who deftly handled S2 - they were quite possibly better than Carter, particularly for characterisation and showing a broader palette of humour, darkness, and drama.

Couple of other names - Ronald D. Moore as a writer. His work on "Carnivale", "Battlestar Galactica" and "Deep Space Nine" showed him capable of writing mature sci-fi with a large element of gravitas. Characterisation abilties were good, but his main skills seem to be in command atmospheric performances and tone, as well as long range planning (he was pivotal in bringing in Trek's first real long-arcs in the Dominion wars). He stilll seems to be on a high whereas the others have reached their creative peaks (or so it seems) so definetely a name to watch.

Final genre writer that springs to mind is J.J. Abrams - great mixture of characters, fun (often missing from the others), and ability to inject plot twists in his work on "Alias" and "Lost". He may not be plotting ahead like others but the ride is so enjoyable that you're not always that worried about the destination. He's still firing on all cylinders as well - anyone who is currently worried about Alias S4 should not be .. it's in full swing.

Anyone think of any other contemporaries that JW should be compared to?

Excellent Post.

My personal opinion of JW is that yet he is witty and clever at time in his TV work, and I don't think one cannot say that he doesn't show ability as a character focussed writer. But I do find the fanboy attitudes of his work very offputting. Buffy and Angel were slightly better than average TV fare (which is not of a high standard), but his work really does not stand out for me.

But, as a medium TV does not lend itself to deep thoughtful sci-fi or fantasy. There are exceptions to this, but in general it doesn't.

Film however can deal with more serious sci-fi fare better than TV. Now I'm not saying that what JW is aiming for serious sci-fi, I'm more saying that I will not make my final judgement on JW until I see serenity. The original buffy flick was god awful, but tbh he didn't have complete creative control so I don't consider it representitive of his work.

Serenity will decide for me on him as a film director. He is already a decent TV director and writer, but I'm not sure if he'll translate well onto film.

Apologies for the late reply, I've had this discussion many many times and just wanted to leave things pan out and see what people's opinions were.

TCamen

First of all, I don't think there's any way that Joss Whedon can be considered a hack after his wide and varied contributions to film, television and comics. Admittedly I haven't gotten as far as his Astonishing X-Men just yet (Still reading Morrison's "New X-Men", but by all accounts it's of a good to high quality).

From what I remember of that, either Whedon wrote the original screenplay, which was ditched, or he was handed a botched script and had to try and string it together somehow. Wasn't there a big bitchfest over that before?

Afaik, he wrote several drafts of Resurrection, but it was the shrinking budget that resulted in changes to his preferred script. Either way, I don't think he can be blamed entirely for what went wrong with the movie. If I thought it was all his fault, I'd certainly say it!


While I don't think Whedon is the strongest writer in the bunch of writers mentioned by ixoy, he certainly exceeds most if not all in terms of writing punchy, witty, natural dialogue.

JMS often had his wonderful characters deliver clunky lines in order to advance a certain plot development or add extra weight to them. While it worked in certain cases, it failed miserably in others. As did his attempts at humour in 'Babylon 5'. However, I will concur with ixoy that JMS' forethought and execution of an epic arc across B5's run wins out over Whedon's characters.

J.J Abrams has an impressive catalogue of series that I adore, from 'Felicity' to 'Alias' and 'Lost', and I'm eager to see what 'The Catch' is like. His grasp of direction during action sequences matches his skill at delivering convincing and sympathetic characters. I do worry that he might succumb to a case of the Carter Syndrome of spreading himself too thinly across three series, and that they will suffer as a result. However, it's clear that he can leave 'Alias' in capable hands if he needs to step away. With relation to Whedon, I think they are still too different for me to make a choice between them, as they haven't really written anything for the same market (yet).

Ronald D. Moore -- totally agree with ixoy, he has proven himself particularly adept at running two very different series (BSG and Carnivale) and yet maintaining a level of consistent quality in both. He tempers the arcs with substantial character development.

As for Chris Carter, I think that what strikes me most about him is that he's a man from starting something - a premise, roughly sketched characters and a vague direction for a series - but doesn't really have the will (or talent?) for building something and either creating and following an arc, or infusing the characters with distinctive personalities by his own hand. I feel that 'The X-Files' and 'Millennium' were ultimately better served when they were in the hands of other people, rather than guided by Carter.

I think Whedon has shown lots of dedication and passion when it comes to his creative projects -- Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Fray, Astonishing X-Men. I believe that he truly cares about what his work means to people, and wants to deliver a quality product to the viewer/reader. Carter never really conveyed the same dedication to his series. It felt more like he created them, and then had another idea and wanted to focus on that, and then the next idea rather than staying on board with his current projects. Millennium for example had different show-runners in Season 2+3 (Morgan and Wong and Chip Johannsen).

Ultimately I think I would finish up by saying that 'The Body' (Buffy S5) was an amazing episode of ANY TV series, period. Certainly not all Whedon's scripted/directed episodes were such triumphs, but he has shown sparks of brilliance that definitely deserve some respect and credit.

But, as a medium TV does not lend itself to deep thoughtful sci-fi or fantasy. There are exceptions to this, but in general it doesn't. Film however can deal with more serious sci-fi fare better than TV.

I really don't agree that film serves the 'serious' viewer better than TV. Sure there has been lots of brainless sci-fi on TV (Andromeda, Mutant X), but for every brainless series, I can think of countless movies that are equally sub-par if not worse. I think a TV series with a strong creative drive and freedom to deliver the intended vision is FAR more likely to deal with deep thoughful sci-fi/fantasy than a movie. It's not every writer that is going to get the chance and creative control to bring intelligent sci-fi/fantasy to a TV audience, but when it does happen (in the case of Babylon 5) it is far more satisfying to watch 13, 22 or however many episodes of an arc-led series than a 90-120 minute movie. I understand how difficult it is to actually deliver a successful quality story in such limited time for a theatrical release, however I think there is more skill in developing a plot and characters that grow over many more hours in a more personal setting of a TV series.

I can think of many excellent intelligent sci-fi/fantasy series with arc plots that made more of an impression on me than any genre movie, and I believe that they are more than exceptions to the norm -- Twin Peaks, Nowhere Man, Dark Skies, Profiler, Profit, Witchblade.... as well as all the series mentioned above.
(I can recommend many more if you want to see intelligent genre TV that delivers.)

Lochaber

TCamen wrote:

Ultimately I think I would finish up by saying that 'The Body' (Buffy S5) was an amazing episode of ANY TV series, period. Certainly not all Whedon's scripted/directed episodes were such triumphs, but he has shown sparks of brilliance that definitely deserve some respect and credit.

I agree however I would say that that is the only episode that reaches the same level as some of the other 1 hour dramas in tv history ... Still it is great and JW definitely deserves respect, he's no hack.

Personally I kind of think that films can potentially deal with serious sci-fi better if only because there can sometimes be less restraints on the film. A studio can't really predict the box office and if they decide to take the chance on a writer/director, which they seem to have with JW, then it can all work out great. With a TV series it might get through the first series unscathed however after that the ratings really come into play and unless you're lucky then either you're not going to get to finish your story or you're going to have to make some compromises.

That said I don't really think that a *sci-fi* film can really beat a great series... I suppose a tv show can become part of your life (hmm... maybe I should get out more) week on week where a film can't.

TCamen

I agree however I would say that that is the only episode that reaches the same level as some of the other 1 hour dramas in tv history

I don't whether you mean to or not, but it sounds to me like you're saying that Buffy had only one episode that managed to equal an average episode of some non scifi/fantasy drama like 'er' ? I really don't think it's any easier to write/produce/direct a stellar episode of ANY particular genre. I mean there's poor episodes to point to in most series, but a lot also depends on personal preference when it comes to perceived level of quality.
I'm not sure since you didn't give examples, but what do you consider to be better one hour dramas that were consistently at a higher level?
Please note, I'm not looking for examples just to automatically suggest that Buffy is better, I'm just curious because as I say, I think personal preference has a lot to do with it.

With a TV series it might get through the first series unscathed however after that the ratings really come into play and unless you're lucky then either you're not going to get to finish your story or you're going to have to make some compromises.

To suggest that creators are allowed free reign with the first season of their series without network involvement or being entirely depending on ratings or BOTH isn't realistic. Ratings always matter. There is no series being delivered for television that doesn't hinge on ratings to determine whether there'll be more episodes/seasons commissioned. Granted some networks are more lenient with quality vs performance (e.g HBO) but even they don't ignore ratings altogether. FOX these days won't give a low rated new series more than two weeks before it gets pulled.

As for making compromises, this happens frequently from the outset with series - before any ratings success or failure. Even series with a proven name behind them only get creative control as long as the ratings are good (e.g J.J Abrams' "Lost" - if the ratings sucked, it'd be cancelled or retooled). The prime example of network interference that leaps to mind being JMS' series after Babylon 5 - Crusade and Jeremiah. Both were hampered by network demands long before either made it on screen. Regardless of his previous success with B5, JMS had to fight at every turn to make the shows he wanted. The compromises demanded by Showtime actually led to JMS walking away from Jeremiah because it was just too much.
One of my favourite shows of the 90s 'Profiler' experienced moderate ratings success in the first two seasons, but NBC decided that the series needed to be lighter and more upbeat, and promptly fired the showrunners and installed someone who would deliver what they wanted (regardless of the fact that he hadn't a clue about the series or its characters).

It really is through sheer willpower and determination that JMS got Babylon 5 through its five seasons, but I don't think that he's the only one who CAN do it. All of the prolific creators mentioned - J.J Abrams, Moore and Whedon have weathered the various pitfalls of ratings and network demands to deliver series that have earned them the respect they have in the genre. Managing to keep viewer interest with (relatively) consistent plot arcs and dynamic characters over many years is FAR more challenging that scripting a standalone movie, in my opinion. The main reason I say that, is that box office returns for formulaic flashy brainless genre movies are more dependable than ratings success when rolling out a new series that could potentially run and run. Obviously not all of the former are guaranteed box office smashes, but movie studios can afford to carry serveral low/medium budget movies with low returns on the back of big summer tentpole movies easier than a television network can afford to continually air a poorly rated series week after week. People might be inclined to sit through a vapid 90 minute movie as long as they're dazzled by FX. Television can't deliver the wow factor on the same scale week after week, and while some derivative and brainless series do survive (Mutant X, Andromeda), viewers won't sit through most genre series regularly unless they deliver quality. If they don't, the ratings plummet and it's too late to retool and cancellation beckons.. (..Enterprise)

Lochaber

TCamen wrote:

I don't whether you mean to or not, but it sounds to me like you're saying that Buffy had only one episode that managed to equal an average episode of some non scifi/fantasy drama like 'er' ? I really don't think it's any easier to write/produce/direct a stellar episode of ANY particular genre. I mean there's poor episodes to point to in most series, but a lot also depends on personal preference when it comes to perceived level of quality.
I'm not sure since you didn't give examples, but what do you consider to be better one hour dramas that were consistently at a higher level?

I apologise for the confusion, that's not what I meant, what I meant was that it's the only episode of Buffy that I think matches the *best* episodes of say ER or The West Wing. All shows vary episode to episode, The West Wing is one of my favourite shows atm and even though (imo) I think it's a better show than Buffy I wouldn't claim that it's consistently at a higher level than Buffy was, I mean there have been some terrible episodes of WW that were worse than the average episode of Buffy.

I personally do think that the average episode of the WW is better than the average episode of Buffy *shrug* but as you say it is all down to personal preference. I don't particularly think that lately the average episode of ER is better than the average episode of Buffy was, though Riley really was a serious blot in my book. It's not that I particularly prefer non sci-fi/fantasy, I definitely think that B5 was a better drama than the WW and I also think that Firefly had the potential to be great though we may never know...

TCamen wrote:

It really is through sheer willpower and determination that JMS got Babylon 5 through its five seasons, but I don't think that he's the only one who CAN do it. All of the prolific creators mentioned - J.J Abrams, Moore and Whedon have weathered the various pitfalls of ratings and network demands to deliver series that have earned them the respect they have in the genre.

I agree.

TCamen wrote:

Managing to keep viewer interest with (relatively) consistent plot arcs and dynamic characters over many years is FAR more challenging that scripting a standalone movie, in my opinion. The main reason I say that, is that box office returns for formulaic flashy brainless genre movies are more dependable than ratings success when rolling out a new series that could potentially run and run.

I agree with this as well, I was really just saying that *potentially* a film might be able to deal with serious sci-fi better b/c given that a series runs much longer and is so much more challenging to write there are more pitfalls and more opportunities for the networks to mess them around - for example showing Firefly out of sequence, moving the slot around or cancelling a show before all episodes have been broadcast... That said I can't actually think of a sci-fi film that did deal better than a good sci-fi series, I was really just commenting on the problems sci-fi series face....