Does Joss Whedon know why his shows are good?

[Thaluikhain]

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

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

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

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

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

He has like two female character models.

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

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

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

 

[chowderface]

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

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

Don't fucking scare me like that.

 

[Jadak]

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

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

 

[Manji187]

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

His shows are good?

No lost cred here.

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

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

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

 

[clipse15]

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

His shows are good?

No lost cred here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Smooth Operator]

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

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

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

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

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

 

[Nightmare-Child]

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

 

[BlastedTheWorm]

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

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

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

 

[Garethp]

You forgot Dollhouse, another of his master pieces

 

[Princess Rose]

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

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

This. His Dialogue is very realistic (as in, it sounds like real people - most TV writing is stilted or otherwise sounds artificial). Also, as a woman, the man does a wonderful job writing realistic female characters and putting them in important narrative positions (ie, main characters who are effective).

Buffy was dragged down by the incompetence of Sarah Michelle Geller. Seriously, watch her in anything that isn't under the care and coaxing of Joss, and she's an utter hack (with the single exception of Cruel Intentions, where she is playing to her strengths).

OP, I will also remind you that you're forgetting Dollhouse - the show that seems to be dedicated to proving that Eliza Dushku is a great actress with range beyond the "I want to kill you now" rut she got stuck in after her appearances on Buffy.

 

[Jadak]

It's his opinion. You may not share it. But, that does not entitle you to shut it out.

Since when does one need to be entitled to shut something out?

Besides, he did not express it as an opinion, but rather as a straight up fact not meriting discussion. If he can disregard opposing opinions, why can't I?

 

[KnowYourOnion]

He has like two female character models.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment wasn't the epitome of hyperbole if I may make so bold, so why don't you stop patronising people "my little friend".

Also who said his characters were unique?! Those "models" you're referring to are called character archetypes, They fit into well established moulds but in fairly unique ways. Give me another example of a highly educated prostitute like Inara in any other sci-fi series?

 

[Togs]

Big Whedonite here- I love pretty much everything he's done, although Firefly is by far his crowning achievement.
And yes he uses stock characters, but I dont get the big issue with it- to a certain extent so does every TV show film and book I can name, "tropes are not bad" as the saying goes.
And loling at the haters "he's done one good show"- Buffy and Firefly are leviathans of geek culture, if you dont like them then so be it but I definately get the "hating because its popular" vibe.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

He has like two female character models.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment wasn't the epitome of hyperbole if I may make so bold, so why don't you stop patronising people "my little friend".

Also who said his characters were unique?! Those "models" you're referring to are called character archetypes, They fit into well established moulds but in fairly unique ways. Give me another example of a highly educated prostitute like Inara in any other sci-fi series?

Oh god, where to start.

First of all, I love how people point out that someone is being patronising and tell them to stop, in a patronising manner. And no, quotations don't stop that from being hypocritical.

Secondly, where did I say my post was the epitome of hyperbole? To say something is the epitome is to suggest it's the height of. I never said that anywhere. I simply said my post was hyperbolic. Which it was. I was exaggerating something in my post to highlight an actual problem with what I was talking about. It's a well recognised literary technique and I seriously wish people were better at reading it.

And finally, my point was that he reuses the same archetypes over and over again in all his works. That's not good writing.

Also, in the same vein and just for laughs using the same actress that played Inara. Find me an example of another Lizard queen who controls her 'subjects' by removing their ability to feel emotion and replacing it with an addictive psychic commune.

Being specific doesn't make it good writing. I don't think anyone is going to accuse V of being a well written show. Yet obviously by statistics alone, if you describe the characters in a certain way you're not going to be able to find another character that fits that description exactly. You could easily describe Inara as the unattainable love interest. Or the pacifist, the spiritual woman.

Also, educated hooker is a well used trope. It's an easy way to knock peoples expectations of kilter. Whedon actually liked it so much he based a series on it.

Don't insult me by suggesting that I don't know what epitome means if I use a word I damn well know what it means before I type. Also, you should try learning to recognising hyperbole yourself, my use of the word epitome was distinctly hyperbolic I intended it as such...GOD I WISH PEOPLE WOULD RECOGNISE ACCEPTED LITERARY DEVICES OVER THE INTERNET, I MEAN WHAT TYPE OF FOOLS ARE THEY?!

The difference is I was being intentionally patronising because you're far too smug for someone who argues over the internet, so no I'm most definitely not being hypocritical. I was using quotations to illustrate my point, y'know because that's what they're meant for.

She couldn't be easily described as the unattainable love interest because she isn't, in the context of the show it's the cowardice of both the characters that stops them expressing their feelings.

You didn't answer my question I said name another character who played the role of an educated, sophisticated hooker...