Does Joss Whedon know why his shows are good?

[HHammond]

"Oh no, love interest X is really confusing me. I can't tell whether they're interested in me or not. This is the worst thing imaginable." "blah, blah, blah blah blah, witty remark" *vampires jump out of bushes with badly choreographed gymnastics.* "Oh, you picked the wrong day to get on my bad side" *extremely badly choreographed shite-fu fight scene with ridiculous timing and stupid uneccessary flips.* "insert witty line here"

Yea, well good that is.

That's the plot of maybe a few episodes in season 6. That's about it. The average Buffy episode is about growing up set against a back drop of demons and supernatural beings. Her boyfriends are only really REALLY centered in Season 2, a few episodes in season 3 and 5 and then the middle of 6. Usually, she's worrying about her friends, her mother, her sister, school, her life. You know, all those pesky things human beings worry about.

Personally I love Joss Whedon. I love most of his work (excluding Buffy Season 7, Alien Ressurection and a few episodes of Dollhouse and Buffy Season 4) and he is an incredibly gifted writer.

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.

First off, River and Buffy are the same? Really? That's like saying Picard and Kirk are the same because they both captain the Enterprise. Yes, they are both young girls with superpowers but that's about it. Ones a perky, put upon girl who talks fast but is very normal and relateable. She deals with the same problems as we do on a exagerated scale. The other is a insane teenager who used to be a genius but has been reduced to a terrified and lost mess. They're not that similar.

There are 4 attractive and strong girls in his series really (not including Dollhouse cos they keep changing personalities obviously): Buffy, Faith, Willow, River and Zoe. And none of those characters are similar at all. At all.

Ditsy and useless? Ditsy? A bit, maybe a few. Useless? Not a one.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

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

(Say this like George W. Bush)

Well, actually, he forgot Dollhouse.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

Well, Firefly is okay. It would have been cool to have more, but eh.

Dr. Horrible was awesome, but I'm not so sure that has anything to do with Joss Whedon. If not for Neal Patrick Harris, I don't think it would have been nearly as entertaining.

Never liked Buffy. Never liked Angel. Never liked Dollhouse.

Personally, I'm a little hesitant he's on he Avengers. I mean, it will still be a great movie I'm sure, but he isn't my ideal director.

 

[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...

Don't use a word wrong and I won't have to insult you then. And there's a difference between intentional hyperbole and stupidity.

Your entire post was patronising, not just the quoted off segment. The difference between us is I accept that I patronise people and won't call someone else out on doing the exact same thing... Unless they're being hypocritical about it. And no, quotation marks aren't for illustrating a point, that's what most people use italics for. Quotation marks are for direct quotes in context. I sometimes use single quote marks 'like so' to paraphrase people. But that isn't really an accepted rule as far as I'm aware.

She could be, don't really need to elaborate that point. She's a love interest who in unattainable. Regardless of what character defects cause that. And as I recall (although don't quote me on this, not seen the show in years) they did express their feelings at points in the show. It was the clash of their ideals that sealed it, not cowardice.

And I'm just going to post this again because YOU DON'T SEEM TO HAVE READ IT

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.

But fine, you want names, have fun.

Dollhouse is pretty much sprung from that concept. All of the characters in the house are highly educated by their nature and the playthings of the rich because of the abuse of the program.

Hobo with a shotgun parodies the concept by the only evidence to it being in the Hobos mind. He constantly refers to her as a school teacher because he doesn't want to admit to himself that she isn't.

Deadwood has Joanie Stubbs. She ends up opening her own brothel that exclusively deals with 'High Class' call girls.

Secret Diary of a call girl is another show that is basically all about intelligent, well educated prostitutes. A few of the episodes deal with the cream of that crop. With highly intelligent women shown to manipulate mens desires.

It's not that uncommon a concept.

By the way the correct syntax of that sentence should be don't use a word incorrectly/wrongly because it's the verb in the sentence and it needs to be conjugated, but I still didn't use it incorrectly as I was using it as hyperbole so be silent you pompous, small, little man. Oh and insulting my intelligence is so very clever of you.

"Quotations are used for a variety of reasons: to illuminate the meaning or to support the arguments of the work in which it is being quoted."

Hey wait a minute didn't I use the quotations to support my argument and illuminate my point, I think I did well bugger me doesn't that make you wrong? Italics are for putting emphasis on a word (among other things) NOT to illustrate a point.

Oh and all your examples were written and filmed after Firefly aired implying that it was the progenitor of the educated hooker archetype in literature (I know it isn't but I'm making the point that your evidence is weak and un-supportive of your argument)

 

[dickywebster]

It depends, of the list i only really love doc horrible and firely/serinity, angel was meh and buffy was good, but not as good as i remember watching it as a kid.
Plus firefly is generally considered his finest work by a lot of people, theres even a large movement to buy the rights to finish the show, which as far as im aware is unknown for a canceled series.

 

[jthwilliams]

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?

I just wanted add that what Abandon4093 said was craziness not Hyperbole. First River wasn't the main character of FireFly basedon screen time she was a major supporting character and she may have become a major character if the series has continued, but she had little or nothing to do with what made the show good.

The lead female character was either Zoe or Kaylee, I'm not sure which but with the Firefly at least we have 4 female characters who showed up either in ever episode or almost every episode

Kaylee - A tom boy who is very mechanically gifted but regrets not being more "girly". She often plays one of the guys, but she also often shows herself to be driven by her selfimage as female.

Anora - who at first as a companion at first seems like a weak female character, but as we learn more about what she actually does, she appears to be more of a sexually empowered individual who wants and is very capible of standing up for herself and controlling situation dispite not being a fighter.

Zoe - a soldier who lost. Extremely loyal to the one person she thinks never faltered even when she did. She respects powerful, firm and serious people like Mal, but when she got married she married a silly comical man who could make her laugh. Her over milterization puts her in constant conflict with who husband who she clearly loves. An entire episode was dedicated to her conflict between respect and loyality to mal vs her love to her husband and how it differs.

River - a severily pysically damaged girl who has difficutly dealing with day to day life as a result of experimentation done to her. She was once a very bright girl, but now has trouble communicating even on a basic level. She loves her brother but distrusts everyone else including Mal who is probably the most trustworthy character in the show. Throughout most of the TV series she in no way showed herself to be Overpowered the only hint of it was when she shot 3 people with her eyes closed. Again, the story never really circles around her. If anything she is the foil to her brother who otherwise would be the ideal citizen of the aliance.


Which of these are the overpowered female who could just waltz though the world making conflict meaningless? Which is the ditz? which one shows unexplainable strength?

Also while I am sure there their could be debate on the topic, i think the story actually mostly revolved aroud Mal, most of them started and/or ended with a line from him and most had him as the central driving force of the plot.

Now, if you talk about Buffy, you might have a slightly stronger ground to stand on as there were quit a few female characters who were much much stronger than anyone normal. A good deal of them badguys. In fact the willow story arch pretty much explored the idea of power corrupting. However, for every female character who was overpowered, there were female characters who were not and even one ditzy character who grew up and matured and became less of a ditz and learned to be independent and strong without any mistical powers.




So saying that Joss Whedon only knows how to write two types of female is not Hyperbole it is just wrong That being said you can say that he has a facination of the idea of very weak seeming characters being extremely powerful (even super human powerful) at the core. He has used that theme a lot


Dr Horrible's Sing along blog:

Only one female character of note who had not supperpowers and only remarkable because she was chearful and upbeat and wanted really to change the world even though she had nothing special about her that would make her able to do so more than anyone else. She is a counter point to captain hammer who has all the power to changed the world for the better but doesn't because he only cares about himself. She is the love interest of Dr. Horrible because she is everything he thinks he likes about the world and serve as an idea person to him.


I never really watched Doll's house but as I understand it as well as circling around a woman who has had her life stolen from her by a shaddy organization which uses mindcontrol to basically fetishize their woman and is basically a pimping service has dozens and dozens of female characters who are not Dolls.

 

[jthwilliams]

It depends, of the list i only really love doc horrible and firely/serinity, angel was meh and buffy was good, but not as good as i remember watching it as a kid.
Plus firefly is generally considered his finest work by a lot of people, theres even a large movement to buy the rights to finish the show, which as far as im aware is unknown for a canceled series.

It would never work. You wouldn't be able to attrack the original cast back. Nathan Fillion in particular seems have said things that indicate that he loves having a rabid fan base but he wishes they would be a little less rabid and would probably not want to do anything to make them more rabid like retake the character of mal.

You would have to start with a new cast and call it a reboot which might work, but I think too much time would be spent comparing the new cast to the old cast and people whould just complain that so and so betrayal of Jayne didn't feel the same or that Mal as played by Nathan would never of done/said that.

Believe me, I really like the show, but I don't think there is any hope of a successful rebirth at this point. Also the movie killed some of the best supporting characters who gave the show a soul. And it put River into a place where the show would either have to become about her or she would have to leave the show somehow.

 

[jthwilliams]

*SNIP*
I'm not going to adress every point because we clearly just have different opinions on the show. But from what I saw, Buffy's love interests spanned the entire series and one even got a spin off of his own.

And dropping real life troubles into a series about 'Demons' is exactly where it faltered. If you want a series about the average day to day problems of a teenage girl, then why not make one of those. I dunno, the Gilmore Girls or something. But if you want a show about Demons, why not focus on the demon aspect instead of allowing it to play second fiddle, and really just more of a framing for relationship issues.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a person who has been tasked with keeping humanity safe from the machinations of evil itself would somehow find time to have slumber parties and talk about boy troubles.

It thins the impact.

And the point I was making about River and Buffy is that they're both ridiculously overpowered within the confines of their own world. They don't play strong lead roles because from what I saw there was never really any real threat or danger. They seem to just waltz over everything in their path. (I know you're going to point out instances when they didn't. But the point is that it's a recurring theme.)

There's a difference between strong characters and deus ex machina incarnate. To me, a strong female character is someone like Sarah Conner or Ellen Ripley. Someone who stands resolute against the odds. Not just some unassuming pretty thing that just so happens to be able to channel the powers of over the top shite-fu.

That's a fetish, not a portrayal of strong women like everyone claims.

I have to disagree entirely. Why was gone with the wind set during the civil war? Why was casblanca set durning WWII? Because it give texture. Do you think the president never has a quite meal with his wife and kids that doesn't talk about the condition of the country?

The reason buffy is a interesting character is because she is a normal teenage girl who has this power trust on her. She doesn't particularly want it, but she accepts it and contrinues to try to live her own life without being overwhelmed by it. The Highschool life is juxtaposed against her monster fighting to make both stand out in a stronger if more sureal light.

 

[dickywebster]

It depends, of the list i only really love doc horrible and firely/serinity, angel was meh and buffy was good, but not as good as i remember watching it as a kid.
Plus firefly is generally considered his finest work by a lot of people, theres even a large movement to buy the rights to finish the show, which as far as im aware is unknown for a canceled series.

It would never work. You wouldn't be able to attrack the original cast back. Nathan Fillion in particular seems have said things that indicate that he loves having a rabid fan base but he wishes they would be a little less rabid and would probably not want to do anything to make them more rabid like retake the character of mal.

You would have to start with a new cast and call it a reboot which might work, but I think too much time would be spent comparing the new cast to the old cast and people whould just complain that so and so betrayal of Jayne didn't feel the same or that Mal as played by Nathan would never of done/said that.

Believe me, I really like the show, but I don't think there is any hope of a successful rebirth at this point. Also the movie killed some of the best supporting characters who gave the show a soul. And it put River into a place where the show would either have to become about her or she would have to leave the show somehow.

Yeah the cast thing is kinda why ive given up on seeing it brought back, much as i would lvoe it. As for story, they could always fill in the massive blanks between firefly and serinity, though that could fall into the problem of prequels (kinda) where they mess with what has already been established.

Though one thing they could do it what theyve spent most of the 90s doing with star trek and just do a new show set in the same universe, though that would be fairly risky as a lot of the appeal from the original came from its well told characters, but it could be done.

 

[jthwilliams]

I feel this is relevant.

Yeah well Yatzee. Funny guy can be quite amusing to listen to his reviews and sometimes he even has insight when doing a review, but he is D-Lister based solely on the fact that he hates things that other people like and really likes things that people hate and then says that this makes him smarter/better than other people.

Taking a wild guess, I would say that he probably also hates:
* Rocky Horror Picture Show
* The flying spegetti monster (though this is an anti christian thing so I may be wrong here)
* Heman
* My little Ponny
* anything that has a strong vocal fan base
* life

 

[jthwilliams]

It depends, of the list i only really love doc horrible and firely/serinity, angel was meh and buffy was good, but not as good as i remember watching it as a kid.
Plus firefly is generally considered his finest work by a lot of people, theres even a large movement to buy the rights to finish the show, which as far as im aware is unknown for a canceled series.

It would never work. You wouldn't be able to attrack the original cast back. Nathan Fillion in particular seems have said things that indicate that he loves having a rabid fan base but he wishes they would be a little less rabid and would probably not want to do anything to make them more rabid like retake the character of mal.

You would have to start with a new cast and call it a reboot which might work, but I think too much time would be spent comparing the new cast to the old cast and people whould just complain that so and so betrayal of Jayne didn't feel the same or that Mal as played by Nathan would never of done/said that.

Believe me, I really like the show, but I don't think there is any hope of a successful rebirth at this point. Also the movie killed some of the best supporting characters who gave the show a soul. And it put River into a place where the show would either have to become about her or she would have to leave the show somehow.

Yeah the cast thing is kinda why ive given up on seeing it brought back, much as i would lvoe it. As for story, they could always fill in the massive blanks between firefly and serinity, though that could fall into the problem of prequels (kinda) where they mess with what has already been established.

Though one thing they could do it what theyve spent most of the 90s doing with star trek and just do a new show set in the same universe, though that would be fairly risky as a lot of the appeal from the original came from its well told characters, but it could be done.

I could see them doing a new show in the same universe. However, while the universe was interesting, it had a lot of problems around cohesiveness and what made you look over it was how well written the characters were. I mean Hundreds of planets in the same solar system all terraformed even though some only had a few people on them. Including some that had no population what so ever but still appeared to have a breathable atmosphere.

I mean I understand that he was trying to go for the old west feel by keeping things far enough apart that they could be isolated, but no so far as to mean no one would ever travel. nevermind my point being the characters where the good bit the universe was interesting but slighly weak.

 

[AD-Stu]

I don't know where people get this idea. I've heard this argument a million times before, and it is completely untrue. He's on record saying that they changed the ending...and that's it. For the final version, he said that the third act was the only thing changed. If you're somehow defending the writing in the first two acts of the film, you've apparently never seen it.

This is what he actually said:

"It wasn't a question of doing everything differently, although they changed the ending; it was mostly a matter of doing everything wrong. They said the lines...mostly...but they said them all wrong. And they cast it wrong. And they designed it wrong. And they scored it wrong. They did everything wrong that they could possibly do. There's actually a fascinating lesson in filmmaking, because everything that they did reflects back to the script or looks like something from the script, and people assume that, if I hated it, then they?d changed the script...but it wasn?t so much that they?d changed the script; it?s that they just executed it in such a ghastly fashion as to render it almost unwatchable."

Of course, we wouldn't expect him to say anything different...

On the whole I find his work a bit hit and miss. I never really got into Buffy or Angel but I loved Firefly / Serenity, got a chuckle out of Dr Horrible and thought Dollhouse was OK.

 

[jthwilliams]

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.

Sorry, I did forget Dollhouse and Also including Glee was an error he worked on a episode of glee and I somehow got that mixed up as being part the development group.

 

[dickywebster]

It depends, of the list i only really love doc horrible and firely/serinity, angel was meh and buffy was good, but not as good as i remember watching it as a kid.
Plus firefly is generally considered his finest work by a lot of people, theres even a large movement to buy the rights to finish the show, which as far as im aware is unknown for a canceled series.

It would never work. You wouldn't be able to attrack the original cast back. Nathan Fillion in particular seems have said things that indicate that he loves having a rabid fan base but he wishes they would be a little less rabid and would probably not want to do anything to make them more rabid like retake the character of mal.

You would have to start with a new cast and call it a reboot which might work, but I think too much time would be spent comparing the new cast to the old cast and people whould just complain that so and so betrayal of Jayne didn't feel the same or that Mal as played by Nathan would never of done/said that.

Believe me, I really like the show, but I don't think there is any hope of a successful rebirth at this point. Also the movie killed some of the best supporting characters who gave the show a soul. And it put River into a place where the show would either have to become about her or she would have to leave the show somehow.

Yeah the cast thing is kinda why ive given up on seeing it brought back, much as i would lvoe it. As for story, they could always fill in the massive blanks between firefly and serinity, though that could fall into the problem of prequels (kinda) where they mess with what has already been established.

Though one thing they could do it what theyve spent most of the 90s doing with star trek and just do a new show set in the same universe, though that would be fairly risky as a lot of the appeal from the original came from its well told characters, but it could be done.

I could see them doing a new show in the same universe. However, while the universe was interesting, it had a lot of problems around cohesiveness and what made you look over it was how well written the characters were. I mean Hundreds of planets in the same solar system all terraformed even though some only had a few people on them. Including some that had no population what so ever but still appeared to have a breathable atmosphere.

I mean I understand that he was trying to go for the old west feel by keeping things far enough apart that they could be isolated, but no so far as to mean no one would ever travel. nevermind my point being the characters where the good bit the universe was interesting but slighly weak.

Well a remake would just not live upto the original no matter what you do, so maybe a new cast thats written as well as the original with say more focus on the actual universe could be an interesting project.

As for all the world that have small populations, those tend to be the outer planets, so maybe everyone just likes living in the core? Heck the firefly universe is that interesting im surprised this or a book series hasnt already happened, especially considering the cult following its picked up over the years.

 

[jthwilliams]

Er, forgot Dollhouse? Fairly popular concerning FOX policy and while it had its lows, the second season ranks among the best (semi)sci-fi ever. I watched the whole thing just last week. Great show. And I love how they had to squeeze 5 seasons into just one. No fills and blanks. Nice.

OT: Too bad the forced squeezing didn't work as well for Babylon 5, but that still ranks as no1 SF for me.

Back to OT. What exactly is so good at Buffy? I'm really not into vampires and from what I've seen, it seems... I dunno, girly?

Ok Buffy had a lot of filler shows, but there were a few like the episode where Buffy's mother that he did some very creative things with framing, the vedio style, the sound and a bunch of other things to really convey emotion and the feeling of someone going through a personal trauma. He also made his characters very human. As someone said before TV show characters have a tendancy to react in ways that are good for the plot but don't feel real or like how a real person would behave in that situation. Buffy had a lot of sillines but the characters felt like real people and their behavior rarely felt wrong for their history. You get the feeling that rather than sitting down and going how should the plot go, he sat down and said ok This outside thing happened how would Buffy react, how would Zander handle it, what would willow do and then how would they react to the way the other characters are reacting and then wrote from there.



Also no character no matter how minor was stagnant with the possible exception of the big bads. All his people grew changed becoming better becoming worse, but growing and the next time they where in a simular situation the way they reacted the previous time and the outcome of that reaction changed how they reacted in the new situation.

So that is why Buffy was not only good, but better than a lot of other shows on TV. Now it was bad because a lot of it was extremely cheesy and there were other issues, but over all the show was good and of course has a rabid fan base.

 

[jthwilliams]

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.

Heh, Firefly was the last Joss thing I watched - try Dr. Horrible, Buffy and Dollhouse. I'm probably forgetting a bunch of his other great shows, but whatever.

Anyway, it's the tone. His shows can be dead serious and tongue in cheek simultaneously.

Edit: Agh sorry, no, I'm wrong - according to a couple of people on this thread, Joss writes terrible shows and I should hate all of his stuff. And who am I to disagree?

Not to mention Yaztee hates him so... yeah ... everyone most hate him too???

 

[jthwilliams]

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.

Heh, Firefly was the last Joss thing I watched - try Dr. Horrible, Buffy and Dollhouse. I'm probably forgetting a bunch of his other great shows, but whatever.

Anyway, it's the tone. His shows can be dead serious and tongue in cheek simultaneously.

Edit: Agh sorry, no, I'm wrong - according to a couple of people on this thread, Joss writes terrible shows and I should hate all of his stuff. And who am I to disagree?

Not to mention Yaztee hates him so... yeah ... everyone most hate him too???

Yeah, definitely. I mean, his word is even more valid than 'random guy on the internet who disagrees with me'.

Well he draws a funny guy with a hat and little black imp things. Also he does reviews on the interwebs and tells how much he doesn't like things. So of course his word is more valid. He isn't random guy on the internet. He is random angry guy on the internet.