This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"From beneath you, it devours."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 24 November 2014




Tweet







May 28 2013

Joss talks to Empire Magazine about Avengers 2 and Star Wars. He mentions his excitement for the yet unnamed villain as well as not trying to "top" what he did before.

No, Joss. JJ cannot also make the Avengers.
"how Mr. Whedon felt about turning down The Force."

The author seems to be implying that Joss was offered Star Wars. To my knowledge, that never happened, correct? Although I have to imagine he was on the list.
Is it just me or have we already read this quote about the villains not overshadowing the stars in relation to his t.v. shows very recently in another interview.
"Can J.J. also make Avengers...?"

Hahahahahahaha, oh Joss...

Not funny.
I'm glad the villain won't be a huge focus, I'm in it for the heroes.
Joss is a big fan of JJ. Wonder what it would be like if every article that mentioned Abrams didn't turn into comments bashing him.
I disagree with you Joss~ I think you're VERY good at guest stars. Some of my very favorite characters were only in an episode or three.
I don't see anyone bashing J.J. We just prefer Joss were to make the film otherwise we'd be on Abramsology(is that site still around?)

And yes, the guest stars on Buffy, Firefly, and Angel were very memorable. Some I often wished had longer stints on the show.

[ edited by eddy on 2013-05-28 19:07 ]
Is it true that JJ is taking over Downton Abbey?
No redeem147, I think there's some wires crossed there. He's a fan, he did a set visit while promoting TREK.
Really? I just made that up because he's doing everything now. I didn't realize he was a fan. :)
I'm just sorry to hear that Caroline, Simon et al are out here at Whedonesque and JJ Abrams will be running things now.
Whedonesque, now with 85% more lens flare per comment?

eddy: Pretty certain he did. Otherwise this is the weirdest case of shared deja vu.

IrrationalTV: Says something about the... "quality"... of his work that it happens though. This is the man who recently admitted openly that in the writing room they are struggling for ideas on what to do with Star Wars.

Think about that. Struggling for ideas... for Star Wars. That's not a good sign.

[ edited by apollo11 on 2013-05-28 23:01 ]
JJ Abrams presents Whedonesque. Joss The Way JJ Likes It.

ETA: I'm not actually a JJ basher. I just think the constant interplay re: Joss and JJ is hilarious.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2013-05-28 23:02 ]
apollo11, I'm a fan of JJ's "quality." On par with Joss as far as I'm concerned. I'd struggle mightily with exactly what idea to execute for a new Star Wars movie too. Agonize over it really. Endlessly.
Think about that. Struggling for ideas... for Star Wars. That's not a good sign.

Considering how little struggle seems to have been involved in a certain other closely related trilogy - that doesn't worry me at all (besides, if I were in the position to capitalize/squander nearly as much talent as they assuredly do, I'd be struggling too.)
JJ is super talented. I think joss publicly referred to his TREK as the template for an action film, and I'd agree.
The first one maybe. Not sure I agree but it certainly couldn't have been the second one.
There's just one massive problem with that already; Star Trek isn't an action franchise. I saw the first one based on what I'd heard Joss say... and it was a terrible, hole-riddled mess. Then I made the mistake of attempting to see the second one, which not only managed to pack so many issues into the first half hour or so to make me stop watching, but is damn ugly visually too. He has no style, no grasp of basic concepts of things like physics (and don't get me started on the "cold fusion" thing...) and refuses to just hire advisers on such things when he clearly needs them.

Then there's Simon Pegg's utterly racially cliched Scotty, and the fact the film within 15 minutes or so had blasted through Kirk's `fired/lost rank/back in charge` story, making it an entire waste of the audiences time... something I hear he has good experience with from Lost, too.

Then there's the fact he tried to spoil Cloverfield with what he thought happened to the monster afterward (contradicting the films post-credits end audio...), there's a reason the new Trek film hasn't done well. He's a hack who happened to get lucky. If any more evidence is needed, go find his rejected Superman script (Superman: Flyby iirc). Oh dear. Closer by far to Lindelof than our good Sir Joss.
Personally I'm a huge fan of LOST and will usually pop up to defend it, but this time I'll just defend JJ from the charge of wasting people's time with LOST - he was only on the show for a short time in the first season before leaving for Mission Impossible 3.
brinderwalt, thank you for that video!

... but I digress. XD

Masterful performer.
You know, Into Darkness has picked up $258m globally in its few weeks of release, making it the 2nd highest grossing Star Trek to date (behind JJ's other Star Trek film). (Again, in the first few weeks). It will make hundreds of millions of dollars for Paramount in total. It had a CinemaScore of A from the audience. After 72k votes on IMDB it has a score of 8.3/10, which is higher than the first film (and all the other Star Trek franchise films). Or in other words, JJ isn't going to be crying into his coffee cup any time soon.

[ edited by gossi on 2013-05-29 13:55 ]
There's just one massive problem with that already; Star Trek isn't an action franchise.

Totally with you there (although I would favor 'escapist fantasy' over the more generic term 'action' since (imo) that is really what's being talked about in this context.

[...] and the fact the film within 15 minutes or so had blasted through Kirk's `fired/lost rank/back in charge` story, making it an entire waste of the audiences time...

Hey - sometimes the journey really is the worthier part... See also: Lost (I suppose - never watched it myself.) ;)

He's a hack who happened to get lucky.

I wouldn't say he's a hack by any means. My sense of him and his works (which I have admittedly not seen very many of to date - at lest not in their entirety) is that he is a very accomplished auteur who has a very defined sense of personal style and flare which tends to lend itself beautifully to escapist fantasy stories as well as just naturally fit very well with the current zeitgeist of popular entertainment. And since imo Star Wars most definitely is about escapist fantasy whereas real Star Trek most definitely is not, it only seems natural that an Abramsian Treck is a recipe for disaster whilst an Abramsian Wars(?) seems like a moment for much rejoicing.

If any more evidence is needed, go find his rejected Superman script (Superman: Flyby iirc). Oh dear. Closer by far to Lindelof than our good Sir Joss.

Pardon my mock apology for my dripping sarcasm, but I somehow doubt that your good Sir Joss's... pile... is any less fragrant than most anyone else's (I seem to remember he himself admitting that there has been, at times, fire and burning involved.)
My personal thought is that Sugarshock should have been burned, quite possibly horribly beyond all recognition; nobody's immune if there are demonstrable reasons and logic to it.

As for the Kirk thing - there was no journey there. It went from "You've lost your ship and Spock is going elsewhere" to "Come join me" to "You'd like your full rank, ship and Spock back? No problem!" all in the space of 15 minutes or so. It's a journey that winds back to the same spot with literally no consequences or other effect, and entirely negating that he was being punished for doing something he shouldn't have done. It makes that an entirely pointless journey to go on - a waste of the audiences time. I think it can be agreed on that in the Whedonverse, consequences last a little longer than 10-15 minutes after which nothing has changed.

I had the same issue with the original 2009 film. Kirk basically succeeds and is promoted beyond all reason [i]not for talent or skill or earning it, but for absolute pure dumb luck.[/i] Handwaving with "red matter" or "cold fusion" is lazy writing. It's the "how come Ubervamps are suddenly *very* stakeable?" blown up to movie scale, except important plot elements. And you know there is a word that comes before "Fiction" in regard to Trek. It's not adventure, its not fantasy, its not space.
...Wait. That would be [i]science[/]. It'd be nice to have a little of that in a science fiction movie.

But look! Explosions! Action! Look! Look at the shiny things! No no stop trying to see plot and sense BOOM look look over there!
Like all the science in, say, Serenity?

It's a difficult one. He's tried to please the older series fans to an extent, but he's absolutely prioritised his own vision and a wider audience over that. Which, personally, I like (not a Trek fan, particularly). The only things I really disliked about Into Darkness was the reset switch and THAT female semi-nudity scene. But otherwise I thought it was enjoyable and fairly tightly built.

[ edited by gossi on 2013-05-29 17:42 ]
I had the same issue with the original 2009 film. Kirk basically succeeds and is promoted beyond all reason [i]not for talent or skill or earning it, but for absolute pure dumb luck.[/i] Handwaving with "red matter" or "cold fusion" is lazy writing.

It's only lazy writing when employed by a lazy writer. Otherwise it's called Rule of Cool aka one of the most important components of entertainment.

And you know there is a word that comes before "Fiction" in regard to Trek. It's not adventure, its not fantasy, its not space.

Which is why - speaking as a die-hard Trekkie (not Trekker - I'm not going anywhere) starting from my early kinderjahren - I have absolutely no interest in Abram's faux Trek, but have nearly every expectation towards awesomeness regarding him and Star Wars.

brinderwalt, thank you for that video!

... but I digress. XD

Masterful performer.


Isn't he? Each time I watch that clip I feel like I'm watching James Earl Jones doing Shakespeare, and it is glorious. Imo many actors have done brilliant work playing different sides of the Joker, but there is only one man out there with the proven ability to actually embody him fully, and if you doubt me, watch that clip again and pay particular attention to two things: his eyes and his stomach (and also realize that he's not even wearing makeup.)

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2013-05-29 19:57 ]

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home