I know that Joss is doing everything possible to get this moving along but i really wish there was something ... anything ... a little more definite to be said about the Buffyverse straight to DVD movies.

At the moment it feels like there is this magical pot of gold in front of us that we keep moving towards but it's always just a little out of reach. No matter how much you may want to get hold of it you just can't quite get there and no matter how frustrating the trying to get it is, you just won't let yourself give up hope.

I want my Buffyverse movie pot of gold goodness!!!

WhedonTrivia | March 02, 14:03 CET

Come on Joss, I thought it was pretty cunning, don't you think ?

Aw, VWaG, I feel a song coming on 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow ...'. Maybe you've hit on the secret to getting it made. Simply threaten a leprechaun with bodily harm and *poof* one pot of fried Buffyverse gold.

Saje | March 02, 14:15 CET

I want my Buffyverse movie pot of gold goodness!!!

Patience.

The big thing that scares me though is the knowledge that we are ultimately alone.

Joss? I get that statement. And not literally alone - I suspect he's aiming for 'in our own worlds, we're alone'.

gossi | March 02, 14:15 CET

Saje, there are no such thing as leprechauns, everyone knows that! Don't you listen to Giles? ;)

Gossi, it could just have been the way i read it but that "patience" had a sense of "i know something you don't know" about it. Is there something you aren't teliing us? Hmmmmmm?

WhedonTrivia | March 02, 14:25 CET

The big thing that scares me though is the knowledge that we are ultimately alone.

Joss? I get that statement. And not literally alone - I suspect he's aiming for 'in our own worlds, we're alone'.

The real question is: Is this particular response on his mind these days because of, say, a certain girl named Mia?

The One True b!X | March 02, 14:46 CET

I think that's run through all of his work, theonetruebix. Buffy was often about being alone - because she was the slayer, she had to keep people at a distance, build barriers. Which, of course, was a play on being human.

Vampire With A Gun - I literally know nothing about the Buffy stuff. And even if I did I wouldn't say anything anyway, cause I'm mean like that. Here's a spoiler for the Spike movie - his middle name is BORIS FLUFFSTER. Yes. I am the king of information and you shall all bow below me. Or something.

gossi | March 02, 15:02 CET

Gossi is being modest, as usual. He's actually slated to play the dumb guy standing in a bar next to Spike who doesn't realise who he is. As you may know (see other thread), he's been practicing for the part.

roadrunner | March 02, 15:44 CET

And gossi will be wearing a funny hat for the scene. That's what Joss was trying to imply to us. ;-)

billz | March 02, 15:52 CET

Hey, playing 'dumb guy in a bar' is quite a step up for me.

gossi | March 02, 16:06 CET

Yeah, its a big step up, they are allowing him in the bar -- wa wa wa! ;) I kid, I kid, everyone knows its a step up cause he'll be playing dumb - he's always in the bar ;)



Made me think of Shaun of the Dead ;) Ed: How's that for a slice of fried gold?

zeitgeist | March 02, 17:43 CET

Excellent interview, Simon. Also an eye opener reading Joss' thoughts.

I think we're on the verge of watching the world of television start to change. I've been watching in interest the Apple's iTune TV download program. It's true that, as of yet, they do not offer many network/cable stations and the series are limited. But, it must be somewhat successful because it's starting to grow. Also note that this is an issue bouncing around between HD-DVD and BR concerning copyright issues. With an ever declining viewer audience, I believe the networks can see the handwriting on the wall. We'll never beat the internet, might as well see if we can work with it. I'm thinking we'll soon start seeing others dipping their toes in downloadable television.

Sorry to be so long winded, but the point I'm working to is the future of 'straight-to-DVD' series (or straight-to-download?). The weakness of straight to dvd in the past has always been: (A) Sub 'B' grade movie and (B) very limited advertising of said movie. Which is a classic catch 22, one causes the other.

Now, imagine a few years from now when you can log on to a network to download the episodes you want at a reasonable price. And, while you at it, you can check out and rate previews of possible upcoming series. See where I'm going with this? Puts the whole nelson system to shame. The networks would know directly whether it was worthy to run a series. That's the future as I see it.

Not that it would do us any good whether a Spike DVD is made or not. At this point, I don't see it happening. I can only see 20th Century Fox as the only possible source willing to pick up the tab, but I doubt even that will happen due to the risks (read above). OK, I'll put the crystal ball away now.

Madhatter | March 02, 18:35 CET

zeitgeist, totally busted ;). Yep, lifted wholesale from (I think) one of the commentaries on 'Shaun' where Pegg or Frost talks about calling everything x fried gold e.g. 'Shaun' would be comedy fried gold. Struck me funny is all ;).

Yeah, it's interesting the way TV is changing Madhatter and I think once the situation's shaken out it'll be to the advantage of we consumers. It seems that the current model doesn't allow for the sort of ardent but small fan following that describes, for example, us ;) by which I mean people who are willing to pay for the show as well as all kinds of related material which together could help a studio turn a profit even without huge viewing figures. In the near (ish) future I see most shows still being broadcast with a few perhaps being produced entirely for either direct-download or direct-to-DVD viewing. At say $2 an episode even abysmal ratings (by network standards) could keep a show like Firefly at least breaking even and give it more time to build an audience (too late for the actual Firefly of course but so it goes).

Saje | March 02, 19:09 CET

gossi said: "..And not literally alone - I suspect he's aiming for 'in our own worlds, we're alone'."

No. Joss means literally. He's an aetheist. He believes we are both singularly and as a species, ultimately alone.

ZachsMind | March 02, 19:46 CET

You're misunderstanding me, ZachsMind. I wasn't implying a religious meaning. I was trying to say we are singular, and we build barriers ourselves as we live - that meaning of alone. Not aloneness.

gossi | March 02, 20:10 CET

I took it to mean that we are singular and that due to barriers that already exist e.g. the imperfection of language for direct communication or the fact that we are discretely bounded individuals in the first place we are 'trapped', if you like, within ourselves. 'Everybody dies alone' since no-one can directly share any experience that any one of us goes through. The best we can do is try to touch consciousnesses (eses ;) through things like art.

As should be clear by now tho' Joss is an atheist so he may have meant it in the grander sense as well.

Funny how one little statement can become a kind of Rorschach test for the 'soul' ;).

Saje | March 02, 20:27 CET

I thought Joss meant in reference to not having any sort of spiritual higher being. Gossi, what do you know? Afterwards you'll get a cookie!

[ edited by Joss rules! on 2006-03-02 19:12 ]

Joss rules! | March 02, 21:12 CET

I must agree. I felt Joss meant every individual is a thought among themselves and every thought is a reflection on how we feel, touch, behave, ect. And, of course, we tend to build barriers and isolate ourselves. Yet, we still seek to relay our meanings and thoughts to each other.

I think Joss stated it perfectly. "We're alone." Read that again. One doesn't match the other in the psychological sense.

Then again, Joss may be wondering what kinda' drugs we're on....Hey, what about that broadcast television?

Madhatter | March 02, 21:26 CET

"You're misunderstanding me, ZachsMind. I wasn't implying a religious meaning."

I was not misunderstanding you, gossi. In fact, I meant to infer you were misunderstanding Joss.

"What scares you?
Standard scary things-zombies, insects, things behind doors. The big thing that scares me though is the knowledge that we are ultimately alone."

In the context of the original text, Joss was saying what scares him is the knowledge that we are, ultimately, alone. Let's break that down. What scares him? NOT a belief but a wisdom. The KNOWLEDGE that we are each and every one of us alone. Not in one context or another but in ALL contexts. ULTIMATELY, we are alone and everything aside from that is illusion.

In the DVD commentary for Objects In Space, Whedon goes into great detail about this, referring to Satre's Nausea if memory serves, as well as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, where Whedon had a grandiose near euphoric epiphany in which he lost his faith.

The idea that existence precedes essence. Regardless of how we feel about this or that, this or that exists. Irrelevant to our existence, IT is there, whatever IT is, and nothing we do will change the fact IT is there. Conversely, regardless how much one wants to believe in something, it either is or it isn't, regardless of our will or our hopes. You can pray all you want. You can send warm fuzzies. You can write your congressman. If there is no god. If there is no higher power, you are ultimately alone. Take a map of the entire universe and put a little arrow next to a pale blue dot. Mark "you are here." If one can actually grasp the sheer magnificence of our insignificance? It's quite frightening. It's so frightening it's physically impossible for the human brain to truly grasp it. Think you have? Think again.

A true aetheist doesn't see it as a religious implication. If there's nothing there, there's nothing to believe. It's either there or not and unless god purposefully plays hide and seek with His creation? There's no reason to assume he's actually there. Aetheists see that as madness. Religion is insanity to them. It's socially acceptable lunacy.

There is no evidence supporting the idea that there is a god. Or aliens. Or vampires. Or demons. Belief is an assumption that is based on faith, not science or logic. What's amusing to me is that at times in the same breath almost, Joss has dismissed science just as easily as he dismisses faith.

I honestly don't know if Joss believes in anything, and y'know, more power to him and all that. We know that HE 'knows' without question, mankind is alone, and individual human beings are alone.

We may be talking about the same thing gossi but there's semantics involved. You're talking about barriers that individuals build culturally or emotionally or societally. I mean to say that Joss' wording is more absolute. We are ultimately alone, and any barriers we do or do not build up between one another are irrelevant. Not in a 'you will be assimilated' form of irrelevant. More in a 'doesn't matter if we assimilate you or not' form. IRRELEVANT. ULTIMATELY. ALONE.

"If nothing we do matters, then the only thing that matters is what we do." This is what we tell ourselves, but ultimately? Not so much. If Whedon is correct, then what we do matters as little as our very presence in this universe, which is small, insignificant, and singular. We are merely entertaining one another's sentience as we wait for inevitable oblivion.

Of course, I'm a SubGenius Christian. I'm fascinated by Joss' approach to reality, while simultaneously capable of scoffing at it. He believes in the possibility of nothing. I believe in the possibility of everything.

ZachsMind | March 02, 21:35 CET

I suspect this one is buried so far down a random interview topic I doubt Joss will see it.

I'm not saying building barriers around ourselves is a bad thing. We all do it. We can love, be loved, be very close to people, but also essentially be alone at the end of it all.

Zach - and don't take this the wrong way - I think ultimately you are infering some meaning into that which isn't intended. Or possibly it is, maybe I'm wrong.

I do actually agree with the concept that, yes, we are alone from 'god', as I absolutely believe in my heart that a greater power doesn't exist. Does that mean I believe in nothing? No. I believe in myself.

Edit: Actually, having reread the quote a few times, I think ZachsMind is closer to the truth than I first though. I think it can - and probably does - go both ways.

[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-02 19:47 ]

gossi | March 02, 21:41 CET

Inferring meaning? Goodness take me out and shoot me if I'm doing anything that sounds so productive.

"Does that mean I believe in nothing? No. I believe in myself."

But gossi. You don't matter. You can believe in yourself all you want but if there's nothing in the universe beyond what we see, then nothing we do matters. Nothing we are matters. We're either there or we're not there. That's what's scary about being ultimately alone. Building up barriers? That's how we pretend to ourselves that what we do - what we ARE - matters.

So believe in yourself all you want. Believe in your heart that there are no greater PTB out there. While you're doing that I'll sit over here and wait for the Xists from Planet X to arrive in their flying saucers and wreak havoc on the Normals while we party. It's much more entertaining. Ultimately, it's irrelevant. I wouldn't lay money that any being alive has the right answer about what's right to believe.

ZachsMind | March 02, 21:49 CET

More Buffyverse please!

killinj | March 02, 22:40 CET

Surely, even if there is a God then in the sense that you mean Zachsmind it's still true that nothing we do matters ? You lead your life, you die, you go to heaven (or the other place assuming you believe in it) and you are either eternally happy or eternally tormented. Either way, so what ?

Atheism is not belief in nothing it is simply believing there is no God (as per the evidence we have to date as well as some logical issues with the idea of a Christian God). Any other philosophical issues that arise from that are usually only a problem to those who have already decided to choose to believe in God. After all



If your initial position is we're clever monkeys with really clever thumbs then you realise that we aren't owed any meaning from the universe and in that sense you're perfectly correct. No matter how beautiful our creations, how wonderful our thoughts or understanding of the universe, we are just flesh and blood, atoms and molecules. Impermanent, pointless, devoid of meaning. Except that which we impose on the world and objects around us for ourselves hence 'If nothing we do matters ...'.

But as you say, none of us really knows and if there were incontrovertible proof then we'd all be in one camp or the other. The fact that rational adults can have either view I think says it's pretty complex, possibly even unknowable. Live and let live, I reckon. As far as i'm concerned anyone is allowed to believe anything they want just so long as they don't try to foist their prejudices (from either camp) onto me, or those unable to help themselves, by dictating public policy based solely on the instructions found in some old book.

Anyway, i'm pre-emptively cringing from the mod slap we're about to get so I may have to leave it there (for now , muhahahaha ;).

Saje | March 02, 22:56 CET

Thanks, killinj. One comment that caught my eye here from Joss was, "On the other hand, the people who saw it (Serenity) really enjoyed it. I'm happy with the reception we got."

Once again, a shout out to the fans. Joss' first concern is his fans and that sets him apart from others. And, if I may say, thanks Joss. Now, give us some WW info.

Madhatter | March 02, 23:01 CET

Zach --

A subgenius Christian? Well, given my first name I suppose I have to cut you some slack.

bobster | March 03, 00:57 CET

EIYIYIYIYIYIYIY!

I've yet to hear anyone come up with a concept or belief system I can really rally behind, be it a lack of faith or an overabundance of it. I believe there is something out there that is for lack of a better word "god" however I don't subscribe to any one particular credo. I used to be baptist but they don't believe in dancing. What's up with that? And any belief structure that believes in killing in the name of a god? Anything powerful enough to be considered a god can do its own damn killing thank you very much. No god I'd believe in needs pesky human beings killing each other in His/Her/Its name. I'm seriously considering dropping the "Christian" moniker from my religious identity because of how neo-conservatives have tarnished it, but I still think J.C.'s a cool dude so I can't blame Him for the stupidity of His more misguided followers.

Whedon's argument in his Objects In Space commentary is about as good an argument as anything I've yet heard but I'm not rallying behind him either. I just take it all in and believe in the possibility. Jewish? Muslim? Christian? Pagan? To me they're just all looking at the same thing and calling it something else, or in the pagan wannabe structure, they have double vision multiplied. It's all just as plausible as none of it is.

When I watch Firefly, I like to pretend that the "Shepherd" concept subscribes to a belief structure that embraced ALL the religious doctrine of Earth-That-Was, then tried to merge it all together while making it valid to generations of people who had never been on Earth and had no concept of things like astrology, where the constellations were relatively fixed points in space with other dots moving about inside them. I don't like thinking Christianity and Buddhism are the only faiths that survived after the mass exodus from ETW. I like thinking they all made it, and a few others to boot, and a Shepherd's job was to make sense of them all, working towards a religious equivalent of Unified Field Theory. If'n ah wuz Joss.

[ edited by ZachsMind on 2006-03-03 05:09 ]

[ edited by ZachsMind on 2006-03-03 05:11 ]

ZachsMind | March 03, 07:08 CET

Which reminds me of a joke:

Q: What does the KKK do when they want to frighten a Unitarian?

A: They burn a question mark on his lawn.

Zach -- I know how you feel. Lately, I've been leaning more towards the agnostic side of the equation, but you could pretty much put the same words in front of mine and replace "Christian" with "Jewish" and I've often felt exactly the same. (Except that it's semi-impossible for us Jews to ever stop being Jews, even if we have absolutely no doctrinal agreements with the religion, which is much largelu tje case with me. It's the confusion that results when a religion is also an ethnic group.)

[ edited by bobster on 2006-03-03 08:04 ]

bobster | March 03, 09:59 CET

You can believe in yourself all you want but if there's nothing in the universe beyond what we see, then nothing we do matters.

Here's a question: why? Why do I have to believe in something greater than myself to believe in myself?

I believe in myself. Completely. I do not believe in god. Think I don't actually do this? You are wrong.

gossi | March 03, 15:21 CET

Yeah, I get what you mean Zachsmind. Seems some folk have hijacked what could be a very positive thing (even if I don't happen to believe it myself) and are using it as a weapon against anyone they don't like (sure are a lot of people worked up about Biblical quotes on homosexuality, though, strangely, not as many seem worried about the flagrant eating of shell-fish that takes place daily - they'll do it right in front of you, even in the street ! - which is also an abomination according to Leviticus. Axe to grind much ?).

The main gist of the New Testament, to me, seems to be 'Do unto others as you'd like to be done unto' yet folk who profess to be Christians (i.e. followers of Christ, not the Old Testament) keep getting caught up in the Old Testament minutiae about shell-fish or pigs trotters (no offence bobster ;) or sexuality. Just details. In a hundred years we'll all be dead and the only thing that'll matter is how you affected the people that are still around, not which side you were on in a 2,000 year old, unresolved debate.

So do I have an overarching philosophy ? Not so much, beyond the application of reason and empathy wherever possible (which seems like common sense to me but then, as they say, common sense ain't that common). I largely subscribe to that well known but underappreciated 20th century thinker William S. Preston, esq. who said, if you'll indulge me (right, like I haven't already indulged myself ;) in quoting him fully, 'Be excellent to one another. And party on, dudes'.

gossi, my take on what zachsmind is saying is that belief in yourself is no more logical or, in the grand scheme of things, meaningful than belief in a higher power. And, FWIW, I agree. It's the nature of belief to not require logic (or even evidence) for its existence and as i've said above I don't believe in any grand meaning to life, the universe and everything beyond what we make for ourselves. So my way of putting it would be your belief in yourself is every bit as worthwhile and meaningful as anyone else's belief in a higher power if you choose to make it so.

Anyway, Fr. Saje is leaving the pulpit now before some parishioner produces the ever present rotten fruit ;).

Saje | March 03, 16:59 CET

Personally, regarding the question of faith, my beliefs match those of gossi, more than anyone else. I don't believe in "God", certainly not in the sense that anyone or anything created us as a species. In my opinion we exist as a result of a purely coincidental chemical reaction a very long time ago and religion is simply our way of trying to give meaning and importance to our existence when in fact we are nothing but a fluke of nature. Of course this is just my personal opinion but that belief doesn't stop me enjoying my life and living every day to the fullest.

In fact, not needing to believe in anything greater than myself makes life more fun and matter more to me, simply because my life is mine and mine alone and, as such, i don't have to worry about any of those pesky afterlife consequences the religious types spend so much time concerned about. So when ZachsMind says ...



... i tend to think the exact opposite. Belief in yourself alone, rather than in some form of higher power, actually makes you matter more, at least in regard to the life you are living whilst you are living it. In my opinion, all that really matters is living and enjoying the life you have because that is all you can count on having.

WhedonTrivia | March 03, 17:03 CET

Almost exactly my feelings VWaG. But it's still true (I think) to say that it doesn't make you matter in any sort of objective way (i.e. as far as the universe at large is concerned) simply because nothing does. Doesn't follow that we can't find our own meanings in the world around us tho'. Which is why 'If nothing we do matters, then the only thing that matters is what we do'.

It's only when we don't have some eternal future reward ahead of us or are a mysterious part in some cosmic plan we aren't privy to that our chosen actions become meaningful in and of themselves and not just as an attempt to get ourselves into heaven or as moves on some board we can't even comprehend, playing a game we don't know the rules to.

To me the fact that we, mere chemical accident that we are (IMO also), can even think about these things is 'miracle' enough, without having to invent whole new types. I choose to believe that there is an external world which is fundamentally consistent in its behaviour and that we can know it by our senses (tho' I accept that this is an article of faith since it's, in the strictest sense, unproveable). Well, that and that Scotland will move past the first round of the World Cup finals in my lifetime (hey, hope springs eternal ;).

Others choose to believe that there may or may not be an external world and that anything we sense or think we know at any time can be arbitrarily changed or rendered false at the whim of some cosmic power that we only know is good by his or her own word (since let's be honest, the evidence on that score is decidedly mixed) and whose true intentions we can't ever hope to understand. Well, that wouldn't offer me much comfort.

But as I hope i've made clear, each to their own and live and let live. Tolerance for others so long as they're not causing harm either through their actions or deliberate inactions is, IMO, the one 'belief system' we should all adhere to.

(Hey, who threw that cabbage ? ;)

Saje | March 03, 19:40 CET

Couldn't agree more, Saje, particularly with the "tolerance for others so long as they're not causing harm either through their actions or deliberate inactions" part. As long as what you believe causes no harm to anyone else then it's fine by me. As you say, live and let live.

And it's also true what you say about us not mattering as individuals on a universal scale. Personally, i'm more than happy that nothing i do will ever have any real meaning to the world as a whole, let alone the universe. Who wants that kind of pressure! As long as i have a positive effect on the lives of the people i care about whilst i walk this planet, and have a damn good time here myself, then that is good enough for me! ;)

WhedonTrivia | March 03, 20:20 CET