Let's just admit that Joss Whedon does little more than write snarky dialogue

Cafe Society
1

While I think that Buffy is wholly uninteresting and unimpressive and have little interest in Firefly or Serenity Now!, I loved Joss Whedon’s run on Astonishing X-men - I thought it was the best thing to happen to the X-men comic books in about 25 years.

But can’t we just admit that Whedon’s entire appeal is that the writes really snarky and irreverent dialogue? Seeing the Serenity Now! trailers has convinced me of this, especially the really embarrassingly unfunny lines like “Do you want to pilot this shup? Uhhh…you can’t!” and “Everyone uhh…buckle up because we might explode and stuff.”

The reason that people like Whedon is his witty banter, right? It’s basically Gilmore Girls for geeks, right?

2

No.

You’re wrong, and if you’ve been enjoying Astonishing X-Men, you know it.

3

Oh man, are you going to get flamed.
Here are a few things he does other than write witty dialog:
-Create characters you care about
-Present everything in shades of gray. The good guys are still good, and the bad guys are still bad, but good guys screw up and bad guys can love
-Unflinchingly deal with serious shit
-Break all the rules in ways that sound like they can’t possibly work, and then do (a musical episode? Buffy suddenly has a sister?)
-Have a never-ending stream of super-hot women on all of his shows. My god.
-Poke fun at himself, and at his audience
-Make me cry

4

For me, it’s a combination of well-written dialogue and well-constructed characters.

Plus, you know, the fun dorky stuff.

5

I’ll be bold enough to say that the dialogue is a large part of why many people do take to Joss Whedon’s work. Hell, I know that’s why first drew my attention to Buffy all those years back. It isn’t the only thing he has going for him, though.

Joss can take a fantastical concept–Vampires, for instance, or a future in another solar system–and use interesting characters to make it feel as real and as vivid as our own. Now, as a caveat, this isn’t going to make it interesting to everyone; I don’t think there’s anything the entire world would agree on. And, even given interesting characters, some people just prefer more reality-based TV (not reality TV; shows that take place in the more-or-less real world).

Joss can also tell an interesting story. He’s very much a big-picture writer; even his one-off episodes (which are usually not written by him directly) tie into a larger theme. This makes his work very interesting, IMHO.

There are some drawbacks. Joss often makes decisions that polarize his fanbase in order to get a reaction–in his own words, giving the audience what it “needs”, not what it wants. There are a lot of people who resent investing time and emotion into these characters, only to see them die (one particular instance got a lot of flack a couple of years ago). To them, the deaths/shocking moments seem cheap, not deep.

Also, not everyone “gets” Joss all of the time, the same way that not everyone “gets” Monty Python all of the time, and, for those who don’t fall into the “get” camp, the zingers and kooky phrases can get really annoying, really fast. It doesn’t help that fans of Whedon shows tend to quote them a lot, which I’m sure gets old, too. Kind of like Monty Python.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be in my bunk.

6

You’ll get no agreement with the OP, or anything close to it, from me.

Go watch Hush from Season 4 of BtVS and we’ll talk.

Or, The Body from Season 5.

Among numerous others.

The witty banter is nice, but what does it for me (and, I think, what does it for many of his fans) is the real emotional resonance Joss Whedon is so good at creating with/in his characters.

7

you’re referring to Tara, aren’t you

8

The reasonS I like Whedon is all the stuff MaxTheVool said, and because I feel like I know these people. I even envision myself in their universe

9

What’s “Serenity Now!”?

10

Actually, my number one beef with Joss Whedon isn’t that he’s limited to snappy dialog. In fact, my main beef is apparently what he considers one of his strengths [from some commentary on something or other].

I’m paraphrasing from what I recall of course but it went something like this, “Well yes… that doesn’t make any sense and there’s a big whole in the plot but that’s just not what I’m after. It’s about the -characters- the metaphor- more then just the plot.”

Now, I generally like his stuff. I enjoyed buffy for awhile until the later seasons, Angel had some good moments… until the later seasons and Firefly showed great promise. However, the one thing that continually annoys me is his tendency to overlook gaping holes because “that doesn’t matter, it’s the art.”

Now, most fantasy adventure plots will have some holes, I accept that. But come on, at least try! I’m afraid I can’t think of any specifics right now but every once and awhile I think… well that’s incredibly silly and makes no sense… but if they had just changed ‘a’ ‘b’ and ‘c’ a touch the character arcs would have remained identical. Beyond that, if you’re going to have a fantasy series it makes it doubly important that you pay attention to the series’ own internal logic. Something he’s not too great at.

11

Just keep repeating that to yourself while you read the OP. Don’t overdo it, though, or it could backfire.
Serenity now. Serenity now. Serenity now.

12

Who is Joss Whedon?

13

Oh, c’mon, you know. He’s that guy who created “Dawson’s Creek”.
:smiley:

14

unwashed brain: He’s the guy that created Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, and the new sci-fi movie Serenity that’s in theaters right now.

VCO3: No, it’s the characters more than the humor. If it were just the humor, than one of the most consistently praised episodes he ever wrote wouldn’t be “The Body,” which has almost no jokes in it at all. The humor is a big part of what makes him enjoyable, but it’s above all else the amazing characterization that makes him a great writer.

The stories are a close second. I disagree that plot is a weakness of his, and generally find that most “plot holes” stem from characters acting irrationally, stupidly, or out of hidden motives. In other words, acting like real people. Whedon’s storylines are both intricate and epic, although I think he has been hampered by the limitations of television in this regard: he has to get out a set amount of product on a very strict schedule, and I think he has been forced into compromises because of that.

Humor is a distant third, at best, to what makes Whedon so good. And he’s absolutely great at it, no doubt. But being really funny isn’t good enough to make me scedule an evening around your show. There’s lots of funny, I can get funny almost anywhere. Whedon makes me care about people, and wonder what’s going to happen to them next. That’s what brings me back to his shows again and again. That’s what makes him one of the brightest talents working in film or television right now.

15

It’s not just the snark (love it, though. Sharp dialogue does tickle my funny bone) for me - it’s the ability to say “OK, stories have rules, and here’s where we’re going to openly acknowledge the rule, then totally bust it open.” I don’t know if it’ll stand up to long term scrutiny as art, but it’s certainly refreshing. We just watched the last episode of Buffy for the first time (been working our way through the dvds) and I was just delighted that that was what it came down to in the end. Oh, yes, plus totally engaging characters (except Buffy had too many whiners) and an ability to hire the very pretty (of both genders). Oh and not dumbing stuff down - from the highbrow to the poppiest of pop culture, the references in Buffy and Angel were flat-out appropriate to the character to whom the lines were given - the genuine article of what they would have been reading or watching, not just a convenient choice that a mass audience would recognize.

16

The OP is so wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind.

17

Serenity now, insanity later.

18

I’ve never managed to see much of Buffy or Angel in sequence, but whenever I see a stray rerun on TV, I get sucked into it because I do care about what’s going on. I think that’s a good sign that Whedon can do more than write snarky dialogue, although he is one of the most consistent snark-producers working today. I’ve only read “Villains” and that still grabbed me in an unusual way.

19

I’ve never seen Buffy or Angel, but after watching the first DVD of Firefly, I still didn’t care a bit about any of those characters. The captain was fun in an Indiana-Jones-in-that-Raiders-swordfight-scene sort of way, but no one was really likeable.

20

Clearly, neither Mr2001 or VCO3 have no soul. This is the only possible explanation.

Seriously, though - I got sucked into the World of Whedon via Buffy. Why? Because, on some level, I could relate to at least three of the major characters, and in some way, wanted to be like a little part of all of them. Willow (was, at least) the shy geeky girl, and, while Alyson Hannigan is far more gorgeous than I ever will be, I was that character in high school. Buffy had the kick-ass toughness, which I at least like to think I have a bit of - if nothing more, the martial artist in me drools over her fight scenes and weapons. Xander is immensely loyal to his closest friends, and occasionally gets himself in way over his head and needs to be rescued by people far cooler/more talented/etc than he is. In short, Whedon’s characters tend to be simply likeable, having both admirable and and painfully realistic traits.

Also, one of the first episodes I ever saw had Spike, Buffy, and Angel. To more or less echo what a few others have said: His shows have almost-disgustingly beautiful people. Lots of them. Of both genders.