Because it's not half as clever as he thinks it is. And his stuff is always unimaginatively shot, and his fanbase is actively irritating, as is his public persona.
I'm always down for some nerd shit (y'all seen Penny Dreadful yet? SO GODDAMN RAD), but Whedon's stuff is really fucking droll.
Penny Dreadful pilot was pretty cool, I'm looking forward to seeing more episodes. I like the gothic horror version of League of Extraordinary Gentleman vibe they have going. Also, any time a franchise can do an interesting twist on classic monsters, I'll give it a shot. I liked the different approach they took to vampires already.
Because it's not half as clever as he thinks it is. And his stuff is always unimaginatively shot, and his fanbase is actively irritating, as is his public persona.
I'm always down for some nerd shit (y'all seen Penny Dreadful yet? SO GODDAMN RAD), but Whedon's stuff is really fucking droll.
Maybe it's because I was tasked with reading + critiquing way, way too many attempts at Whedon-esque screenplays and stories while I was in school.
I have to say, you don't often hear bashing of Joss Whedon, because most people see his work for what it is. He's not beyond criticism, but I really enjoy watching his stuff. What else can I say? Is it clever, witty, fresh, important, clinical, technical? Maybe, maybe not. But I feel happy watching his films and TV shows. I can see 'droll' being an apt overall expression of his work, but I would consider it a compliment. Droll has a lot of negative connectivity to it, but it's still a praising descriptive when you make movies and TV shows about Westerns set in the future, bombastic comic book heroes collaborating to destroy a jealous god, and vampire slayers. What are you actually hoping to gain from watching or reading his work other than ludicrous entertainment about characters that kick ass?
Last edited by AngryGoldfish on Mon May 19, 2014 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Brand new for less than a 3rd of what it would be off of Guitar Center or other big chains. The Saluda bell was brand new from the factory and it only cost 20 bucks plus shipping. The first one I ever got from them I emailed them asking about them and they sent me one for free to try out. I'm gonna check out their other crashed and rides too because they seem to be well made. They also have an insurance program for you other drummers in here that warranties ANY brand for 10 years. If it cracks and the crack is under 1/2" they will replace it with a comparable cymbal for free. I don't know any cymbals that have lasted 10 years in out style of music so I just thought I'd pass it along to you guys. Don't have the paper with the link but I'll post it later if any of you guys want it.
Nice score. Sabian makes a lit of nice cymbals these days. I would consider it, but I think I have hit my limit on cymbals for the time being.
ilovefuzz needs an I love drums thread. A lot of the drum forum sites are pretty slow moving. Where do all of your drummers go for forum fixes?
Sweet freakin score Clifton!!!!!
And yes we need an ILoveDrums thread... I may only have an electronic kit for now but I'd still love to chat em up!!
whiskey_face wrote:any of you guys used super distortions for doom/stoner rawk?
I really really really want some double creams, I think they will look tits in my les paul. but ive never played a set in a les paul. I don't only play the dooms, straight up 70s rock is 90% of what I play but with very very dark guitar tones.
good match? yes no?
if I go this route it will get a full rewire / repot to 250ks, I don't need all that coil tapping out of phase gimmicky shit my lester came with.
I've got one in my SG and love it, lots of output, gobs of low end and mids and the treble is present but not overbearing (mind you I have very dark amps). I think they will fit what your going for wonderfully.
odontophobia wrote:I think Skip was using a set of Dream 90's but maybe it was the Mean 90's that he was using. One or or the other, apparently the GFS 90's (both Dream and Mean) are pretty well received. I'm sure they're no Bareknuckle but they've piqued my interest for that day when I finally find a guitar I want to gut out a bit.
Really been hoping to pick up one of the thin line modern player telecasters so that I could use those, or something with buckers. I could probably do it with my Toronado but I kinda like have the dual buckers in it, kinda givin' it that Jazzblaster vibe with the old school Duo Sonic style bridge.
Fuck. I just need to get a second job to fund gear.
I had a set of Mean 90's I put in a couple different things and loved. They sound beast under high gain. Great output, great string clarity without the twanginess or excessive treble of a normal single coil. It's true they don't have the 3d feeling of bareknuckles, but for a cheap upgrade they are well worth the price!!!!
Iommic Pope wrote:
Skip, you rule. You hate people so much, you're willing to discredit all human progress, its awesome.
Because it's not half as clever as he thinks it is. And his stuff is always unimaginatively shot, and his fanbase is actively irritating, as is his public persona.
I'm always down for some nerd shit (y'all seen Penny Dreadful yet? SO GODDAMN RAD), but Whedon's stuff is really fucking droll.
Maybe it's because I was tasked with reading + critiquing way, way too many attempts at Whedon-esque screenplays and stories while I was in school.
I have to say, you don't often hear bashing of Joss Whedon, because most people see his work for what it is. He's not beyond criticism, but I really enjoy watching his stuff. What else can I say? Is it clever, witty, fresh, important, clinical, technical? Maybe, maybe not. But I feel happy watching his films and TV shows. I can see 'droll' being an apt overall expression of his work, but I would consider it a compliment. Droll has a lot of negative connectivity to it, but it's still a praising descriptive when you make movies and TV shows about Westerns set in the future, bombastic comic book heroes collaborating to destroy a jealous god, and vampire slayers. What are you actually hoping to gain from watching or reading his work other than ludicrous entertainment about characters that kick ass?
In regards to Joss Whedon, I think you can put him in the same sort of box people place Aaron Sorkin when it comes to storytelling. He generally prioritizes dialog, theme and "moments" over continuity and plot. He wants every character to be the smartest person in the room or think they are (except for the odd adversary that is required to be demonstrably stupid for a plot point), though as opposed to Sorkin, he usually wants the hero to be kind of bashful or self depreciating about it. So whether or not you enjoy his work probably depends on what your tastes for storytelling are. If you want a rollercoaster ride of emotion, zingers and satisfying character moments, he's great for that. If you want really tight plotting, realistic interactions and depth of character (beyond "goodguy does bad stuff" and "badguy does good stuff"), that's not what he's doing. His properties usually feel emotionally consistent, but when you start poking at the plot you find a lot of holes and he's said directly (specifically about certain Buffy episodes) that if something conflict with the continuity of established plot or doesn't quite work under close scrutiny, but it feels right emotionally in the scene, he'll go with it. Like everything, there are variations and he does certain things better or worse at certain times. Also, for better or worse, many people paint his television shows with a broad "Joss Whedon" brush, when in reality a lot of episodes are written and produced by people other than him and he's just overseeing the big story arcs and jumping in on big episodes. Much in the same way as people are referring to the new TMNT movie as being "Michael Bay". He's not directing it, he didn't write it, but it's got his stamp, his "brand" on it.
I enjoy parts of some of his shows, I've watched pretty much all of them from start to finish more than once. I do have to admit, as a detailed obsessed nerd, that a lot of things he does really bugs me. Like a lot of people who enjoy his work, I tend to latch on to the really powerful emotional character moments, but the big picture/plot stuff has irked me in places. He's not the best, but he's far from the worst. I'd certainly much rather watch one of his shows or movies than 90% of the genre dreck that's pumped out by people that don't care about any part of storytelling, other than depositing a check when it's done.
The Sorkin parallel is a good one, but I actually think he has more in common with Harmony Korine. The Sorkin comp also fails to hold up when you realize that Whedon's dialog sucks.
I do agree with what you're saying, though. Even if there's a big, big difference between being the showrunner of a television show and the executive producer of a big budget movie.
Because it's not half as clever as he thinks it is. And his stuff is always unimaginatively shot, and his fanbase is actively irritating, as is his public persona.
I'm always down for some nerd shit (y'all seen Penny Dreadful yet? SO GODDAMN RAD), but Whedon's stuff is really fucking droll.
Maybe it's because I was tasked with reading + critiquing way, way too many attempts at Whedon-esque screenplays and stories while I was in school.
I have to say, you don't often hear bashing of Joss Whedon, because most people see his work for what it is. He's not beyond criticism, but I really enjoy watching his stuff. What else can I say? Is it clever, witty, fresh, important, clinical, technical? Maybe, maybe not. But I feel happy watching his films and TV shows. I can see 'droll' being an apt overall expression of his work, but I would consider it a compliment. Droll has a lot of negative connectivity to it, but it's still a praising descriptive when you make movies and TV shows about Westerns set in the future, bombastic comic book heroes collaborating to destroy a jealous god, and vampire slayers. What are you actually hoping to gain from watching or reading his work other than ludicrous entertainment about characters that kick ass?
So we've hit the Nickelback defense, then?
re: YOB, so pumped -- obviously.
Well, that's a pretty far-reaching and desperate way of looking at it, but in a way, yes... wait, but no. Nickelback sing about sexual deviancy while Joss Whedon writes badass female characters being badass that he is fully aware of. Nickelback fans are renowned for not having great capacity to converse properly without alcohol, just as the band, while Joss Whedon fans are quite capable of having a conversation about most topics. Your argument is that I'm using he 'Nickelback defense', which I've never heard of and have ironically never heard from a Nickelback fan. That comparison is kinda dumb and a little far-fetched. I know you're not directly comparing Nickelback to Joss Whedon, but you are suggesting I'm as dumb and unaware as a Nickelback fan since I find entertainment that does not have the literacy or detail of, say, Quentin Tarrantino, Sam Peckinpah or Terry Pratchett, just as valid as anything else, because I have the capacity to see it for what it is and am not such a hipster that I cannot enjoy it.
Here's the clincher: Nickelback fans do not know this. As a whole, Nickelback are completely unaware of themselves or the misogyny behind the lyrics or the influence shit music has on ignorant people.
