The Doom Room: ILF Edition

[BoatRich]

All I know is that Firefly is possibly my favorite Space Western of all time besides Cowboy Bebop and there should be a doom room anime thread but I feel like I'll be the only one posting in it?

[AngryGoldfish]

Alternatively -- as a whole Joss Whedon fans are unaware that he's not actually that good.

This is why I hate cryptic comments. Just tell it how it is. If you'd have just said "as a whole Joss Whedon fans are unaware that he's not actually that good" I would have agreed, because it's true. I am aware he's not a god of film making or story telling, but I am also aware of why I enjoy his work and why I think he's a commendable creator. If you disagree, awesome, give reasons for it. You did and I gave a counter reason. Then you did what hipster philosophy students do in their first year as hipsters when they get confused: they throw observations about my 'technique' down, instead of actually chatting about the material as friends. This isn't an argument in class about theories. This is too lads talkin' about a Hollywood goon.

[chuckjaywalk]

If Best Coast had more bass and mentioned human sacrifice every once and awhile, they would be my favorite band.

[Kacey Y]

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.

Well, they've both done TV and movies. Though I believe Sorkin started as a playwrite, so he's obviously much more tuned in when it comes to prose. Most of his shows and movies play like they could have been done on stage, with small exceptions here and there. He also sucks though, if the measurement of quality you're using is realism of interaction. The only real difference is Sorkin is going for intellectual impact and Whedon is going for emotional impact. They're both just as false and manufactured. They both try to make everyone sound clever and/or insightful and their biggest trick is manufacturing a social situation that's so heightened that it seems halfway plausible, the most powerful people in the world dealing with the world's biggest problems. I have the same problem with both of them that I have when watching Sherlock on BBC. If you're trying to make a character be the smartest, the shrewdest, the most clever, witty, romantic, seductive, whatever...they can only be that so much as the person(s) writing the character. Worse, they can only be that so much as what that writer THINKS the measure of that thing is. So you might get a seductive scene that comes across painfully cheesy or a big genius plan from a machiavellian mastermind that you can think of a dozen ways off the top of your head could have been thwarted or could have just failed accidentally. Someone could make a clever remark that everyone on screen reacts to as if it were too amazing to come back from, but most people watching instantly shout an obvious retort to. Sorkin is the master of that, in that he has a character recite a snappy monologue, then the scene ends or the character walks away and no one responds. Conversation doesn't work that way, but if the one on screen were realistic, it would undermine the character he's trying to establish with quick pacing. Whedon is just as bad, except he usually ends those scenes with someone getting shot or their head cut off, so they have a just narrowly more plausible reason for not crumbling the artifice of the character. Whedon is actually slightly more adept at subverting criticism ahead of time about this, in that he'll make his characters have a snappy monologue and then make a mistake or stutter or mess up, then have someone else deflate them...THEN they shoot the bad guy and shrug and give a look as if to say "well, I got the job done didn't I?". It's the exact defense you were spotlighting. If you point out that it's not high art or that everyone is not perfectly put together ahead of time, how can you criticize it? Sorkin is always trying to make his characters be above that and if you poke holes in it, you CLEARLY didn't get it. People just defend "aww shucks" more readily than arrogance, but they're both doing the same thing. You can still criticize either of them, it's just hard to argue with emotional attachment over reason with someone and Whedon is a pro at making people bond emotionally with his properties.

It seems to be a really common thread among writer/producers, to hold on to that "well, it feels right, people will overlook the technicalities" approach. There are filmmakers (and television creators) who can manage to have great, well constructed plots and satisfying, consistent character moments. I guess it's just a high standard, unfortunately. When you're making a US television drama I can see the appeal of not getting bogged down in the small details of continuity or plot holes. Having 20+ episodes a season, hopefully multiple seasons, that's a lot to juggle. Where as having emotionally and thematically consistent characters (even if they change over time) tends to be the thing that people latch onto and remember. Those are the people who tune in every week and buy box set DVDs.

[BoatRich]

If Best Coast had more bass and mentioned human sacrifice every once and awhile, they would be my favorite band.

Best Coast is so fucking cool, and makes me want to be in a surfy dream pop band. That said, every time I try and start a project like that I get bored with the lack of heavy stuff. I think I have a constant need to be in three or four bands.

[celticelk]

Alternatively -- as a whole Joss Whedon fans are unaware that he's not actually that good.

"Good" compared to what? And if I like his work, how much does it matter if it's not "good" according to someone else's standard? I mean, viewed from a music theory standpoint, most doom is pathetically simplistic, but I'm not going to argue that you *ought* to judge it on that standard.

[D.o.S.]

Alternatively -- as a whole Joss Whedon fans are unaware that he's not actually that good.

"Good" compared to what? And if I like his work, how much does it matter if it's not "good" according to someone else's standard?

I.e. the Nickelback defense.


Its not really a matter of enjoyment, its a matter of conflating excellent with enjoyment.

@ Corey -- there's a lot of interesting things in what you're saying, but I'm too busy to get back at it right now. Maybe we take it to PM?

I will say that Sorkin's hilarious "apology" to the people who watched The Newsroom was leagues douchier than anything Whedon's ever done to defend his work.

[celticelk]

Alternatively -- as a whole Joss Whedon fans are unaware that he's not actually that good.

"Good" compared to what? And if I like his work, how much does it matter if it's not "good" according to someone else's standard?

I.e. the Nickelback defense.


Its not really a matter of enjoyment, its a matter of conflating excellent with enjoyment.

Just saying "the Nickelback defense" doesn't actually address the argument. I get that you don't like Whedon, and you've got a perfect right to that opinion. But you're also suggesting that Whedon's work is "not that good" without (in my view) either articulating a standard for what's "good" or mounting any defense for why that standard is appropriate.

[D.o.S.]

Sure -- As a showrunner, Whedon has developed a cult following that is dramatically disproportionate to the quality of his work when compared to other guys (and, unfortunately, they're all men) of his ilk: David Simon, David Milch, and David Chase probably being the best of the bunch.

There's a very real point at which quality becomes inarguable, and whether you like something or not really doesn't measure into the equation.

"If I like it, who cares?" is a similar non-argument, by the way.

[celticelk]

Sure -- As a showrunner, Whedon has developed a cult following that is dramatically disproportionate to the quality of his work when compared to other guys (and, unfortunately, they're all men) of his ilk: David Simon, David Milch, and David Chase probably being the best of the bunch.

That's just handwaving. What does "quality" mean in this context, and how do you know that those other guys have it and Whedon doesn't?

[pelliott]

Sure -- As a showrunner, Whedon has developed a cult following that is dramatically disproportionate to the quality of his work when compared to other guys (and, unfortunately, they're all men) of his ilk: David Simon, David Milch, and David Chase probably being the best of the bunch.

There's a very real point at which quality becomes inarguable, and whether you like something or not really doesn't measure into the equation.

"If I like it, who cares?" is a similar non-argument, by the way.

Basically all I'm getting here is if Joss were named David you'd love him

[Kacey Y]

I don't have any personal interest in defending or persecuting anyone, just making some observations. I should say that I enjoy a lot of Joss Whedon's shows and movies, as well as Aaron Sorkin's. They're both good at that. They're good at making enjoyable, satisfying moments, but the part of my brain that really wants to dig in to plot, tear it apart and see how it works responds in a different way to both of them. There's a danger is exposing the underlying elements of why something is enjoyable or in its inherent flaws, because bonding with something emotionally makes you react differently to rational criticism of it. The same way if you love a person, someone else can come along and pick apart all their flaws objectively and you will get upset with them. Some are subjective and matters of taste, some are things you choose to remain willfully ignorant of because you're blinded by good things, some are things you choose to ignore because you deem them less important than the satisfaction you're getting from everything else. Everyone does it, with a lot of things, it's just human. It really doesn't detract from the good aspects. Unlike D.O.S., no offense man, I'm not criticizing anyone for liking Whedon. Just pointing out why people like him and why people overlook his flaws. I'm including myself in that analysis, I'm ok with knowing it and still enjoying the things I do. It just makes me think about how much better something could have been, if there were even more thought put into it.

[D.o.S.]

Sure -- As a showrunner, Whedon has developed a cult following that is dramatically disproportionate to the quality of his work when compared to other guys (and, unfortunately, they're all men) of his ilk: David Simon, David Milch, and David Chase probably being the best of the bunch.

There's a very real point at which quality becomes inarguable, and whether you like something or not really doesn't measure into the equation.

"If I like it, who cares?" is a similar non-argument, by the way.

Basically all I'm getting here is if Joss were named David you'd love him

If he made a show that was as good as any of the Holy Trinity of Davids, I'd love it. I like it when people make great things.

[AngryGoldfish]

So D.o.S., because Whedon doesn't capture the integrity of The Wire or The Sopranos, or the consistency or reward system, but does capture character satisfaction, humour and empowerment, then he sucks?

There are many different ways to tell a story. I watched Eraserhead for the first time the other night. It was horrifying and difficult to watch, and I know that it's going to take multiple painful viewings to grasp. That is a very particular way of film-making, and it is not everyone's cup of tea—I know it's not mine. But I'm still able to appreciate the artistry and focus on that, making it more than worth the price of admission.

Conversely, when I watch The Avengers or Firefly, I don't look for those storytelling gems or metaphorical jabs at culture because I know they're not there. Well, there are a few, but they're not littered with symbolism like The Sopranos is. Again, two different ways of creating entertainment that cater to different audiences. Which is my point: For some a film is meant to blindly entertain and little more; for another it's meant to take them away to another dimension; and for others it's meant to tell a story that they can artistically relate to and critique to their heart's content. Whedon's work possesses two of these things and lacks one. Two out three is good enough for me to invest a little of my time. Whether I'm using Nickelback ignorance as a way to satisfy my own thrills, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day.

For me, I watch a movie and TV show the first time by letting myself be carried away. When I go back I digest everything and go through it with a finer tooth comb. I don't bother doing that with Whedon's work. It's just not worth it. That doesn't mean he's a shit film-maker or has no value in today's market. Yes, he has a lot of adoring fans that don't fully understand this, but there are many that do.

[D.o.S.]

Its not really a matter of enjoyment, its a matter of conflating excellent with enjoyment.

Also, Eraserhead's not a very difficult film to parse. It's just got a non-explicit narrative.

I do find it very interesting that there seems to be this widespread laissez faire attitude towards standards of quality in the arts. But I'm not hating on anyone for liking Whedon -- I certainly like things that aren't very good critically speaking -- just pointing out that he's awarded a disproportionate amount of artistic credibility and excellence from his (very loud and very ardent) fanbase.