Five Favorite Films with Joss Whedon

Eminem .

He is a she

Jun 15 - 12:27 AM

Steven Harris

Well, he's an 'opera geek' for sure.

Jun 16 - 06:44 AM

Ernie Truman

've always seen range in his influences. With Buffy the Vampire Slayer alone he's done romance, a musical, and some comedy based episodes. The fact that he did a space western with Firefly and Serenity shows he loves both space movies and westerns. I think his tastes have to be eclectic in order for his movies and shows to work. He's more of a story geek, the scifi fantasy is just what he does best. His eclectic tastes and talent are what separate him from McG.

Jun 19 - 01:51 PM

Infernal Dude

Reference: Wes Anderson.

Jun 15 - 01:10 PM

Albert Cornett

I honestly didn't understand how Buffy, Firefly, and Angel were entertaining. I am not sure what your definition of entertainment is....loved by fans, scholars and critics is a indication of good entertainment. But never has everyone agreed on what is good or great art, so I do not understand, but i respect your opinion.

Jun 15 - 12:36 PM

Eminem .

Sorry, I meant I didn't find them entertaining.

Jun 15 - 03:46 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Albert, you're talking to a troll. I know you don't know this, but you fail for respecting a troll's opinion over mine. Good luck to you in your future endeavors, sucker.

Jun 15 - 10:04 PM

Eminem .

You know you are a very hard victim to feel sorry for

-Ed Helms

Jun 16 - 03:12 PM

Janson Jinnistan

I'm not sure you understand what the word "victim" means. That would imply that any of you idiots are capable of harm.

Jun 16 - 06:54 PM

Big Brother

Didn't say, would. He said could and I think if you cut out the answers they tried to give in the sequels he's right. Classic example of stuff that should have went unsaid. It was great because it left it to your imagination and they should have been happy with that because it allowed it to be great. It was in providing answers to the brilliant questions that they went wrong.

Jun 15 - 11:17 PM

Infernal Dude

We don't know what movies they will be talking about for centuries seeing that movies haven't even been around for even one. Metropolis, Citizen Kane, or the Godfather? Who knows? Would I compare The Matrix to those films, probably not, but its clear it made an impact in media presentation. I would point out the Agent Smith GE commercial or the automatic references to big brother when we see the green matrix code. Hell, it perfected its own style (trench coats and sunglasses). Regardless, I think its obvious that The Matrix has a long lasting affect on cinema. Action/sci-fi movies were never the same after it and to this day we see its influence. Oh ya, its also preserved in the Library of Congress. Whatever that means is different for each of us, but I feel it shows that it has cinematic importance.

Jun 16 - 01:38 AM

Janson Jinnistan

While it's perfectly conceivable that people will long remember "Matrix" as a landmark sci/fi film and a pop cultural phenomenon, none of this relates to what I said. I took issue with the notion that "philosophically it could be studied for centuries", because, in all honesty, it would probably take a week to exhaust this conversation, which is why people don't really have it anymore as much as they did in 2000. The "philosophy" of the "Matrix" is facile. By itself, the film still isn't any deeper than the work it was derivitive of - Philip K Dick, William Gibson and such anime as "Ghost in the Shell". All of these are more worthy of philosphical study than the "Matrix", which muddles the content into a reference stew that never attempts to make sense of it. The reason why there was so much speculation in its philosophical import was because of the assumption that there was a master plan at work for the upcoming sequels. There wasn't. Looking back now, knowing they were using this philosophy of Simulacra and Simulation (tellingly, the writer Jean Baudrillard has rejected the significance of the film, despite being one of those references) more as a fashionable prop rather than an attempt at any meaningfully philosophical coherence, this speculation is proved moot. The Wachowski's were wearing no clothes.

As for films that probably will be studied for centuries for their philosophical richness, why choose "Matrix" in the face of the work of Bergman, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, late Kurosawa? Because if Whedon were honest, he likes "Matrix" because it kicks ass, and is disingenuously trying to claim an intellectual high ground where one doesn't exist. In addition to the other faux-intellectual comments he made about the other films, it adds up to some serious dumbness.

Jun 16 - 07:15 PM

Infernal Dude

I guarantee Begman, Kubrick, etc. had influences beyond their own devices. And King hated The Shining. So now The Matrix has no point because Baudrillard didn't like it?

I do agree ,though, with hopefully seeing other films in the "studied for centuries" category before The Matrix. If anything it should be studied for, "what not to do with the sequles to a good concept. First chapter, The Matrix."

Jun 17 - 12:54 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Infernal, the problem with intelligent discussion is taking context into account. You can't just substitute Baudrillard's disdain for "Matrix" with King's disdain for the "Shining" unless you account for the reasons for why they did this. Also, you can't compare "Matrix" to "Seventh Seal" simply because they both had influences, but rather on how they articulated the meaning of the philosophy they represent. "Matrix" was ambiguous, flirting with meaning without revelation. We found out that no revelation was coming. The execution of the films I mentioned is far more coherent, and that makes all the difference.

As for Baudrillard, it's worth seeing his objections. He basically accuses the Wachowskis of confusing and misunderstanding his work (cue Marshall McLuhan!): "Yes, but there had already been other movies dealing with the growing blur between the real and the virtual... The Matrix?s main point is as a paroxystic synthesis of all of that. Sadly, the mechanism is roughly done and don?t arouse any trouble... the real nuisance in this movie is that the brand-new problem of the simulation is mistaken with the very classic problem of the illusion, already mentioned by Plato. Here lies the mistake."

I'd like to see Whedon try to defend against these criticisms, but I doubt he could. On the plus side, he has assured several unemployed student loan debtors who majored in Buffy. Maybe we'll be studying for centuries just how so many people were fooled into these stupid Pop Culture degrees.

Jun 17 - 03:35 PM

Infernal Dude

Whats the mistake though? That Whedon saw something you didn't see? That he's willing to, in the end, say its a movie about kung fu vs. robots with philosophy added and he likes that? Is that what makes you call him dumb? Because he (and many others) felt something more or because it doesn't adhere to your standards of the proper ways of philosophizing? Do movies and their meanings have to be seen through the same (Janson's) lens? Get the fuck over it and go create something even remotely as successful as Whedon's done then you can call him stupid for, OH MY FUCKING GOD, liking the Matrix and thinking it had a deep meaning.

Jun 17 - 04:11 PM

Janson Jinnistan

You can't even say what it is that Whedon saw, that I didn't, so why hide behind these hypotheticals? And these aren't MY standards of philosophizing, but then again, I wouldn't imagine you'd know much about the curriculum. This is your standard anti-intellectualism. You don't know what you're talking about and you obviously can't make a sensible argument based on what you don't know, so instead you get mad at me for demonstrating what you don't know. Whedon is simply wrong here, and you're flailing because you can't really even attempt to explain how he could be right. It's like trying to argue science with an evangelical. Your mind is made up, and you're probably not interested in pursuing the evidence. You can't argue intelligently so you foam and sputter at me for my heresy. When you want to stop making this about me personally, and return to looking at the actual philosophical content, then I'll be happy to try to lead you in the direction where you can learn something. But having a tantrum over Whedon is just sad and pointless. I've already said above that Whedon should have been honest about liking "Matrix" because it kicks ass (why most people like it, in fact), I only called out his pretension in ascribing to it a philosophical depth that has long been refuted. As I said, I'm surprised any intelligent person is still that gullible a decade after the fact.

Jun 17 - 05:08 PM

Infernal Dude

Jesus, I'm the one throwing the tantrum? I only made it personal when you called me an idiot (intellectual discussion comment), which is your usual fall back at about the 3rd or 4th block comment you make. I can almost see you responding; biting your lip, shaking your head and breathing through your nose. Do you have a service industry job? I ask because I feel you have to deal with people you think are below you but you have to answer to them so comment boards on RT is where you vent. And evangelical? What truths have you presented beyond theory and opinion? You're going to tell me you have figured out how to prove the philosophies presented in the Matrix hold no water to Whedon, myself and a lot of fans? Ideologies like free will, Marxism, and martyrdom? Do you think that when he says people will study it for centuries that he means it will replace Plato in textbooks? What the fuck have you said that proves that people will not look back at The Matrix and reflect on its message while being able to enjoy 'splosions? Also, you've weighed Plato vs. The Matrix. Mountains and molehills. Thats really taking things out of context. Intellectuals....

Jun 18 - 12:38 AM

Janson Jinnistan

Dude, you can imagine me in whatever light makes you feel better. It's not going to make your vague opinion on philosophical matters any more cogent.

You still show you don't know what you're talking about, which is fine if you're not interested in philosophy, but yet you still what to argue the issue as if you have the right to argue material you're not familiar with. Neither me nor Baudrillard are arguing "Plato Vs. Matrix". What he was saying is that the Matrix confuses Plato's Allegory of the Cave (imprisonment of illusion) with Baudrillard's own philosophy of "simulation". This is the central fallacy that Baudrillard was accusing the film, and one of the reasons why the philosphy of the film is on shakey ground. Had the sequels been able to resolve this conundrum in an innovative way, perhaps it could be given the benefit of the doubt, but not only did it not, it proved that it wasn't particularly interested in doing so. That's because it's now clear that the Wachowski's were using Plato and Baudrillard as superficial totems of intellectual credibility.

I'm sorry that you feel the already centuries-established study of philosophy is still subject to anyone's whims and opinions. If you did understand the centuries progression of philosophical development, from Plato to postmodernism, then you could see how empty the Matrix ultimately is, and how absurd it is to suggest that the Matrix will be equally responsible for similar centuries-long study. But you seem to want to preserve your lack of knowledge in this area while still asserting some validity to your opinion. Whether or not people continue to find "meaning" in the Matrix is irrelevent to whether or not its slapdash philosophical references has any integrity. And it is specifically the claim of the film's philosophical importance that I took issue with.

You're the one throwing a tantrum, because you're showing your frustration over the possibility that I might hurt little Joss's feelings. You still characterize me unflatteringly, while the only thing I'm pointing out about you is what's obvious - that you don't know much about the specifics in the subject of philosophy. You don't seem to even counter the claim, but continue to further display your lack of understanding. That's hardly my fault, nor my responsibility to educate you. You would think that once you find that you can no longer effectively debate the actual philosophical ideas I'm discussing, instead turning to childish and defensive ad hominem, that you would either conceed the point or maybe bine up a bit on the subject I'm talking about. Your hero-worship of Whedon, your materialistic admiration of his success (I suppose Sandler and Bay are equally above criticism because of their bank accounts?) overrides his lack of cogency, or anyone's ability to point out this flaw?

Invoking "intellectual discussion" wasn't an attempt to call you an idiot, but it was a call to step up to the plate. You obliged this imaginary invitation by then responding like an idiot. Sorry about that, but that's still not my fault.

Jun 18 - 03:23 AM

Infernal Dude

Educate me? On what? Google search and copy/paste? Because thats the extent of your research. And don't act like there was a fair discussion to be had with you on this. I'm accused of making up my mind ahead of time yet you've done the same thing. I've never seen you fold on anything and seen you revert to insults at the drop of a dime plenty of times. I presented examples of why the film will be remembered beyond its time and you have ignored this in a desire to focus on one disparity in one of the ideas presented. What about the fact that the bible story (reserection), Hinduism (Maya), free will, even Dali like surrealism, and more are present. The Matrix isn't a 400 level class on these subjects; more like a 100 level. But it is still able to build a foundation on this and include evil robots and bullet time. How is it hard to imagine or understand that it will be a film school staple for years, just as we look back at Metropolis, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and even Star Wars. You're going to tell me because the film botched "simulation" philosophies it won't invoke ideas of choice, big brother, and the notion of a source. You have made an absolute statement on an unprovable subject. If Whedons dumb for his statement you're ignorant for yours. All you have done is focused on one aspect of the movie, a partial theme and an homage and taken Whedon's comments to equate all philosophy will be based on the Matrix now. More importantly you've come to this conclusion on second hand information, are regurgitating it verbatim, and believing you are an expert on it. And in the end the only acceptable conclusion for you is that I concede or "go educate myself more" until I agree with you. Basically concession to what is a partial OBSERVATION. Intellectual, indeed.

Jun 18 - 10:43 PM

Janson Jinnistan

"I presented examples of why the film will be remembered beyond its time and you have ignored this in a desire to focus on one disparity in one of the ideas presented."

The reason why I focus on this one disparity is because it's central to understanding the basic problem of its philosophical incoherence. (None of the examples you mention for why the film will be remembered are relevent to the film's philosophical impact - the issue I'm discussiong). Essentially, the simulation of Baudrillard is imcompatible with Plato's Allegory of the Cave because Baudrillard doesn't believe there is a reality beyond the shadows of the cave. His series of repeating and recurring simulacra is what reality absolutely consists of, therefore there is nothing outside this "matrix" of the simulated reality of language, images and symbols to escape from. This is the fundamental inconsistancy. Yet the film proposes to solve this problem by equating the simulation of Baudrillard to Plato's Cave. Had the film accomplished this feat, surely it would be worthy of philosophical study, for at least a couple of centuries. Of course it did not.

The reason isn't hard to discern. Baudrillard was an important writer for countercultural college kids in the 90s, much like Philip K Dick (I have it on solid authority that this was where they got the 'Plato's Cave' allegory from, as neoplatonic gnosticism was Dick's central phiosophical frame), William Gibson and the more metaphysical anime (which was years ahead of American sci/fi in exploring philosophical and psychological issues at the time). The Wachowski's were attempting to create a mainstream amalgamated zeitgeist of these subversive countercultural icons. It was never their intention to create an actual philosophically intelligible perspective. Once the film's touchstone philosophical references were aroused by fans, they panicked and doubled down in "Reloaded" before totally dropping the ball in "Revolutions". But there was never a philosophical intention to begin with. If you want to judge "Matrix" solely on it's a ability to translate these 90s countercultural subjects into the mainstream, then that would be one thing. It succeeded brilliantly. But philosophically, as Whedon stresses? That horse has been dead since "Revolutions" slammed the lid on the coffin shut a decade ago. I'm surprised that anyone is still trying to kick the corpse around.

"What about the fact that the bible story (reserection), Hinduism (Maya), free will, even Dali like surrealism, and more are present."

This is what I'm talking about when I mention how you don't understand what you're talking about. "Resurrection" and "surrealism" are not philosophies. One is a theology and the other is an aesthetic movement.

"All you have done is focused on one aspect of the movie, a partial theme and an homage and taken Whedon's comments to equate all philosophy will be based on the Matrix now."

This statement is hyper-retarded. If you've inferred that I was suggesting an interpretation of Whedon's comments that the philosophy of the "Matrix" would replace the existing philosophical template, then you're dumber than I've accused you. I've simply said that the film is incompatable to the philosophies it has associated itself to, and that Whedon, by ignoring this incompatibility, is dumb for finding profundity in this, and dumber for thinking it would take centuries before actual philosophers notice this incompatibility before they stop studying it.

"More importantly you've come to this conclusion on second hand information, are regurgitating it verbatim, and believing you are an expert on it."

"Second hand information"? Like simulacra almost! No, seriously, Dude, why don't you tell me what I'm an expert on, since you're obviously making this up (and catching up) as you go along?

"Basically concession to what is a partial OBSERVATION."

It's a promising start to open your eyes first. Conceptual realization will take you some time.

Jun 19 - 06:44 AM

Infernal Dude

So ironic to hear you of all people say, "open your eyes" as you continue to bang the same drum.

Jun 19 - 12:28 PM

Janson Jinnistan

I'm a veritable Gene Krupa compared to many of you squirts. It's a shame that the drum I'm interested in here - the philosophical one - is too out of reach for you to properly discuss. Would you like some lotion for your burned nuts?

Jun 19 - 01:31 PM

Big Brother

LOL, agreed.

Jun 15 - 09:43 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Actually, there were a lot of unkind reviews of Season Four. Of course they're horribly wrong. Whedon is not as good a writer as Mitchell Hurwitz though.

Jun 15 - 10:09 PM

Big Brother

It's tough for me to say better or worse on that score. I prefer different and all good. I prefer Whedon, but I can't say definitively that he's better because I like Horwitz too and can see why people would prefer his work depending on their taste.

Jun 15 - 11:20 PM

Big Brother

He's definately a tidier writer than Whedon, but Whedon has other qualities that make the issue murkier. Whedon is dynamic and capable of more diverse work I think which leaves the question open I guess if Whedon focused on one thing and devoted all his energy to it.

Jun 15 - 11:27 PM

Infernal Dude

Its still 10x better than the drivel that is considered TV comedy. 2 and a Half Men? Fuck that. Portlandia? Zzzzzzz. And the Hurwitz/Whedon comparison is an interesting one. If we were to compare WRITING to CAST I would say Whedon writes better dialogue where as Hurwitz put together stellar casts that improvised, wrote dialogue themselves, and could really do no wrong. I love Fillion but he's a product of Whedon's writing. And Buffy? Do we really think Gellar created that shit? Hell, he gave Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry material they could excel with. Thats saying a lot for a writer.

Which proves a better writer? A witty script that good actors perform or a script made witty by good actors?

Jun 16 - 02:01 AM

Big Brother

Only thing I'd disagree on is Fillion, I think Whedon definately helped him on his way, but I think he's a talent all his own. I'd hold up Castle as proof of that. Castle could easily be just another police procedural, but he and Stana Katic elevate it. Neither is probably ever going to be a Daniel Day Lewis or Russell Crowe who can elevate sub-par material into gold, but he's definately capable of making the adequate into the good. I think anyways.

Jun 16 - 02:09 AM

Tallulah Robinson

Infernal, that's an interesting point! Which makes me laugh. I've become good at ignoring people.
Also, everything Big Brother says I nod to.

Jun 17 - 01:49 AM

Infernal Dude

@BB Don't take me wroing. I definitely like Fillion. But, IMO, Capt. Malcolm Reynolds character belongs to Whedon, his swagger belongs to Fillion. I haven't really watched Castle though. I'm way, way behind on good tv.

Jun 18 - 12:35 AM

Bigbrother .

100% agree, and early episodes of Castle aren't what I'd call good TV, but they get by because of Fillions charm and his chemistry with Katic, which I think is one of his biggest strengths, he's fantastic opposite just about any female you put him with which is a rare quality. In just the few episodes of Firefly we got I was totally invested in his relationship with Anara (Sp?), Zoe, Callie and even Mrs. Reynolds. That's pretty impressive work to have 4 quality relationships in less than a dozen episodes :). He has a silimar dynamic with Katic on Castle which I think is as good in that aspect as anything on TV since David and Maddie on Moonlighting which kinda set the standard for the will they won't they dynamic.

Jun 18 - 06:25 PM