As a person whose first language is not English, I was left speechless by the "not her first language" remark. I couldn't believe he actually went with that, such arrogance.
In movie making they want people you can understand, most Americans watch shows in English with subtitles on. English is not my first language but I learned to speak it clearly and to the best of my ability so I could get the job I have now. I have in the past been turned down for jobs because my English wasn't great and people wouldn't understand me on the phone. I didn't complain because it makes perfect sense so I learned to speak English better. Pro victims just want something to complain about.
To be fair, she does have multiple compilation videos on RU-vid, of her speaking broken English during interviews, where people are confused about what she said
@@alexh8613 That has nothing to do with comprehension though. My Spanish and German are either broken or just suck (respectively) - however I can understand absolutely everything a spanish-speaking person says (sometimes to their shock and horror) and similarly I can follow German.
@@cindytartt4048 I still remember when I was taking Japanese in school (I was an honor-roll student and often helped other classmates in various subjects) my teacher pulled me to the side one day; "Your Japanese is very good, but your accent is terrible. If you were to go to Japan no one would understand you." Well *that* sunk my boat rather quickly. --- Congratulations on learning Czech though (even if it's just mostly on a comprehension level) a language that is mostly consonants crushed together takes me a while for it not to whoosh.
reading the interview I was reminded of the Narcissist's Prayer That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
@@zenithquasar9623 His history of being raised by a strong, powerful, but unaffectionate and disinterested woman COMPLETELY EXPLAINS how he creates strong but vulnerable women in his shows and then uses the plot and story to put them through unimaginable pain. But I don't think he's acknowledged or explored the nature of his misogyny and why his "feminism" isn't really feminism. And I don't want to see another thing that he writes until he's unpacked this issue, because it's what makes modern re-watches of Buffy and Angel so troubling.
@@petiteflower5259 I find it also sickening that that lead him to have some sort of strong women fetish. He said he wants to be them, also wants to ef them. And because he loves power play, he likes them to suffer. What he did to that woman (forgot her name), breaking up on her bday because that was her worst nightmare sounds like an episode of Buffy and it actually disturbed me. Like, Buffy is my all time favourite thing, but I think that perspective really is making me question it because you can read it as a deliberate torture porn and that irks me.
The thing that pisses me off the most is the fact that the Whedon defenders with their conspiracy theories in 2017 implying that Snyder had malicious intent towards Joss when he was, in fact, grieving the TRAGIC loss of his daughter is completely abhorrent and inhuman to say. I don’t care what they thought/think of Snyder’s movies, but to imply that sort of evil intent when he just lost his daughter in the worst way possible, is just absolutely mind boggling to me.
While i dont like his aproach and ayn randian and adopting that ayn randian stuff, he is actually a good person. With disagreement what tone he adopts in works, he is a good person that doesnt deserve being slandered as person. Also snyder did diavow directly the quatering and co and did call out th worst parts of his fandom. Which is respectabl
@@ginichilders9619 He does very much in his movies. He doesnt have to be a fan to adapt that philosophy in his movies, just he does whyever. Its pretty popular.
@@marocat4749 not really though. I don't even think it's possible to make a truly objectivist/Randian superhero story. Even the ones that are hit with the accusation, like The Dark Knight Returns or The Incredibles (Brad Bird's another director who's been accused of being an objectivist too, though the discourse around him never got as vicious or hateful as it did with Zack), aren't really that. Maybe a bit more conservative or libertarian than the usual superhero story, but not fully Randian.
@@ginichilders9619 Then its not a superhero story, Ther are deconstructions bad supermans, but for that youneed a suprman that inspires hope, which in snyders univere, he just didnt. Because that ayn rand inspired not selfless not wanting to help and inspire hope and positivity, thats against everything supeman represent. Bird made effectiv family movies with superheroes, which why it didnt matter much, but snider made a big impact superman movie, without ever showing superman. Wher is the hope, the emotional stakes. Its fine if snyder makes movies that arent that positive or need that, but the problem is, he does adopt progressive movies that are just not good with his conservative and libertarian cinemagrothy and kill the message. Thats why people hate his movies ther and the harsh criticism. He might not even be aware, but he is practically tonedeaf or whatevr , but he is not good at emoting positive expression that any superhero movie needs. Even in spades. Superman representd hope, where is the hope hown ? He would be perfect for the dark injustice, but he did never call it that. Superheroes are all about that the world can be better and not having that , kills it as superhero movie. And yes he was at a dark place, sorry for his daughter, but he had other options, and if he doesnt get or is bad at making the emotional core of superhero movies, maybe dont. No one forced him. He had any options. Thats why as person he see lovely , but he has responsibility as film maker , and sorry, depriving superman of any positive atributes and hope, that is big. Ther are plenty styles of movies that profit of his style but that genre isnt.
I just want to cry. I was in my twenties when Buffy was on and it seriously helped me deal with my own childhood trauma. I even THANKED JOSS FOR MAKING THE SHOW at a convention when he autographed my copy of the Once More With Feeling songbook. I'd rather believe an ugly truth than a pretty lie, but UGH. Finding out just how much harm he has caused others over the course of his career has been soul-crushing. I still love a lot of his previous work, but I'm done going forward.
Yup, me too but I was 45. I came across it because some older friends loved it. My son was then introduced to it. I still love it but try and recall the other writers: Marti, Jane, Doug and others. It's still great - but some eps haven't aged well. It's awfully upsetting but then charisma said this stuff years ago and sadly wasn't believed. I hope you're OK. Certainly that show was the one i turned to when I was down. 💙💙💙
I read the interview and if anything he has made things worse for himself. He has taken no responsibility and seems determined to shift the blame on to others (which he has had a habit of doing). I think in his mind he hoped this interview would clear the air and give him his career back. Instead I think he has committed professional suicide with this. I personally think he is unhireable now beyond maybe doing script doctoring uncredited. There are some I am sure who will go to theri graves pleading his innocence and thats fine for them. But he lost a lot of respect over how he treated the Buffy communtiy over the death of Tara and now he is finally reaping what he has sown. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.
The thing of it is, there were some people like the writer who was in tears in the writer room who was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. She did mention that the writer room made it so they had to dig deep into painful things of their pasts to center their scripts or character/story arcs, so that did leave the writers vulnerable to criticism even if it wasn't intended maliciously. She even said that she was usually over-sensitive. So it's not that the interview was a hit piece since the writer did interviewed one or two people who were trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assumed that there was no bad faith in Whedon's part. The writer was also good about putting things into context (such as how the Justice League movie was badly managed and Whedon was admittedly left to finish a movie after a working environment was established). What got me was how he didn't apologize for things that he knew were dick moves. Whedon made it seem like Snyder orchestrated a rep-hit on him and made it seem like Ray Fisher was Snyder's mouthpiece... when the man was mourning his daughter's suicide and dealing with the fallout. And, yes, Snyder's fans can be assholes, but the man himself even went so far as to disavow the fans who were bullying people for not liking his work and suicide baiting people (when he finally got some emotional bandwidth after the tragedy he suffered). It just seems like such a dick move not to admit that he was an asshole for insinuating that, that it stemmed from paranoia or whatever, but it was horrible that he did that and robbed Ray Fisher of his agency to boot. His marriage too, he doesn't say that he's sorry. He admits they were a mistake, but he doesn't say he's sorry about it
I don't think there was really any way he could've made it better though. He's completely burned his reputation at this point, especially among what had historically been his core audience. It was already hard to read The Nevers as a major step down the ladder from where he was just a few years ago. I don't expect he'll be working much in the mainstream entertainment industry for quite awhile, if ever again. I'm sure he's still very wealthy, so his best play at this point is probably just to peace out and find some way to enjoy the rest of his life if he can.
Whedon: like the art but dislike the artist. Snyder: dislike the art but like the artist. If I had to choose who to finance or work with, I’d go with Snyder, even if I like Whedon’s style more. Art is not above everything. We should not tolerate bad behaviour in the name of good art (which is also subjective)…
It's HILARIOUS that Joss blamed Zack Snyder and some sort of conspiracy from "malevolent forces" for his reputation tanking and I'm like... SERIOUSLY?! Even when taking into account that Zack really doesn't seem like one for talking smack about anyone, the fact is he was in the middle of mourning his dead daughter at the time. Would he really have the energy or desire to whip up some kind of conspiracy in that time? 🤦♀️
You'd think someone who supposedly cares about superheroes would have thought twice before accusing a grieving father of some having some sort of sinister hand in his downfall, but this interview has shown that self-awareness is not Joss Whedon's specialty. And it serves to prove that he didn't need a scapegoat in Snyder or Fisher. From his answers to the questions, he's made it abundantly clear that he's his own worst enemy.
I can’t believe he thought attacking Gadot and Fisher was a good idea. And yes, I consider what he said about Gadot as an attack. As someone who constantly gets attacked by how I speak, I’m super offended for her and I’m sure she’s pissed 😠. Especially since we know Cyborg was such a huge part of the movie. We know Whedon is full of shit when he said things like the story didn’t make sense.
Especially since he only responded to the complaints made by the black man and the women, and didn't even mention what Affleck had said. Not a good look?
I get even gadot, if h did attack the thing she is making israely military propaganda, which of course she would be iased, but tht would be fair. That! That point if would be. Ok correction, he is just rassist and sexist. The she doesnt understand english thing, is rassist. But fischer?! Fischer has nothing done wrong and is a hero or at least good activist, that should be remembered.
Narcissist gonna Narcissist. Everyone is wrong but them. Always and forever. It is expected he would do this. As this is how Narcissist act. Unfortunately.
Yes....it was BS, both sexist and r@cist... But, then again, I remember she's an ex-IDF soldier with TERRIBLE imperialist views on Palestine, so my sympathy for her runs very thin.
Just want to preface this by saying: as always, I love your even-handed and self-aware approach to discussion. It's a primary reason I'm a fan. That said and out of the way... I don't know whether anyone else has addressed this, but what complicates the "art vs artist" debate in film and TV, to my mind at least, vs literature, is that film and TV are much more collaborative media, and to discount a movie or show is to discount the work done by all the actors, writers, etc, who put their own art into the piece. To sidechain Godwin's law: just because Hitler was against animal cruelty doesn't make the concept of animal cruelty itself invalid or unworthy of consideration. I think we can still appreciate things like Buffy or the Avengers on the merits of the performances and input of the many other people besides Whedon who were instrumental in their creation.
I think that’s something that it is actually a sizeable problem in the industry. We have a tendency to see: ‘A Film by (such and such)’ and then only consider them when praising the production. This is something I felt myself thinking when talking about JK Rowling and her involvement with Harry Potter. On the one hand, the series is inextricably tied to her, on the other that discounts the thousands of people who worked on the films, on the Studio Tours, actually making those toys who will never see the credit they likely deserve. One man, woman or person of an unspecified gender, does not create a movie. Even Auteurs like Wes Anderson or Quentin Tarantino don’t create their films alone. There’s editors, producers, actors, sound designers etc, and Joss Whedon didn’t create the Avengers. He just wrote the movie.
I think the work that Joss Whedon did on Buffy and The Avengers were great, and I don't think the bad things he did affected the quality of the work, and it's not because of the other people that worked on it. Everyone including Joss Whedon put their heart and soul into their work, and that's why they are good. It isn't fair to discount his efforts and input because he did bad things while that happened. You are brushing his work under the rug to appease your morals because you don't want to admit that you support a person who would do those bad things. There's nothing wrong with supporting a person's art who happened to have done bad things. The art is interpreted in different ways, and inspires people to create their own art. So, I partially agree with you, but don't try and justify them being good movies because of everyone's input but Whedon's.
@@VideoShogun I wasn't saying that at all. I do tend to fall into the camp of art being separate from the artist, as you yourself imply you do. I'm not justifying the movies and shows being good on the basis of all except whedon. I'm saying that to emotionally boycott them on the basis of one person is unfair to everyone else involved. I hadn't intended to cover the entirety of the ethics, just that one specific consideration. Pretty sure we're actually on the same page here.
@@freelance-games Alright, I can agree with that. I apologize for misunderstanding and coming at you. I'm frustrated with most people's responses, so I took what you said the wrong way. 😅 Edit - beyond that I think I infused other people's views into your comment which I don't think you even were saying. That's my mistake completely.
It should be noted that Erin Shade was a showrunner’s assistant on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. during its first season. The bosses she was supposed to hide their relationship from? Whedon's younger half-brother Jed and sister-in-law Maurissa Tanchareon. In the lead up to the show's premiere Joss talked about how he wanted it to function like Angel's writers room: He would be a member of the writing staff but still have the flexibility to work on other projects on the side. Instead Whedon disappeared after the pilot episode and gave interviews about how he regretted resurrecting Coulson (and by proxy giving Maurissa & Jed their own show). The cast of Agents of SHIELD has lauded Maurissa & Jed's "No A--holes" policy in multiple interviews (including the Womens' Roundtable hosted by Patton Oswalt during Season 5), which meant that anyone whose actions made the set toxic, be they a producer, a craft services worker, a lead actor or a guest actor, would be immediately let go to maintain a safe working environment. I think we now know that rule's origin story.
I would definitely recommend Agents of SHIELD if you ever feel side-lined in your life & would like a good standard of what its like to work in a really functional team (I have had the fortune to lead a really great team of no BS, ironically hardworking “slackers” in my life). True in front of and behind the camera as OCD Geek says. The behind the scenes roundtable mentioned was shot roughly late 2017 and is silently addressing the fact that although Joss’ name is all over the credits, he was never on set after the pilot. Joss outlined the first dozen episodes to my knowledge and I can confirm they are pretty rough & underdeveloped although all of the characters introduced in those episodes are linked into Season 5. TRACKS (S1 E13) is the first truly good episode and more in line with what’s to come in an epic continual story.
Also worth noting: One of the last things Whedon did before leaving the post-series Buffy comics to make superhero movies was getting his author insert character Xander together with Trachtenberg's character Dawn. There are no words.
You're like heavily revising what happened. He never outright says he regrets bringing Coulson back. In fact, he's clarified that he loves Coulson. He was just talking about how bringing people back sometimes takes away some of the punch and if Marvel is going to do that, he'll leave that up to them. To imply he wanted to take away the show from Jed and Maurissa is such a bizarre reading of the events. He moved on from the project because Feige wanted him to concentrate on Ultron. When he first started, he didn't seem to understand the fractious divide between TV and Movies.
@@GnomesRox And yet he still didn't so much as guest direct a single episode of Seasons 3-7. That's an additional 92 episodes of Mutant Enemy television that he was mysteriously absent from. The guy had previously taken a week to guest direct an episode of The Office or Glee, but doesn't do that for his own brother and sister-in-law?
I've been going to scifi conventions since I was 23. There have been countless interviews and panels over the years with actors and actresses that he has worked with in which things were said that were definitely red flags. There would usually be a lengthy conversation about it that night over dinner, and I am ashamed to say that each time we would make excuses because so much of his media has meant so much to our adolescence. Example: the actor who played Xander said all the graphic weird sex scenes in the last seasons of Buffy between her and Spike were because she wanted out of her contract. He said both actors hated the scenes because they were close friends and she really hated the energy of the scenes. "Xander" said every sex scene was punishment for specific times the actress fought him on something or talked to higher ups about getting out of her contract. I"ve heard actors say he would go crazy if you changed the script at all, like say what's on the script or he would yell and curse. I've heard so many people talk about how Whedon wants you to "tear up" for sad scenes but never let the tears fall. Like your eyes should fill up with tears but the tears should never fall. I've watched so many actors talk about how hard this is, and how close he'd be to the camera making sure the tears were there but no tears touch the cheek. They said if you actually cried or the tears came out of the eyes he would lose it. Make you do the scene over and over again while screaming at you, "Don't let the tears fall!!!" This was like 15 years ago.
Most writers hate it when actors change the script. Heck you hear it on the Expanse, no you.will.not.change.the.line. Only Whedon had the power to enforce it.
About the possibility that the quality of the artist and the quality of the art don't necessarily line up I'd go even further and quote Lani from Chipperish Media (RU-vid video "On Joss Whedon"): "Abusers are, by nature, fantastic storytellers." Storytelling ability isn't inherently good; it can be used to create amazing works for fiction that enrich our world, and it can be used to psychologically torture people, and everything in-between. I don't see his storytelling ability as at conflict with his abusive tendencies, but rather as two different uses of the same skills.
Even just the way he's spoken to his cast and crew or boasted about being some kind of feminist icon in interviews and at convention panels shows that he's got a serious case of "main character syndrome."
I haven't had to confront separating the art from the artist as in depth as I've had to with Whedon. With Harry Potter, I've got the books, I can pirate the movies or watch the DVDs I already have. Disengaging from Rowlings continuing work and not giving her my money is relatively easy. With Lovecraft, hes dead, nothing we can do could benefit him. With things like Ruroni Kenshin, I haven't even started consuming the media, I might be curious about it but its ultimately something I can live without. Joss Whedon, however, has written and or directed some of the most important media in my life. I was literally born into the Buffy fandom. My mother caught the world premiere of the show while pregnant with me. Angel's theme song was her ringtone for a literal decade. Buffy was a hero for me that is only rivaled in formative media by Link in the Legend of Zelda series, which was basically my version of a bedtime story about knights and dragons. As I grew up I heavily related to many of the characters on both Buffy and Angel, the title characters as well in particular to Xander. My brother was obsessed with Firefly. My family and I watched Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog as it came out on the internet, and my first monologue read in theater class was in fact the first scene from Dr Horrible. I'm also a super hero fan so when Avengers came out it pretty much solidified in my mind that anything Joss Whedon touched was gold. And then I turned 17 and went back to Buffy for comfort, rewatching the show for the first time in a while and while growing a more mature appreciation for it, there were flaws to be found. Xander Harris in particular. I still projected onto Angel a bit more than is probably healthy, and having come out of the closet could openly drool over David Boreanaz. Up till now this comment has been a small essay (i swear I meant to only make a paragraph) about how important Whedons work is to me. I cant give it up completely. But I've had a good long think about it. The man, and his work, are not without flaw. As for the man, the flaws outweigh the positives. Joss Whedon isnt Midas, although perhaps the relation to an ass is comparable. However, Buffy i think stands with merit above its flaws. Most of his work I would say does. This opinion is helped by the fact that unlike Rowling Joss does not own sole intellectual property rights to Buffy. Nor is he the sole creative voice behind the series. In fact, a whole season of Buffy was written almost without him (not entirely, and tbf he did write the one best episode of the season -_-), Buffy does not belong to him. Neither does Angel, or the Avengers, or Firefly, or even thank god Dr Horrible. There are other creators who made intrinsic, important aspects of these creations and I dont want to throw them under the bus to spite one man who's reputation is not a secret any longer. Especially those who are unfortunate enough to be related to him. I will continue to engage with the media that has meaning to me, but whedon himself could lose his entire career and never work again, and I would be perfectly fine with that.
True, and personally that i love angel, and cordy, and how he ... , i just makes me hate him more with a passion and seeing how much worse that has to have been if her presentation already was that bad. Personally th diference beteen hi movies that , arent great, and the shos that i think the stuff, he is at least good at picking talent, its their series mostly prsonally in nearly all cases. Like the angel seasons h was least involved, are the best. And i think like agent of shields was not his baby but his siblings and the asian cast and coreographer. And cast ?! I know its hard to seperate but its prsonally the jarring diffrenc between hi movies and series in his name, that show, the less h is getting his way or is making the series, the better they are. Its complicated but i think he is great at picking talent, thats it. Else its the cast and stuff making them good, and work . And f him. f him and mention to f him every time works unde his name come up. And that he is a gaslighting abusive cheater.
I think a huge difference between Whedon and Rowling you're overlooking is how vast the impact is, too. I mean, not to minimize all that Whedon has done, or imply that the feelings and treatment of Hollywood people don't matter... But unless I've missed part of the saga, his bad impact seems confined to the people he works with and has relationships with. And that's a lot of people, but JK Rowling's writings on trans people have been read by law makers as their justification for anti trans policies. The hurt she causes is just so much more far reaching that to me, you continuing to watch Whedon's work isn't even comparable to supporting hers
@@margaretmadole I see where you're coming from. Sexism and poor treatment is old hat in Hollywood. Whedon is just one of the many people who perpetuate this system, but the xenophobic tone in his dismissal of Gadot is a huge problem. Trans people are absolutely in more immediate danger from Rowling's harmful statements.
I feel a lot the same way. I don't have to have anything to do with Wheadon and I don't have to support him to be engaged with his body of work. There are so many people involved and to be honest, I can take away so many good themes and the work he's done is attached to so many good memories. He isn't responsible for that and giving him the credit for it is ridiculous. It's how I have interpreted things or thought of themes/plots, and memories that I've made with family and friends.
I think Whedon has been taking lessons from Prince Andrew on how to conduct an interview that will surely *surely* repair my public image and make people like me again.
That interview was Whedon’s Bojack moment. All he needed to do is keep his head down and shut up, but he couldn’t help himself but bring a shovel to a softball interview and dig himself deeper.
I remember being a nerdy, awkward teenager. And then I enlisted, and suddenly women who would have never given me the time of day before were interested. I remember thinking things like what Whedon said... But I wasn't even 21 yet, and those thoughts stopped a long time ago. I realized on my own, through GROWING UP and spending time WITH PEOPLE and, frankly, having a female sergeant who kicked the crap out of me (not literally, but...) Whedon is still that fedora-tipping "nice guy" who claims he uses annoyingly "flowery" language. I can't stand that crap. I am so over him. I loved Buffy, and I loved Firefly, and I still do but I am done with Whedon, and anything he touches.
Humanity is garbage Remember it quite likely from a historical perspective that we nailed several people to crosses for essentially saying "be nicer to each other and think about your beliefs" ..
I think the lead up with his childhood was perfect. Chef's kiss. It laid out his ~traumatic backstory~ and then proceeded to show how those insecurities informed his decisions throughout his life. And it didn't apologize for the decisions, or explain them, just laid them out, sat back, and lets people come to their own decisions. It was a good framing device to make it look like it would be sympathetic to him, and it was probably information he *wanted* included. But far from making him sympathetic, it just highlights how absurd and pathetic he is. It let her take the tone of being on his side, all the while laying out all his faults and flaws and miserable actions so everyone could see just how horrible he is. Perfect.
Also worth noting: One of the last things Whedon did before leaving the post-series Buffy comics to make superhero movies was getting his author insert character Xander together with Trachtenberg's character Dawn. There are no words.
@@amberhancock2039 Yep. Introduced late in Season 8, and cemented in the first half of Season 9. Whedon then left the back half of Season 9 fully in former Dollhouse writer Andrew Chambliss's creative control. Angel & Faith writer Christos Gage took over for Seasons 10 & 11 before Whedon returned for the 12th and final season. It was a weird creative choice then, and it's an even more infuriating and nauseating creative choice now.
@@ocdgeek4449 it definitely is. I never read the Buffy comics but I did Angel and Spike. I just heard they weren’t as enjoyable especially as a Spuffy shipper. I heard they were brought together and then broke up off screen. Joss never likes his leads to be romantically happy for long. Except for Xander who is then with the youngest member of the cast. That’s all not great especially in implications.
@@amberhancock2039 And in a franchise known for its shortlived romances, to have Xander and Dawn get together in Season 8, stay together all through Seasons 9-12, and be married with kids in the epilogue? That stands out.
I've lost all respect for Joss Whedon. I was surprised you didn't mention him attacking James Marsters too. He talked about it on Michael Rosenbaum's podcast.
James Marsters didn’t talk negatively about Whedon though. He acknowledged how his antics could be be troublesome for others. That he could not speak on other cast mates experiences. I can honestly say through Whedons past talkings panels he has a huge anger issue, Through interviews he admitted to having low self esteem upon other issues. That he is very controlling on the projects he works on. His issues for objectification of women has always been in his work, especially with his turn with Dollhouse. I’m a fan , but the man has always had issues. I’m hoping he can work with or through them because he is a great writer
Your observations and perspective are so refreshing. Brilliant. Two things, "Heavy is the head that wears the crown", and "When one has an outsized level of authority and power, there is no such thing as equal consent". This is a newly respected rule in the classical music community. We've had our own shake-ups like this as well, and it's wise for people like Whedon to understand the decisions they must make regarding securing their legacy. You, as a person, are finite and will die. However, what you create as an artist, can live on forever. It's the latter that secures your legacy. It's Beethoven's music and Shakespeare's writing that we celebrate now. Not the men who created the art. Whedon had a chance to understand that and bow out and separate himself from his work, possibly securing its future and his legacy. His ego, pride, and weird amorphous sense of awareness (as you opined) has ruined that forever. I won't lament the loss though, because we still have Bach and Doctor Who. ;) You have a new Patreon supporter today!
Both Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick are now known to have been horrible people, it hasn't affected their legacy. Harry Potter books are still best sellers on Amazon (it's actually kind of freaky). Although I don't think Whedon has the same kind of latitude that Rowling has.
@@markborok4481 that's very true. But we know better now, and know how to not celebrate 21st c douchebags. It was also a different time. Back then, when they were in their prime (and also alive), I couldn't marry a man, or even a white person. We can learn... no... THEY can and should learn that high art and entertainment is possible without the waste byproduct of being terrible and treating people terribly. Art is not coal. It's a clean renewable power that powers society.
@@ReggieMobley I love how you close your thought. Please don't cheapen the impact of how people should learn. Saying it was "a different time" is so wrong because there has never been a time in history where meanness, disrespect, or douchebaggery has been the right thing to do. Kindness is (and always has been) the right thing. You got it! :)
I have to be honest. I've never fully understood the whole "needing to see other people as people, not as npcs" thing. I come from the opposite end. From having spent the past decade learning that I'm a person and everybody else's needs don't always come first. But I liked watching this video and hearing your perspective on the Joss Whedon situation. I wasn't a huge fan, so I've put all his works behind me but it's hard to watch this stuff all the same. I want to hope we're moving towards a future where this stuff happens less, but I don't know if we are yet or not.
I watched Buffy as a teen- basically I am the same age as Buffy so I went through some very formative years with her. So I can't avoid Whedon because it's in me. I am truly appreciative of such a deep dive on this interview. We should be critical.
Pausing at 4:44 to comment as soon as she mentioned "going to the loo" as a therapist's suggestion for uncomfortable questions, then documented every single loo break, I had a STRONG feeling the journalist was not on Whedon's side.
"I don't think he'll be getting a big budget project anytime soon." Ehhh I dunno never underestimate white man privilege. He could go on to be president for all we know.
in THREE of his shows, the main "hook" is a woman being exploited by men. in buffy, the slayer is at the mercy of the Watchers. in Firefly, River was tortured and experimented on by a faceless government entity that in what little we are shown (mostly in the movie) to be dominated by men. Dollhouse is a far less self aware Westworld - in that the main female character is used as a puppet in various male fantasies. once is an incident, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern. the thing that links them all together, is an attitude that women are objects. that men can use and humiliate them without consequence. usually somehow involving sex. In Firefly, Mal routinely berates and humiliates Inara - arguably the most successful character in the main cast. she has strength and agency so he has to put her in her place. Buffy gives her virginity to Angel, which sends him spiraling into Darkness, making her act of having sex responsible for HIM falling from grace. this isn't interpretation, this is IN THE TEXT. textually this pattern is all over Whedon's work. the pattern is there for those to see it. the strange thing isn't that this behavior is finally coming to light, the strange thing is that it's taken so long to come out
All true, but I think the thing that makes it a bit complicated is the overall arc of all 3 of those shows involved those women breaking out of those power dynamics. As with a lot of works of fiction, I think there are many different, and at times even contradictory facets in the text and which ones come to prominence vary depending on the lens in which they're looked at (in this case by how much people know about what was going on behind the camera).
...I am SO glad I've never watched any of those. Now I never will. Couldn't escape becoming a major Harry Potter fan before finding out what Rowling was really like, but this one? This one I can escape.
Joss Whedon also showed a clear problem with the idea of women giving birth or having any reproductive power through his stories. Darla was given a "second chance" at life thanks to Angel, but later Angel tells her that he only had sex with her to purposely rid himself of his soul in a moment of pure happiness-- meaning Darla would never make him as happy as Buffy did. Darla gets an unplanned pregnancy from that encounter, can't abort, and the soul in her actually belongs to the baby Connor gestating within her. She's told that as soon as the baby is born, she'll be unable to love him due to her lack of a soul, so she suicides. Cordelia takes care of baby Connor with Angel, then after he grows up, she's possessed into having an incestuous relationship with him after so long of Angel/Cordy being a thing, getting pregnant by Connor, then births an abomination that sends her into a coma she canonically never woke up from. Fred has her whole triangle with Gunn and Wesley, but massively racist writing around Gunn led to Fred being impregnated with Illyria's spores and suffering until her death as her organs liquified to give life to an ancient god. To add to the description of Firefly, he had a whole plotline where on top of Mal shaming Inara constantly for being a Companion even though that's supposed to be a respected profession, she would be nearly raped to death and her only recourse would be drinking a poison that would transmit to her rapists during the act to kill them later, and it's only when Mal comes across her brutalized body that he "treats her like a lady". Then he had the great idea in Age of Ultron to have Black Widow want a relationship with the same guy who in the previous movie chased her down to try and kill her in his rage form, and their dialogue was constructed in a way where she called herself a monster because she's infertile (forcibly sterilized) rather than because she's a mass murderer assassin.
Yes I remember when everyone was talking about how feminist Buffy was abd saying that I wasn't "a true feminist" if , I didn't like it. Now mostly I just got tired of people not shutting up about it. But the feminist thing never rang true for me. It seemed to be a lot of mixed messages like killing one half of the lesbian couple,,slut shaming the female characters for having sex, replacing Buffy with Dawn a suddenly created younger sister seemed to be almost uncomfortably agist like Buffy was too old and now he had to build a show around a younger character.
@@ultimamage3 I know you wrote this a while ago so no idea if you'll see this, but that horrifying Inara rape storyline had nothing to do with Joss. That was Tim Minear's idea and it was shot down, thank goodness.
I'm as always very impressed by your level of self-awareness. Be proud of the road travelled from those less aware days and continue to self-reflect who you want to be to others, so you might travel even further from there. High kudos to you, for me as a total idealist who so often gets disappointed by the lack of decency in people, hearing you articulate what you strive to be is like a breath of fresh air. Thank you for brightening my day!
There is this podcast, "Inside of you", by Michael Rosenbaum (Lex from Smallville). He interviewed several people from Buffy, Angel, etc. It's amazing how cautious they were, even after Joss Whedon's first debacle, when recounting obvious instances of bullying. It shows you how the industry itself is conductive to and abetting abusive behavior. You wouldn't want to burn any bridges, would you? Better be all lovey dovey with everyone! Then they marvel at how things like Harvey Weinstein's horrors went on for decades...
Charisma was pretty candid regarding her motivation in writing the letter, and I think her answer regarding why she didn't want to deeply rehash the subject/content of it was authentic; 1. She put a lot of time effort and emotional energy into the public statement to make sure she expressed exactly what she intended the way she intended it (then mentioned that there was a typo and it bugs her to this day) so she doesn't feel comfortable re-stating any of it because she won't have the same precision (and with the intense focus on her after releasing it she didn't want a verbal hiccup to give the media more to frenzy about her) 2. There was more *very personal* turmoil for her during the height of the Angel set issues she did not address in the letter, was very visibly uncomfortable even stating that much and mentioned that despite no longer being in the environment and the passage of time, she still not only has continued therapy since, but to this day has moments of being overwhelmed and has to remove herself to a "calm place" in order to breathe and remind herself that she is in a safe place (which sounds like classic PTSD panic attacks).
Interesting!! Yes, a friend said “the cast hasn’t really dumped much on Whedon therefore Charisma is making things up” rather than the cast wanting to protect their positions/roles in the industry.
This doesn’t explain all instances of “the artist is bad, and their art was never that good to begin with,” of course, but I think sometimes that’s the result of people looking at the art again after knowing the artist’s bad behavior. Sometimes, that changes what the art looks like. Things that might have been written off as character flaws suddenly look like the creator’s issues leaking through, for instance. It’s one thing if you think, say, the sexist parts of how Whedon’s male leads act is maybe part of a feminist critique or meant to be seen as a character flaw, and very different if you’re suddenly going “wait, is that just flat out Whedon talking?” Get enough of that, and suddenly the art might look a lot less good. (Also, are people feeling free to say they didn’t think that a creator was that great when they didn’t feel quite so comfortable doing so because they were very popular? In both Rowling’s and Whedon’s cases, I know a lot of people fell out with their works *before* it came out that they were terrible.)
I agree with this post, but there are one or two instances where I feel like a character, one character specifically, had a case of being Joss' mouthpiece into the work itself, or at the very least I think Joss has a bit of projection onto them and may have tinged their writing to a degree. Xander Harris is the character that comes to mind, in a few specific instances. One stands out though, in season 5 *SPOILERS FOR A 25 YEAR OLD SHOW* when Buffy and Riley break up Xander steps out of nowhere and proceeds to monologue at Buffy, reframing the episode how HE in particular sees the situation and effectively shifting the blame onto Buffy. It's also been theorized that maybe Xander himself is projecting onto Riley a bit here, but I'm not sure Joss is that close to true self awareness while missing it completely. Combined with a few other moments of Xander being (to a normal person) an unabashed asshole and never really recieving consequences is hard to not look at and feel like the author maybe believes that Xander is doing the right thing, or what they themselves would do. This all being said I dont think Xander Harris is a hollow character for Joss to speak through, I even find him a semi relatable and enjoyable character a good chunk of the time. My mother (the True fan among my family, she was on the Bronze chat forums back in the day) cannot stand Xander and while it could never ruin Buffy for either of us, Xander is dead to my mom lol.
Yeah this is a valid statement. I was critical of him on his racism before he lost popularity though . There were plenty of people who questioned his greatness waaaay back in the nineties, and most of them were PoC about his treatment of characters of color, and as usual our complaints were dismissed. So when Fisher said what he said, we we were not shocked. This is the same problem I ran into with the director of Jeepers Creepers, btw, whose movies I watched in all innocence, until it came out that he was a convicted pedophile! Then you go back and look at their work, and you can’t help but wonder!
A lot of art is about the darker impulses we have to keep suppressed for society to function. Unfortunately, people who don't really do this have a lot of insight.
As a Black person many historic figures, writers and fictional heroes have many aspect of their lives that have to be ignored inorder for their great works to be appreciated. This is not new. People are not perfect. I may not like the person, but I can like their great works. Hated John Wayne's politics. But loved to watch him when he saddled up.
This, exactly. But I also think there is a line between being someone who victimizes others, versus someone who might be selfish or callous or otherwise kind of a jerk or unpleasant to work with. Whedon doesn't seem to be motivated by the desire to subjugate anyone or take power from them for his own sake - he is not malicious, though it may seem like he might be "mean". I think it is notable that people are more likely to complain about the sort of personality flaws that aren't likeable when the person exhibiting them is also not very good looking. If Joss was HANDSOME as well as powerful, it probably would have been perceived differently, possibly feeling like more acceptable behavior. This also contributes to the actual shaping of those personality traits, as very attractive people might be nicer to others just because they are usually well received even before they give any indications of what sort of person they might be, while those who are more homely are not greeted as warmly. My point is that none of us knew him personally. The man does not appear to be friendless nor hated by everyone who worked with him, and many people clearly found him tolerable enough or he never would have had the success he did. We don't know his life, only what we imagine and what is said. The judgement being heaped upon him is clearly colored by the feeling of betrayal that is due to people placing such lofty regard on him in the first place. There is a reason it is often said that one should not meet their heroes. It often exposes them as more human than heroic, which is only fair because they are in fact, human. Whedon is also a writer, an artistic creator, and the most moving art is fraught with emotion, and usually the impetus of those emotions is pain, or struggle, some kind of elevated passion. That is the very thing that fuels greatness. I once had an English professor that I clashed with initially, but confronted and came to respect as one of my favorite instructors. (I made the conflict the topic of a major paper I had to submit in high school for the bulk of our semester grade and I aired my grievances by citing examples of his behavior that made it obvious the critique was directly of him, not just any teacher. I made sure that my grammar and presentation were as technically perfect as possible because he was a very demanding instructor, but also someone of principle. If it were beyond reproach in construction, and my grade still suffered, I had grounds to challenge the validity of that grade as punishment for the difference of opinion. To his credit, he earned my respect by apologizing to me personally and admitted to wincing as he read it, and I saw that he had not been aware of how might be seen by his students until I called out his behavior in that paper. He ended up being the first one I asked for a college recommendation letter and has been the most significant influence in shaping my skills as a writer.) He once asked me after reading another paper that I had written on a topic that I had a very strong opinion about. I managed to express that once again in succinct yet powerful arguments that were very difficult to find fault with. His comment upon returning it to me was "Why is it that you write so well when you are mad at me? " I wasn't mad at him that time, just passionate about the argument. But the point is that what drives great art is often a depth of emotion that manifests itself in a way that everyone can feel. That is what gives it the impact. So I can only think that Whedon has some deep feelings that found their way of expression through his characters and their struggles. Nobody perfect would even have such trauma to inspire such creativity. He clearly suffers from some social awkwardness, which he probably had to struggle with long before he had any power. The power, of course, would amplify that struggle, and probably clashes with others who also, as actors, rely on tapping into emotional wells to drive their artistry as well. The ones who seem to have the biggest issues with him, I can't help but notice, also seem to be those who are a little bit diva themselves. There can be only one at the top, so what happens when there is more than one prima donna personality in the mix? I have a little of that in me too, but I am the type to air my grievances directly with the person rather than whine about them to others, and I find that when I do that, I often can find common ground on the other end. None of the people complaining about him seem to have handled their difficulties with him directly, but I am speaking only of the work environment, not the personal affairs, which frankly, I don't believe are anyone's business to complain about besides the people directly involved. I tend to lean towards forgiveness for the most part, especially when I am outside looking in. Without saying I am actively defending his behavior, which I actually have no firsthand knowledge of to do so, I do believe that the level of Hollywood hate being hurled at the man is out of proportion to the complaints being made. He may be a jerk, but he is not a malicious monster. People have put way too much energy into tearing him down. Like most people, he probably deserves more pity than vitriol if you peel back some layers. And regardless of all of that, his art remains what it was before, despite the fact that the way folks feel about him has changed. That is unfair that people are now picking the art apart with a kind of malicious glee when it was previously celebrated. Him being an asshole doesn't make Buffy any less entertaining or significant. I think it's weird that people now find a once lauded character to be a less desirable example of a strong woman because the guy cheated on his wife.... None of that matters when I watch a newly re-ensouled Spike drape himself wearily over a cross, and just lays there smoldering as he asks Buffy, "Can we rest now?" The man is good at what he does, which is create something captivating on the screen. That is all people should ask of him in the job if that is the thing you wish to produce. It seems like that is his primary focus even amidst the drama of personality, to serve the vision first...
At the 15 minute mark. I understand his less than full denials and what he hoped to accomplish as this: he wanted a flattering piece, and to that end wanted to win over the writer. However, he wasn't sure what the writer knew for sure. I don't think he wanted a lot of this stuff to actually appear in print, but to sway the author into both going easy on him and framing the piece as Misunderstood Genius. She instead, and this was the gamble, used it all. He used to be able to charm people easily, and was hoping for that magic.
It’s weird, but this felt oddly similar to Jessie Gender’s video on Gene Roddenbury. When his career was at its height, he was lauded as a liberal, a progressive. Casting women in leading roles, giving their characters agency and seeming to be an advocate for change. Yet behind the scenes treating women as trophies, dismissing their contributions and blaming their ex wives for fallout regarding their atrocious behind the scenes behaviour. Like Roddenbury I find it easier to separate my feelings for the man and their work, because I see the work as collaborative. Star trek is not only one man’s work, neither is Buffy, in spite of how involved Whedon was. However, I think it is the nature of the bad behaviour that makes bouncing back from these allegations harder. Whedon is described as a bully, and he clearly had issue with a. Anyone who questioned him, b. Anyone younger than him (especially women), c. Anyone he didn’t respect (though whether that disrespect was sexism, racism or just being generally dismissive of ability is open to interpretation). I guess at the end of the day whether you think this interview was unwise depends entirely on if you believe him, or his accusers, and feel his replies adequately addressed the various issues. Honestly, I don’t. Denying he called Carisma fat seems implausible considering he’d said exactly the same thing to someone else, feels less like a cautiously worded denial, and more like an out and out lie. Time will tell if he is so arrogant and defensive, and bitter, that he digs himself deeper and kills his career. Or if he can find sufficient self reflection to actually see what he did, wrong or right, and own it. Like you said, this interview tries to ride the line of “they are mistaken” and “sure I made mistakes”. Which is not the best look for a man who clearly doesn’t get how unapologetic he comes across.
100% I think part of the reason he's been responding the way he has is that he's grown up in a television writing family (iirc) and he knows other men have done far worse than him while facing no accountability and maintaining these mythic legacies.
YES I'm so glad I'm not the only one who saw that. In fact, Gene Rodenberry is the first subject I brought up in my own comment. At this point, if I ever, ever, EVER find out about an older man celebrity who it turns out, never has ANY stories about him abusing the hot young women who work for him, I will FALL DOWN ON MY KNEES AND LICK THAT MAN'S BOOTS because it just seems to be so. freaking. rare. (You can replace words like "man", "woman", and all the pronouns around of course and it'd still apply, but, come on. We all know that "creepy older dude coercing hot young woman" is the usual.) I do not get at all people who refer to Josh Whedon as a "male feminist". HE SO FREAKING ISN'T!!! The second you get into "I HAD to, officer, look what she was WEARING!" territory you're a flat out incel monster. Period. Maybe they mean he's like the r/niceguy types who SAY they're "male feminists"? That would make SOME sense. But no, actual male feminists are just like any other--people who believe that women are PEOPLE.
If we should ' consume' the works of Whedan in the future.... Let's DO It to support the cast and crew and everyone else. Let's UPLIFT their Voices and Promote Their Efforts. Help them and their Futures in a Positive Way! 💕 And Let Us Limit the Shine on J. W. ( Let him fade into the shadows)
I liked some of his work, but I never liked Joss Whedon himself. His whole "I am the male king of feminism!" shtick always came off as a gigantic pick up line for me. The focus of his writing attention seemed to rest on young, skinny, conventionally attractive white girls - he always seemed to be writing wish-fulfillment fantasies about his "type". I wasn't surprised even slightly when the skeletons fell out of his closet.
My takeaway from the article is that Whedon's problem is three-fold. He has tremendous difficulty with not being in control and yet also with exercising self-control and taking responsibility for things. That's not a great combination. I believe his childhood has contributed to that, and I sincerely hope therapy helps him get a handle on those things, if not for his own good then for anyone he interacts with. Having personal issues is not a free pass to let them become other people's problems. That's a responsibility we all have to each other. I don't know that he's necessarily irredeemable, but unless he learns to take responsibility and apologize, he'll never find out. And that's even *if* some of the situations were misunderstandings or exaggerations or things he's forgotten about. There's still an impact either way.
definitely comes across as a hollywood manchild, "how dare they, i am a genius". his behaviour isn't going to stop me watching his old stuff but its not like he is getting any of my money as i already own it.
Does anyone remember the episode of BoJack Horseman from Season 6 entitled ‘Xerox of a Xerox’? The plot line of that episode is BoJack goes on a talk show to quell allegations against himself. The first interview, a softball interview, goes so well and paints him so sympathetically that his ego pushes him take a second interview where the interviewer takes the gloves off. As you can imagine, he is completely unprepared for how to answer the questions as well as the inevitable backlash and pubic fallout that follows from that episode to the end of the series. Everything they’re saying about the interview and the answers Whedon is giving remind me of that episode so much. Great show BTW. If you haven’t watched it, watch it, especially if you have problems with depression. I do and while BJ does some really reprehensible things throughout the course of the series, you still like him and have sympathy for him and want him change and be a better person. You never see an evil or cruel monster with the things he does, you see a lost, insecure person doing everything they can to convince themselves they have merit and worth. They stumble, they f up in extreme ways, but if they come to a point where they are legit trying to change and make amends to the people they hurt, don’t chastise, encourage.
Buffy and Angel mean too much to me to let go, as they are huge part of my introduction of geek culture and fiction. However, I never held Joss that high. I didn't like his work in the MCU or after the Buffyverse, it always felt like him trying to recapture something he couldn't get back. I think like with everyone you will get good stuff and bad stuff. So when all of this came out, and even when it was just rumors in the buffy forums back in the days it wasn't hard to believe. I can still love those shows and accept he's garbage. But yeah to me the shows were more than just him as well.
It's hard. It's hard to watch Angel knowing about David Boreanaz sexual harassment... it's frustrating when your childhood heroes turn out to be assholes😔
I feel the same way- I was a closeted Marvel nerd before Buffy, but being a Buffy fan helped lead me to "my people". I still love it and I think a lot of the themes that people related to then are still relatable now (hence the many young people filming "reaction videos" here on this platform). I can appreciate the show separately from JW- there were many people involved in creating the show.
It's on the same level as "I don't recall" or "I have no recollection." It's a get out that doesn't outright deny something but also doesn't admit any responsibility either.
@@Elwaves2925 It doesn't have to be a get-out, it can also just be true. In Guardians of the Galaxy, Ronen doesn't remember killing Drax's family, because it just wasn't that important to him. What was a terrifying experience for that staff member was just Tuesday for Joss.
@@ryanandrews7761 Correct, it doesn't have to be and to be clear, I wasn't trying to say it always was, but it often is used as one in situations like the one Whedon is in.
Someone commented on Tiktok that this interview read like one of Bojack Horseman's interview episodes and I can't stop thinking about how Bojack is more likable.
As someone with Borderline Personality Disorder who has been working on their relationships and behavior, the “supporting character” thing hits hard. I was in my late teens to mid-twenties at my worst, and now In my early thirties, I fully loathe that person
“Nope! The dumb little foreign(🤮) woman(🤮) didn’t have the acumen to understand my genius level linguistic skills! Also, that man is black”- Whedon probably
I wonder if I'll ever get used to feeling so let down by people I used to admire. I'm not letting him ruin Buffy for me though. That show was so important to me growing up, and it was a massive team effort. It wasn't single handedly made by Whedon, so I'm hoping to focus on the work done by everyone else. Also, I love your earrings here!
One thing I’m relieved about is that the identities of the women involved in the affairs has been kept confidential by all. This is a very good video. Even-handed and fair. I remember reading the article at the time and being very disturbed by it.
Gonna miss out on the premiere due to work, but thank you so much for talking about this. I am so frickin disgusted to the point that I don't think I can watch Dollhouse or Dr. Horrible again.
Thank you for making this video. I know it's not fun, and not your favorite style of video, but it's so necessary. As you hinted at with the MLK day issue, there are many aspects of this conversation that benefit from more nuance than Twitter tends to allow.
Honestly, the fact that some of these responses may have been given after he gave himself more time to think it through in his 'bathroom breaks' is impressive in and of itself.
I have got to say i love your channel and the content. Your approach to analyzing this and other work has been honest, passionate, and fair. Just wanted to appreciate you and you awesome style!
I was hoping you'd do a vid on this. Very astute!! I can't believe he thought this was going to aid his reputation. As a fan of some of his previous works, it has been disappointing to learn more and more over the past few years about his attitude and how he has operated in his creative/'professional' endeavors.
Whedon needs to stop talking. He disrespects so many good and talented people, hurts so many good and talented people. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (both the film and the series) was a very formative part of my teenaged and college years (the movie was and is a family favorite to this day), and when I inevitably rewatch Buffy, or any work that he's had a hand in creating, I'll be doing so because of the other people who brought that property to life.
@GiRayne I don't plan to not refer to Whedon by name, or to deny that he did help create some truly influential pieces of art. But the joyous thing about filmed media is that it really is a group effort. So while Whedon wrote/directed/created Buffy, for example, and was a major part of the casting process - the film for me is made by the acting talents of Donald Sutherland, Kristy Swanson, Paul Rubens, Luke Perry, Rutger Hauer, etc. It's what they did with that material that makes the movie memorable. The deconstruction of high school and the whole "high school is hell" metaphor of the series is something he used as his premise, but there were other writers, directors, etc. helping shape that world he proposed. And again, the actors who brought it all to life brilliantly, some despite the pain they suffered at his hand. Being a creator of something I enjoy doesn't absolve him from his frankly disgusting behavior on-set or off. He's problematic, which is why Vera's video talks through the complications, and does it beautifully. My whole point is that I can acknowledge that the creator is not a kind person, by all accounts, but that the collaborative work he was part of is one I can still enjoy because of the others involved, and I can celebrate their contributions. It's not a denial of Whedon so much as an acknowledgement of everyone else and lifting up the others who made the thing I enjoy.
Thank you so much for this. I tried but I coudn't make it through the whole article. It was too much. But you summarizing the whole thing adding your perspective was the best way of getting all the information I needed.
Supporting Whedon vs Rowling moving forward means very different things. One is enabling a person to work who is abusive (which sucks). The other is support for a person who uses their money and influence to attack an entire population and diminish their chances for life in a large scale.
They're not equivalent issues, yeah. To me, continuing to watch Buffy is very different from continuing to read Harry Potter. I don't anticipate Whedon being put in a position of power on a set any time soon (and if he is I will not watch the show/movie), whereas Rowling is currently using her platform to cause harm to a community. Plus, books feel much more directly tied to their authors than TV shows do to their showrunners, at least IMO. Many, many more people work on a TV show than a book, and folks like Charisma Carpenter deserve those residuals.
@@esmerv7064 I have to kindly disagree. Whedon is getting paid when people watch his shows on streaming sites. Those sites pay to have those shows available, and when they are popular, they will continue to pay and possibly even pay more to keep the shows and the viewers. Depending on the age of the show, the actors may be getting less than you think. JK isn’t benefiting from me reading a book I’ve had for twenty years.
@@LexTime89 True, and there's also the fact that if nobody ever supported anything she ever did moving forward she could easily afford to do everything she wants anyway. At some point the financially enabling thing just ends. Enabling by keeping her in the public eye is a different matter...
Thank you for this! It brought much needed context to an already messy pile of stuff. This really helped me better understand the situation as a whole. Thank you, again.
Listen…I read that interview.. and I had to laugh, because I think he actually thought he was going to redeem himself…and if I didn’t laugh…I’d just end up screaming. Just found your channel. Love it!
The narrater/interviewer of this video is excellent!! I appreciate how kind the individual is being to the folks who clearly were harmed during experiences with Joss Whedon, without letting Whedon off for his horrendous behavior. Bullying and assault cannot be condoned, but interviewer mained a classiness while making it clear Whedon's behavior was inexcusable.
What I find odd about Whedon is his views on character dialog. He seems to be a believer in actors quoting verbatim. He's worked in the MCU, he should know that ad-libs happens in films. Some of the greatest moments in the MCU (and films in general) are ad-libbed. I think the MCU has done far better since Whedon left. That's not to say his Avengers weren't good but that cinematic universe finally balanced the use of drama and comedy.
On Harry Potter. I think that fans of Harry Potter who are trans are going through something I went through with Orson Scott Card. I'd like to share my thoughts on feeling betrayed by the creator of work that is important to you. Card wrote a series of science fiction novels that thematically argue for the passionate embrace of the "other". They originated with a desire talk about remembering the dead honestly, flaws and all, as the best way to honor them, and evolved into a complicated treatise on accepting difference. In the end, the series seems to stand on the opinion that, even when you are dealing with an "other" so different from yourself that you cannot conceive of any means of finding common ground, you must continue to seek a way. These books helped shape the way I see myself and helped me accept my sexuality. Reading these books and reflecting on them, helped me discover and expunge my internalized homophobia. They were absolutely instrumental in me coming out to my father, and to having one of the most profound moments in my life. That being his response, "Oh thank god! I thought you were going to tell me something bad. All that means is that I might have son-in-law someday, instead of a daughter-in-law. There's nothing wrong with that. That's just part of who are, and I love who you are." Years later, I came face to face with Orson Scott Card's intense opposition to gay marriage. It tore me apart inside. Reading the things he has said produced this sick burning in my sternum. I felt foolish. I felt like I'd been had. I had spent years feeling grateful to a man to not only didn't support my existence but made it a priority, in his life, to deny my right to marry who I please. I won't lie. For a time, I consider burning my copies of his books. I'm not proud of that, but I was desperate for something I could do to make the pain in my chest stop. I'm not entirely sure how I came to the place I eventually did. I know it had in part to do with trying to understand how someone like him, could have written the stories I read. Eventually I realized that he didn't own, and wasn't responsible for, what his work meant to me. I came to feel that no creator can ultimately own or control what their work means. I am aware that there is formal theory on this called "Death of the author". I'm not actually found of that framework. I think the intentions of the creator matter very much. I just don't think they matter MOST. That Orsen Scott Card doesn't believe in gay marriage, doesn't matter _more_ than the fact that Ender Wiggen & Jane helped me accept myself. Somewhere along the line, his work came to be separate from him, for me. Reading those books, & thinking about them, no longer makes me think of him and his hurtful words and actions. Instead, they make me think of my father and his acceptance. I have experienced this as a gift. I would give that gift to you, if I can. I would say this to transgender fans of Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling doesn't get to take her work from you. She doesn't get to undo the joy and the acceptance and the sense of community YOU formed around her work. She doesn't get to have that power over you and what YOU'VE done. YOU found that joy. YOU found that acceptance. YOU formed that community. It is all YOURS, and SHE CAN'T HAVE IT! If my words help you at all, then I'm glad. If you still can't enjoy what you once did in Harry Potter, then that's your journey. I have no judgement to make about how you experience things. I only hope that you do find healing eventually, whatever that looks like for you.
I'm a gay dude and loved both Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead very much. The content of the books, as well as the insights they offer along with the empathy for the characters, do seem entirely divorced from the uptight Mormon fundamentalist that Card so savagely depicts himself as in the media and in his own editorials. It's kind of strange how impossible it is to find Card's proposed beliefs inside of his fiction, and can't really find an analog to that, it seems to be unique. Like Card has a completely different personality when he writes his fiction then when he attempts to represent the church of LDS. Usually a writer's beliefs completely saturate their work -- for example, I could tell from, say, David Mamet's plays and films that he was a misogynistic right-wing Isrealite before seeing any of his interviews to confirm it. But Card, through his fiction, seems to be the gentlest, most empathic unbiased anthropological thinker. I suspect Card of having some sort of dissociative disorder.
You knocked every single point OUTTA THE EFFING PARK!!! I have one last thing to add: im not a Snyder fan boy but I have one thing to say. Snyder hasnt said a single thing against Whedon. Whedon took a jab against Man of Steel publicly by saying the public is tired of massive casualties in superhero movies (riding the popular "too dark" response to the movie in 2013). Just while producing Age of Ultron. He was in competition against Snyder in his own head since 2013 and very happy imagining himself as the one on top. He was never the adult in the room and it is bizarre Geoff Johns and Jon Bane-of-all-fans Berg picked him up for Justice League. You got a sub. Magnificent job. Bravo
I've been mourning my feelings about Buffy and Joss since Kai Cole's letter, when I finally had to admit that the problems with Buffy had shown this already and that the rumors surrounding Charisma Carpenter's departure from Angel could no longer be denied. I hope someday to find joy in watching Buffy again. I am mostly just kind of glad that he keeps telling on himself so that more people *do* grapple with these things.
Thank you for doing this. I'll only add that the questions you regard as "soft", I regard as victim-blaming. For example, "I had to yell; it was a young crew" is one of enumerable instances in which Joss makes his unprofessional, toxic behavior someone else's fault.
Regarding Passion of the Nerd's comment... I see this argued a lot, and would to formally address it. I'm not arguing with their points 3 & 4 (I agree with those), but with their 1 & 2. The "I don't want to throw away the work of 115 people because one was a turd." I'm sorry, but the PA's do not give a damn. This argument isn't totally off-kilter -- there are of course many writers, actors, etc who look fondly on their work despite any problematic collaborator (talking not just about Buffy but any work with a problematic collaborator). It's legitimate to argue an unfairness toward them. But there are also plenty who are apathetic, and plenty who would prefer to burn it. For the majority of the crew, it's just a job. (Speaking as a script supervisor, I don't even watch every movie or show I work on.) And when you're discussing a job with someone who abusive to work with, many may have traumatic memories and feel EXACTLY that you, so to speak, "can't separate the art from the artist." No one will have a harder time doing that than someone who was there. And yeah, there are absolutely a few movies I've worked on that I would prefer to burn, and if someone posted a RU-vid comment talking about how they have to watch it to support ME in spite of whatever asshole I was dealing with, I would feel tremendously disrespected. No one asked you to do that. Again, not saying that none of those involved (especially those higher-up, and especially with little work outside of it) would be against people watching out of respect for them. I don't speak for them. And neither do you. Make your own decisions based on how YOU feel about the work. Don't feel obligated to keep supporting it, or obligated to stop. But whatever you decide, please stop using this excuse. Because that's all it is: an excuse.
Great commentary, and I appreciate the context shared before talking about the article, because I wasn’t even aware of the extent of the number of people who have spoken out against him. Only Ray Fisher (with support from Jason Momoa), Gal Gadot, Ben Affleck, and Charisma Carpenter. As if 4 different people on 2 different projects, separated by decades wasn’t enough in and of itself.
This was an excellent analysis of the situation and interview. You were extremely fair and balanced in interpreting the issues and Whedon's responses to them. As a big fan of his work (particularly Firefly) it makes me sad. I will always hold a special place in my heart for Firefly but I also feel conflicted about praising the work of someone so problematic. I will continue to do my best to appreciate the work while disliking its creator.
Unpopular opinion: In retrospect, Joss Whedon's writing is mostly style over substance at best. It was willing to sacrifice character depth for the sake of yet another quip. But at the same time, I would be more than willing to see what scripts he would produce with my own characters, if for no reason other than raw curiosity. Joss is a narcissist whose mind was deeply damaged in his formative years, and his scripts manage to reflect his fantasies and psychological problems all at once, as shown by what the article stated about Buffy as a character.
I very much understand and, to a certain extent, agree with this argument. But I was never that big of a fan of Whedon in the first place... But what mainly bother me if we are going to point out "damage" as a a negative here there are so many wonderful writers that had their own among of trauma in their formative years: Edgar Allan Poe, Kafka, Alan Moore, Lovecraft. And not all of them are unproblematic, Lovecraft is anything but, for example Sometimes I think that a lot of people jump on the idea that a writer or artist becomes bad or overrated the moment we realised that they are not exactly perfect people (or, in the case of Whedon, very shitty people). But art is rarely this simple. Whedon had written good stories, I think. Some people like them a lot more than I do, for example and they had a positive impact for them as writers or as people Is a complicated conversation, is what I'm saying
Growing up watching Buffy and then watching Firefly during an emotional time of my life starting university, Joss was an idol to me. While I was still a huge Whedon fan and riding high on my love for The Avengers, I moved to the US for a new job in 2014. However I started to work with someone who was at first charming and smart. But overtime I discovered that they were abusive and manipulative. I had not encountered this in my professional life before but it hit me bad and still has left it’s mark on me. Seeing that Joss was not perfect came at a time when I was moving on my from own toxic workplace environment. Realising over time that Joss was similar (actually a lot worse) than the narcissistic person I had know was a painful realisation. I feel bad for all those who were hurt by him and I no longer wish desperately for a new TV show from Joss and instead want him to never have power over others ever again. But while I was suffering from a bad mental health episode during the height of the pandemic, I did find comfort re-watching Firefly. It help ground me as it had before. I was aware of flaws with the show (lack of Asian representation in an Asian inspired world) since I first watched it at 19. But despite its flaws and Joss’s I still found the show to be healing and I would like to thank the many wonderful people who did make the show (cast and crew).
I've bounced over to your channel because of references/appearances on Dominic Noble and Jessie Gender videos - and you always have brilliant and engaging content. I would expound more on *this* topic but there's another commonality that had me especially transfixed; You *always* look utterly fabulous, but your look in this video had me thinking "I want to look like this when I grow up!" (Then I remembered I've been a "grown up" long enough that I remember when Buffy was just a bad movie.👀) Everything from your gunmetal lipstick, fantastic specs (though I equally covet your rainbow frames), and those *amazing* crescent pentacle earrings... (not to mention your great hair and overall sense of style). I understand this video is on a very serious subject and you handled it excellently - relaying facts and information that many may not have thought to apply to the situation and also being very clear on what statements were hypotheses and/or conjecture. Still, part of me finds it necessary to compliment your appearance and style (and desperately desires a "Who/what are you wearing?" red carpet-esqe moment).
I know I'm late to the party here, but can I just say how fed up I am with "but look at the traumatic/difficult childhood this person had!" While childhood events definitely can contribute to bad behavior later in life; it can never ever ever be an excuse or even a full-on explanation. Tons of people had traumatic/difficult childhoods. Most of them don't turn into bullys (or worse) later on. Whenever people bring up bad childhoods to explain/excuse awful behavior, it just infuritates me. It's an insult to all those of us who went through awful things during their childhoods and didn't grow up into bullys/predators/serial killers/or whatever else such people want to excuse with their bad childhood. Going through awful things as a child is a tragedy. Doing awful things as an adult is a choice.
I loved Buffy and Angel, and I console myself about still loving them with the thought that both were written by a TEAM of writers, not just Whedon. I'd prefer to accredit the truly magical and boundary-breaking moments to those team members rather than Whedon, and that they got through the reviewing and editing process in spite of him, not because of him.
It seems to me that there is a need for our society to talk about how you come to terms with your own failings. In this video, you took accountability for toxic attitudes you've embraced in the past. I have also experienced the process of coming to terms with things I used to think and do, that hurt people. Something that helped me face and process the regret and the guilt was being reminded (and then repeatedly reminding myself) that the only way I would avoid hurting someone again was to face this stuff. There has to come a time, when the pain of those you _have_ harmed, and the pain of those you _could_ harm is more important than the pain you are experiencing. And it IS painful. It is painful to look at what you've done with empathy for who you've hurt...because the act of empathy is mirroring the emotions you see, inside yourself. That pain is nothing though, not when compared to ACTUAL pain of the person harmed. They had to go on living with that pain, sometimes even after you've apologized and/or they've forgiven. Meanwhile, in the final injustice, the act of finally doing the right thing is often rewarded with catharsis. So, it is a pittance to pay, and we all need to learn to start paying, and much sooner. All of us have hurt people in our lives. I'm convinced it impossible to avoid. Even we sincerely act in good faith. I have witnessed and been on the receiving end of gut-wrenching pain, that really came from no fault in the perpetrator. It made it easier to forgive and to heal, but it didn't stop the wound from happening in the first place. Right now, our society has complex legal and social systems designed around avoiding accountability. We see it in memes like, "Power means never having to say you're sorry." I want to see us cultivate a society more interested in how we can be accountable and move forward doing better; rather than, avoiding having to look in the mirror, at all costs.
while his race may have been a reason, I thought the biggest reason Whedon thought he could get away with insulting Fisher so brazenly was because Fisher is a new actor with fewer connections.
Did I already mention that I didn't like JW back when he was upheld as the bestest best goodbye, both because I didn't care for any of his work and because he gave off the brand of feminist or anything-ist that screams "Look, I did feminism for you. I made a show all about girls! Now we can go back to focusing on how great I am," on the last video about him? I did? Ok, carry on.
Don't feel that you have to throw out your Buffy box set. A lot of people worked very hard and survived a lot of abuse and mistreatment to bring that story to life, and when you watch Buffy again, you'll be honoring those actors. You'll be helping to make sure that their sacrifices weren't in vain. That's a story that belongs to the cast, crew, and fans, and that Whedon behaved in the ways he did simply excludes him from a share of the glory that is Buffy. (and Angel, too.)
I've never watched your channel before so I'm glad I stumbled across this. I still have some trouble with my feelings around people I greatly respected - Mario Batali, Clinton, J. K. Rowling. Everyone has flaws, prejudices, and personal failings - at what point are they too much for me to look past? And who am I to judge anyway? I do try to be circumspect and self-aware but I'm one of those flawed, prejudiced, failed people myself. I don't have any trouble condemning people I don't like anyway (Trump, Weinstein, etc.) but when it's someone I DID like, it's a bit more difficult.
Whedon’s fiction has always been about monsters. Good people becoming corrupted. Evil people doing good. Vampires with souls and your friends doing animal sacrifice to pull you out of heaven. The Avengers even is a group of monsters choosing to do what is right. Whedon writes about monsters and people write what they know. “ Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either-but right through every human heart-and through all human hearts.” We are all monsters, and hope there is a redemption arch in his future.
My favored example for a situation like this lately is the film LA Confidential, and Kevin Spacey's presence in it. Even beyond the general ickiness of seeing the man at all, this one has the extra complication that a fairly long scene features him manipulating a young actor into gay sex, with about the only difference to things we now know he was doing at the time being that it's with another man and not himself. Prior to 2017, both the original novel and the film were among my favorite pieces of entertainment in their respective fields, so as you can imagine, I had quite a hard time figuring out what to do with those feelings when the truth about Spacey came out. I've now more or less settled into still being able to watch the film and enjoy it as a spectacular work of art, but I do tend to fast forward through that particular scene, and of course whenever I recommend the film to others, I make sure to warn them about it. It also helps that the original novel is completely free of this kind of connection as James Ellroy has had the decency to apparently never delve into this kind of stuff despite his extremely troubled life.
Like I said above I ran into this same issue it’s the director of Jeepers Creepers. I watched that movie, and clocked the homoerotic aspects of it at the time, but I had no idea that the director was a convicted pedophile. Knowing that now puts that movie and it’s sequel into a whole new, and very bad light!
I think Joss Whedon deserves to be canceled and I will never defend him (I don't believe he was the "nicest" showrunner ever), but sadly he is not the worst showrunner out there.
The therapist again: I wrote this and posted it to some groups in response to the article. The focus of it is PTSD vs being a abuser and not taking responsibility for your actions.The article didn't focus heavily on JW having PTSD & JW never out right said he wasn't responsible for his actions due to PTSD. I got some criticism because some thought I was implying such. I don't think these specifics matter. JW has been diagnosed with PTSD. This is a fact I'm not arguing. What I talk about in this post is what PTSD is and isn't and how people with this diagnosis (myself included) can and are responsible for their actions: (2 minute read) I’m a trauma therapist. I also struggle with PTSD. If you take away nothing else I say take away the next 4 sentences : PLEASE: Continue to support people coming forward with stories of abuse, sexual misconduct, racism, homophobia and ableism. Don’t shame them for work they did with abusers. Don’t empower the abuser by only associating the abuser with the work. This will hurt the survivors far more than the abuser. As a therapist I can say PTSD does NOT make you “powerless” to abuse people or enter into relationships over & over where you have all the power. It does the opposite. PTSD does NOT enable you to expertly construct abusive isolating relationships with them. (Ie. like isolating a 22 year old virgin intern when you’re a world famous 49 year old Director.) PTSD does not enable you to use a system to your advantage to continuously attempt to gaslight people & say maybe they didn’t understand your threat because English is their second language, they were too young, or siding with someone else who’s the real gaslighter. PTSD actually does the opposite of those things. it makes you second guess everything. Your words, your reality, your self worth, your feelings, you identity. I can tell you this as a “pro” & someone who’s going through all of this now. Yep. I’m legit trigged by this. What does this mean? For me at my level of white middle class privilege, support, years of treatment and professional knowledge being “triggered” means I will be second guessing myself and having intrusive thoughts about this. I won’t sleep well. I’ll think “life is shit.” I’ll get my daughter to school late. I won’t be able to be “truly focused” on work. I have the skills and tools to get through. For people that don’t it can be worse. They can be very irritable. Or make big mistakes and do some reckless things. However, these “reckless things” are impulsive and brief. People with PTSD have full insight of right and wrong. If they have privilege & power they can make up for something impulsive they did far more quickly & easily than others. (I can apologize to my daughter. An articulate boss can apologize for snapping. However it’s a lot harder for people who are actually powerless like a 20 something that’s been sexually abused and now her livelihood is dependent on an abusive boss. She may continue to look scattered and “crazy.” She may still look like this years later if someone re-triggers her. Please look at Rebecca X’s part of this article.) Can someone with PTSD be an abuser? Absolutely. A serial killer can have it. But, their ability to manipulate people with less power and systems has nothing to do with their PTSD. Furthermore, Their lack of empathy and harm they do come from somewhere else. They are fully responsible for it. To imply anything else is harmful to people with PTSD.
My mum is a huge fan of his shows Buffy and Firefly, when I told her about these things she tried to deflect it. “What he did was wrong but what was the context that led up to it”, the whole ‘I am not defending him but…”.
