Deaths Head II
The Sequel
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
no but popularity= butts in seats= $$$$$
It's Avengers. Butts are going to be in seats if they pick Uwe Boll.
no but popularity= butts in seats= $$$$$
Yea i know that.
I was using that example to show that Whedon has never connected to big audiences. Apart from Buffy and Angel, which were about vampires...
I agree.
I just don't care anymore. Whedon will come out with an amazing film and then the haters will struggle even harder to find an excuse to dismiss it just like they already failed at trying to dismiss Astonishing X-Men and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog. I'm just happy we got a great choice for the film.
Or maybe because Firefly is crap, and so is Serenity. Firefly lasted one season right? Says it all...
And i don't get the hype for Buffy either. Yea Michelle Gellar was hot, Anthony Head was awesome... everything else? Meh. It was forced and hokey and cheesy. It tried to be dramatic and believable, but didn't ever reach those aspirations IMO.
And then you throw in Eliza Dushku and it becomes my worst nightmare.
exactly because there is no way someone would see something from Whendon and hate it![]()
see you whedon lovers are just as guilty as us whedon haters. You can't accept that people don't like whedon. Well tough ****, deal with it.
You are certain he will make a great avengers film. That's even more short sighted and naive than me saying i don't think he will.
You are certain he will make a great Avengers film. That's even more short sighted and naive than me saying i don't think he will.
Well when someone says i'm the equivalent to a person thinking the world is flat because i don't like Whedon and buy into his hokey, cheesy sensibilities i ain't gonna be nice.
And i was merely spitting a fact. Firefly got canned after one season.
Or get a better understanding of it. Look, usually I can understand both sides of an argument but for the life of me I can't for this issue.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions, fine. But please temper those, I really don't want to start fights with you guys.
So cool it.
So judging someone's ability to create a good product based on his skills and previous successes is short sighted and naive. I see.
Not to mention you're the right person to be making this call, the person with the opposing view point. I know for sure you would admit your view point was more naive and short sighted if it truly was because you have no personal opinion in this matter.
Well, if you are going to use Firefly being an one-season wonder against Whedon, then you should also mention that Buffy lasted 7 seasons and Angel lasted 5. It's only fair.
Neither did Spectacular Spider-man. R.I.P.
So judging someone's ability to create a good product based on his skills and previous successes is short sighted and naive. I see.
I think the biggest concern about Whedon is the idea that all ensembles aren't alike. Just like all female characters aren't alike. His strengths with Buffy didn't necessarily translate to Wonder Woman.
Likewise, his strengths with pop culture spouting ensembles might not translate to Captain America or Thor.
Whedon has been successful, although it's been more of a niche success than a mainstream success. And he has a track record. But, his track record and characters aren't necessarily a natural fit for The Avengers. Which isn't to say that he couldn't grow or has more range than he's shown to date, but I think it's fair to say that he's done nothing quite like The Avengers and therefore he's a gamble.
I think the biggest concern about Whedon is the idea that all ensembles aren't alike. Just like all female characters aren't alike. His strengths with Buffy didn't necessarily translate to Wonder Woman.
Likewise, his strengths with pop culture spouting ensembles might not translate to Captain America or Thor.
Whedon has been successful, although it's been more of a niche success than a mainstream success. And he has a track record. But, his track record and characters aren't necessarily a natural fit for The Avengers. Which isn't to say that he couldn't grow or has more range than he's shown to date, but I think it's fair to say that he's done nothing quite like The Avengers and therefore he's a gamble.
Well don't say us Whedon haters are wrong or ignorant then.
I'm not saying you Whedon lovers are wrong... I just STRONGLY disagree with you.
I've seen plenty of Whedon's work, and i hate all of it, apart from his X-Men run.
Shows based on vampires. Vampires have always been popular.
They had good audiences back in the day, i ain't denying that.
But yea, popular doesn't equal good. Unpopular doesn't equal bad.
All i'm saying is i don't like Buffy or Angel because i thought they were cheesy and hokey and tried to hard to be cool and hip. Same goes for all of his TV and film work.
Oh and i thought Xander was an annoying prick.
I even hate that, but then I just can't stand the X-Men in any way shape or form so I wouldn't fault Whedon in that case.
Well to be honest Whedon's run on X-Men was the last run i thought was decent.
All the X books have been crap for years IMO. Those hacks Kyle and Yost ain't helped.