The Avengers The Superbowl spot - Part 1

[Chewy]

Art is purly subjective. Anything and Every thing is Art.

McG movies aren't art

 

[CConn]

Look, what I meant by my comment is this;

When I watch Star Trek, or Super 8, I feel immersed in the films. The cinematography, the art direction, the thematic vision that is interjected into each films' script just screams quality to me. And it's the director that gives a film it's soul; that turns a good script, into an incredible movie.

Serenity - as good as it was as a story, and as good as that cast is (both the cast and characters are pretty awesome), it's little more than a fun sci-fi movie. I don't see the same level of skill and execution that I see in other Abrams' movies.

That's subjective, of course. I seem to notice a lot of details about films that most others overlook, but that is why I don't believe Whedon to be all that great of a director.

 

[flickchick85]

I totally understand having a shoestring budget - but that's when you, as a creator, should base shape your ideas around that budget and not add in effects or stories that will end up looking fake or cheesy when made with your low budget. But that's just my opinion.

Buffy/Angel embraced camp, though, which is why he wasn't worried about doing it on a shoestring budget - he was paying homage to a genre whose whole history was drenched in cheesy horror make-up and effects. That was part of the premise of the show. The whole mission statement of Buffy was about having fun with the genre cliches - first acknowledging then subverting them. The look of that world was very much a part of that, imo.

This concept kind of bothers me. I think, you can be as quirky as you want, if you're legitimately awesome, you'll end up regarded as such by the masses.

I just don't think this is true because there are certain genres that are just so far out there, they alienate a large portion of an audience before they ever see it. Buffy was a combo of those genres: Horror (I hate horror, for one), camp, teen comedy, superhero (remember, this was before the genre was revived with X-Men), fantasy action (pre-LotR). It was only EVER going to appeal to a niche audience. Most of Whedon's original concepts are like that. A literal space western? A vampire detective/superhero? That will never be as mainstream as a general spy show or people who crashed on a mysterious island.

I would like to see some of those lists. Whenever I read anything about Whedon - even people who are big fans of him - often refer to him as making "b-movie" shows or movies; essentially, that he's more viewed as delivering entertainment, as opposed to art.

I'll address this in its own post since it will be super-long, lol.

Serenity was pretty good. But what frustrates me about it - and all of Whedon's work - if you put that concept or script (although I don't get why Whedon feels the need to mention vibrators and periods in his dialgoue to show he understands women ) in the hands of a better director - even Abrams, it would've been a better movie.

That's just my opinion, and a guess, of course, but it's pretty much how I feel about Whedon in general; he's a phenomenal concept man. Like Lucas, he can come up with incredible casts, and stories, etc. But, like Lucas, I've always felt his execution has fallen flat.

That's my big complaint: I see the quality in his work. I see the potential. But what I don't see, is that potential ever developed to what it should be.

Well there's nothing to say here other than that I completely disagree. His work certainly has its flaws (as does everyone's), but I love the overall execution/tone of his shows. And his storytelling is so damn ambitious and epic compared to most of his contemporaries (including Abrams, imo).

 

[Chewy]

Look, what I meant by my comment is this;

When I watch Star Trek, or Super 8, I feel immersed in the films. The cinematography, the art direction, the thematic vision that is interjected into each films' script just screams quality to me. And it's the director that gives a film it's soul; that turns a good script, into an incredible movie.

Serenity - as good as it was as a story, and as good as that cast is (both the cast and characters are pretty awesome), it's little more than a fun sci-fi movie. I don't see the same level of skill and execution that I see in other Abrams' movies.

That's subjective, of course. I seem to notice a lot of details about films that most others overlook, but that is why I don't believe Whedon to be all that great of a director.

I think you have to consider that you're looking at Whedon's first film, vs Abrams' second and third

There's a very clear improvement in terms of scale, scope, framing, from MI3 to Star Trek.

MI3 in many ways felt small, like a TV show, much like Serenity

 

[CConn]

I think you have to consider that you're looking at Whedon's first film, vs Abrams' second and third

There's a very clear improvement in terms of scale, scope, framing, from MI3 to Star Trek.

MI3 in many ways felt small, like a TV show, much like Serenity

It doesn't have anything to do with which effort or the budget.

For instance, George Lucas did a much better job as a director on his first film, his senior project, THX-1138, than any of his subsequent films.

For me, while Abrams has improved, MI3 showed a great deal of promise in many areas. I, personally, didn't get that same feeling with Serenity.

 

[CConn]

Buffy/Angel embraced camp, though, which is why he wasn't worried about doing it on a shoestring budget - he was paying homage to a genre whose whole history was drenched in cheesy horror make-up and effects. That was part of the premise of the show. The whole mission statement of Buffy was about having fun with the genre cliches - first acknowledging then subverting them. The look of that world was very much a part of that, imo.

I just don't think this is true because there are certain genres that are just so far out there, they alienate a large portion of an audience before they ever see it. Buffy was a combo of those genres: Horror (I hate horror, for one), camp, teen comedy, superhero (remember, this was before the genre was revived with X-Men), fantasy action (pre-LotR). It was only EVER going to appeal to a niche audience. Most of Whedon's original concepts are like that. A literal space western? A vampire detective/superhero? That will never be as mainstream as a general spy show or people who crashed on a mysterious island.

I'll address this in its own post since it will be super-long, lol.

Well there's nothing to say here other than that I completely disagree. His work certainly has its flaws (as does everyone's), but I love the overall execution/tone of his shows. And his storytelling is so damn ambitious and epic compared to most of his contemporaries (including Abrams, imo).

Suffice it to say, as much as I would like to, I, so far, have found the concept of Whedon being a skilled creaton unfathomable.

To me, it's like watching a skilled amateur or talented adolescent. But hopefully, Avengers will begin to change that for me.

 

[flickchick85]

I would like to see some of those lists. Whenever I read anything about Whedon - even people who are big fans of him - often refer to him as making "b-movie" shows or movies; essentially, that he's more viewed as delivering entertainment, as opposed to art.

Ok, here we go! I've actually had this discussion before via e-mail with someone, and I saved the e-mail I sent with the links so I'd never have to go searching for them again, lol. The e-mail was super long, so I won't post them all (unless you request more, that is), but here are a few:

TIME Magazine's "Greatest TV Shows of All-Time" (they weren't numbered):
http://entertainment.time.com/2007/...-the-vampire-slayer/#buffy-the-vampire-slayer

Empire Magazine's "Greatest TV Shows of All-Time" (Buffy came in at #2 right in between The Simpsons and The Sopranos):
http://www.empireonline.com/50greatesttv/default.asp?tv=2
And Firefly came in at #14:
http://www.empireonline.com/50greatesttv/default.asp?tv=15


The opening line from Entertainment Weekly's review of the DVD's:

There are some things you can't state often enough. The Aston Martin DB5 was the greatest Bond car ever. The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. And Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of the seminal TV shows of the last 50 years. In the top 10. Not open for debate.
...Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a titanic achievement, one worth holding on to so you can show your children.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1128549,00.html

Firefly is also #7 on their "Greatest Sci-Fi Shows of All-Time" list:
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20308150_20506182,00.html#20506168


A Google search suggests that The New York Times has never made a list of the "Greatest Shows of All-Time," but they've always had nice things to say about Buffy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/08/a...ltists-you-ain-t-seen-nothing-yet.html?src=pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/opinion/appreciations-buffy-rides-off-into-the-sunset.html
A sample:

Few shows reward rewatching as much as ''Buffy,'' a series which might appear campy at first sight, but over time reveals as many layers as Tony Soprano's Oedipal complex.

Same goes for The Hollywood Reporter:

If you never watched "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, " then you missed out. Honestly. It was not only a pop cultural phenomenon, but it was also that elusive, fervently sought-after creation -- a brilliant television show. Here's to everyone's opening their eyes to possibility in TV, no matter what the title or the network. And here's to reruns, too.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/19/DD61367.DTL#ixzz1mP71oOnZ
(yes, that's the San Francisco Chronicle's website, but they were running it from THR, as Tim Goodman was a writer for them at the time.)

The Hollywood Reporter also named Whedon #1 on their "Top 40 Most Influential Showrunners" list. Unfortunately, the actual THR article appears to be subscriber only, but here's an article about the article on another website:
http://www.comicmix.com/news/2008/11/16/joss-whedon-named-1-showrunner/


​

TV Guide had Buffy at #3 on their "Top 30 Cult Shows Ever," ahead of Lost (#5), the BSG remake (#14), and The Twilight Zone (#9). Firefly was also #25.
http://www.tvguide.com/news/top-cult-shows-40239.aspx

I know Buffy was also somewhere on their "50 Greatest Shows of All-Time" list (I think around #40), but the link I had was dead and searching their website for that list is proving unfruitful. Instead, have some regular ol' praise from them:

I say we give the love to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, since the show that gave us Angel continues to rock well beyond its own cancellation grave. Why, the uninitiated may ask? Three words, people. Best. Writing. Ever.

www.tvguide.com/news/buffy-vampire-slayer-9428.aspx

[Buffy] was so ingeniously entertaining, so scary and so funny, but also so emotionally evocative. A coming-of-age allegory where high school really was hell, where the wrong decision truly could herald the end of the world, where adolescent anxieties often took demonic form, and where even after graduation (a truly explosive event) the life lessons- and afterlife lessons- never stopped coming...In its seven years- first on the WB, then on UPN (making it sort of the first actual CW show), it became a true cult phenomenon, adored by fans and endlessly dissected by academics. We are all "Buffy-ologists." And the show lives on, currently in Season 8 in comic book form, but also in its influence in such shows that came later, like Alias and the current Heroes.

www.tvguide.com/roush/salute-buffy-9804.aspx


And from The Brits, The Guardian and The Telegraph are 2 of their highest-circulated publications.

The ability to view Buffy (and now brooding sister-series Angel) in massive, uninterrupted chunks reveals the depth and character of the show that might otherwise be missed on a weekly basis, where the superficial impression is of a camp, spooky show with a pretty blonde and added kung-fu for flavour. The complete season viewing embellishes the arcs of the story and its commitment to the characters and their world....
So what has made Buffy special? Is it creator/genius Joss Whedon's effortless blend of humour, horror and heart?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3596495/Closing-the-Hellmouth.html

You can admit it without shame: Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a work of genius. Your oh-so-sophisticated friends might scoff, but the broadcast of Buffy's final episode in the US last week marked the end of a televisual era....

Those who feel challenging TV must involve a Jeremy (Paxman or Isaacs) are probably laughing. Put them in their place. "With astonishing bravura, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has succeeded in blending the conventions of teenage soap opera with smart, dialogue-driven comedy, a phantasmagoria of supernatural motifs - and even knotty theological debate," you remark, quoting Boyd Tonkin in the Independent. And it goes without saying that the programme's "supernatural structure also triggered metaphysical discussion on a level that left British telly's God slots in the shade".

There will be sceptics who try to tell you Buffy was only a TV show about vampires for teenagers. Don't listen to them. "What should concern any TV fan is the end of a daring work of love and imagination, something born of passion instead of a fleeting, this-year's-flavour fame," you say, like the Miami Herald. "And those monsters Buffy battles ... are the demons we wrestle throughout our lives: the desire to fit in, the need to be your own person, the emotional risks of love and sex." The world the show inhabited, too was a cut above, as the Toronto Star noted. It was "a multi-dimensional, deeply recessed and densely layered mythology ... that could engage both supernatural escapism and earthly social constructs such as friendship, love, power, religion and free will".

Oh well, you reflect, remembering the words of New York Newsday: "All great epics come to an end. The Iliad. The Odyssey. War and Peace. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Just kidding. The Tolstoy book is a ringer. Doesn't belong on this list. Too literal. Not enough monsters."

www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,12900,963826,00.html


Buffy was also #22 on The Guardian's "Top 50 Television Dramas of All-Time" list, ahead of the likes of Band of Brothers and BSG:

Over seven series thick with classical *allusions, pop culture references, wit, charm, martial arts sequences and achingly painful love stories, she grows into the role and gradually learns what it means to be the chosen one. She made old-fashioned ideals like honour and sacrifice relevant and accessible again, and even resurrected ancient feminist beliefs by fighting back against the demons that sought to subdue her. Instead of forever being rescued (or punished – for having sex or self-confidence) like the damsels in horror stories of yesteryear, she saved the world. A lot. Grief, love, betrayal, nobility, self-indulgence versus self-sacrifice – Buffy gave us all this to think about, and some excellent punning too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/jan/12/guardian-50-television-dramas

Well I suppose that's enough for now...probably more than you asked for, in which case...sorry! Guess I won't start with all the internet lists his shows are on, because I'd imagine you're probably aware of the web-worship.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

Could you imagine the amount of lens flare we'd see off of Cap's shield alone if Abrams directed this?

 

[Smashlilman]

McG movies aren't art

McG movies are Art. There like Picasso only instead of using paint he uses Feces.

 

[Godsfireworks]

Holy cow. I've been off this thread for a day and it's switched from Black Widow's being on the team to Whedon as a director? What HAPPENED???

Oh yeah...this is just what happens when we're deprived of news...continue. (grabs popcorn)

 

[T"Challa]

Ok, here we go! I've actually had this discussion before via e-mail with someone, and I saved the e-mail I sent with the links so I'd never have to go searching for them again, lol. The e-mail was super long, so I won't post them all (unless you request more, that is), but here are a few:

TIME Magazine's "Greatest TV Shows of All-Time" (they weren't numbered):
http://entertainment.time.com/2007/...-the-vampire-slayer/#buffy-the-vampire-slayer

Empire Magazine's "Greatest TV Shows of All-Time" (Buffy came in at #2 right in between The Simpsons and The Sopranos):
http://www.empireonline.com/50greatesttv/default.asp?tv=2
And Firefly came in at #14:
http://www.empireonline.com/50greatesttv/default.asp?tv=15


The opening line from Entertainment Weekly's review of the DVD's:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1128549,00.html

Firefly is also #7 on their "Greatest Sci-Fi Shows of All-Time" list:
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20308150_20506182,00.html#20506168


A Google search suggests that The New York Times has never made a list of the "Greatest Shows of All-Time," but they've always had nice things to say about Buffy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/08/a...ltists-you-ain-t-seen-nothing-yet.html?src=pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/opinion/appreciations-buffy-rides-off-into-the-sunset.html
A sample:
Same goes for The Hollywood Reporter:

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/19/DD61367.DTL#ixzz1mP71oOnZ
(yes, that's the San Francisco Chronicle's website, but they were running it from THR, as Tim Goodman was a writer for them at the time.)

The Hollywood Reporter also named Whedon #1 on their "Top 40 Most Influential Showrunners" list. Unfortunately, the actual THR article appears to be subscriber only, but here's an article about the article on another website:
http://www.comicmix.com/news/2008/11/16/joss-whedon-named-1-showrunner/


​

TV Guide had Buffy at #3 on their "Top 30 Cult Shows Ever," ahead of Lost (#5), the BSG remake (#14), and The Twilight Zone (#9). Firefly was also #25.
http://www.tvguide.com/news/top-cult-shows-40239.aspx

I know Buffy was also somewhere on their "50 Greatest Shows of All-Time" list (I think around #40), but the link I had was dead and searching their website for that list is proving unfruitful. Instead, have some regular ol' praise from them:
www.tvguide.com/news/buffy-vampire-slayer-9428.aspx

www.tvguide.com/roush/salute-buffy-9804.aspx


And from The Brits, The Guardian and The Telegraph are 2 of their highest-circulated publications.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3596495/Closing-the-Hellmouth.html

www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,12900,963826,00.html


Buffy was also #22 on The Guardian's "Top 50 Television Dramas of All-Time" list, ahead of the likes of Band of Brothers and BSG:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/jan/12/guardian-50-television-dramas

Well I suppose that's enough for now...probably more than you asked for, in which case...sorry! Guess I won't start with all the internet lists his shows are on, because I'd imagine you're probably aware of the web-worship.

*begins slow clap*

 

[Oruku Saki]

Could you imagine the amount of lens flare we'd see off of Cap's shield alone if Abrams directed this?

Yeah, in Super 8 he was definitely trying to walk in the "Almighty Spielberg's" footsteps

 

[Whiskey Tango]

And did a damn fine job of it imo

 

[BigThor]

And did a damn fine job of it imo

I agree, I took my girlfriend at the time to see it and needless to say we both thought it was awesome and it capped off our night quite well.

 

[Son of Coul]

I didn't say that at all.

Nor did I mean to infer it.

The way you had written it seemed to have entertainment and art be mutually exclusive, but I guess I jumped the gun a little. It tends to just get under my skin when people separate the two entities or look down on "entertainment," which sounds even more silly writing it out.

I remember seeing a thread on another forum titled, "Entertainment Movies vs. Good Movies" and it was obviously discussing the difference between movies like, say, Transformers or The Hangover vs. The King's Speech or Slumdog Millionaire. But a good movie is entertaining, period. Because if it's not entertaining, it's boring. I understand where the argument comes from-- that entertainment means "shut your brain off and forget critique," but I just don't feel that way.

Granted, if a movie has just entertainment going for it, then it probably isn't very good-- unless that was its intention. Take a movie like Evil Dead II-- made to be pure entertainment; just crazy scene after crazy scene, no message, no social commentary, no exceptional depth as "art," with pretty bland characters that aren't Ash... but it's entertaining as all hell. You can feel the dedication to movie and the filmmakers in it. So it achieves its goal. That, to me, is a good movie.

The Transformers movies seem to go for a similar goal of just pure entertainment but in my opinion don't succeed, as they inject a faux emotion that feels half-assed, the special effects are nice but the action scenes don't do anything for me due to their choreography and framing, the humor is lame, and the overall product feels soulless. Like it wasn't a labor of love by the filmmakers, just a heartless piece thrown together to make a quick buck. It's not entertaining to me, so I don't consider it a good movie.

Yet I still consider both art. Just one of them I consider good art, despite the fact that its goal is purely to entertain and nothing more.

edit: sorry for the rant, I guess it doesn't really have anything to do with you, just some thoughts I was having

 

[Adamantium Man]

It's a little bit like wine. The self-styled connoisseur will tell you that only a dry wine can be a good wine. And then there's me, who likes sweet wines. I'll never be a true connoisseur.

In other words, agree with Son of Coul. An entertaining movie is a good movie. It shouldn't matter if the viewer derives their entertainment from getting blown away by art and social commentary or by special effects. Anyone who claims otherwise probably also likes dry wines, or to put it differently, is a snob. :P