Joss Whedon Blasts 'Twilight,' Calls 'Empire Strikes Back' Ending a 'Cardinal Sin'
Also I heard somewhere that while he though the Fellowship also had the same sin, he did find the killing off of Boromir a good directorial decision, though it would have been better if Merry and Pippin had been killed off as well in his view.
Well, The Lord of the Rings was written as six books originally, so there's that (and a director should match the film to the source material, anyway).
But I too was unhappy at the time with the way SW ep V ended. Not that I needed a 'feel good' ending, but it felt like half a film to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet if he goes to somebody's house that has the toilet paper rolling the opposite way from the toilet paper at his house he takes it off the spool and turns it around.
Personally I think making Mary Sue characters that basically make everyone else obsolete (River Tam can kill all the Reavers single-handedly without the rest of the crew's help), is a much larger "cardinal sin". Well that and having the command ship blow up and all the Chitauri drop over dead so you can have a nice clean ending.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mary Sue ... River Tam
The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing.
She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting; if any character doesn't love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal. She has some sort of especially close relationship to the author's favorite canon character — their love interest, illegitimate child, never-before-mentioned sister, etc. Other than that, the canon characters are quickly reduced to awestruck cheerleaders, watching from the sidelines as Mary Sue outstrips them in their areas of expertise and solves problems that have stymied them for the entire series. (See Common Mary Sue Traits for more detail on any of these cliches.)
I bolded all the things about River Tam that don't qualify.
She's obviously not an Author Avatar Wish Fulfillment character.
She has flaws. Most prominently the whole, y'know "I'm crazy and helpless in 90% of situations" thing.
She was not immediately accepted by everyone in the crew.
Other characters are not awestruck by her.
The only "problem that stymies them" she ever solved was killing a group of people pursuing them (justified by genetic and mental alterations designed to make her a killing machine...which is only ever really utilized sparingly even after it is revealed), with the main plot still being resolved by Mal.
"Mary Sue" is not a catch-all for "Character that is powerful". Superman is not a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character either, and he's world shatteringly powerful and often obsoletes other characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She's obviously not an Author Avatar Wish Fulfillment character.
Why is she "obviously" not? Because he is male and she is female? Perhaps your view of human gender and sexuality is too narrow.
She has flaws. Most prominently the whole, y'know "I'm crazy and helpless in 90% of situations" thing.
Her "I'm crazy" is endearing to some people. It makes her "childlike".
She was not immediately accepted by everyone in the crew.
Right, those that didn't are generally viewed as jerks (see Jayne in particular). Most everyone else treated her well.
Other characters are not awestruck by her.
Kaylee seeing her shoot a bunch of guys with just a quick look. The whole crew seeing her slaughter an entire army of Reavers. ...
*yawn* Anyway, I don't really care. I was half joking. I don't really care if you call her a Mary Sue or Supergirl or whatever, it is poor design and certainly worse than leaving a movie on a cliff-hanger.
She's obviously not an Author Avatar Wish Fulfillment character.Why is she "obviously" not? Because he is male and she is female? Perhaps your view of human gender and sexuality is too narrow.
Because unless Whedon's psyche in private is VERY different from what he shows to the public, he has nothing in common with the character.
Her "I'm crazy" is endearing to some people. It makes her "childlike".
Everything is endearing to "some people".
It's not particularly endearing to the members of the crew (annoyance, more often), and it's not supposed to be to the audience either.
Right, those that didn't are generally viewed as jerks (see Jayne in particular). Most everyone else treated her well.
Jayne was never treated as unsympathetic or as a jerk FOR THAT REASON. He was always treated as the "lovable dirtbag" because he was mercenary in the extreme, but still always managed to come through.
[
Kaylee seeing her shoot a bunch of guys with just a quick look. The whole crew seeing her slaughter an entire army of Reavers. ...
"Seeing" (one or two actions in particular) is not the same "being awestruck by everything she does".
*yawn* Anyway, I don't really care. I was half joking. I don't really care if you call her a Mary Sue or Supergirl or whatever, it is poor design and certainly worse than leaving a movie on a cliff-hanger.
I'm still waiting for you to point out something that actually makes her a poorly designed character, rather than one you don't like.
If you don't like it, fine. But don't toss around terms that quite clearly don't fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering how Angel ended, I don't see where he should be throwing stones about things "not having an ending."
Episode V had a great ending. Compared to three parties and a wedding, I would actually say it is the best one. Luke defied Yoda, the ultimate authority on what the jedi were like, by insisting on following his human, emotional side. Though this brought him to fear, horror and mutilation, he survived. There was still a lot to do... But he finally knew himself. To be honest, it would have been a great ending even without episode VI.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering how Angel ended, I don't see where he should be throwing stones about things "not having an ending."
I actually think that (excluding the post season 5 comics, which ruin it) the ending of Angel is magnificent. Much of the show has been Angel struggling to reclaim his humanity (via the Shanshu prophesy). The ending has Angel faced with an utterly hopeless situation, where they are obviously doomed to failure and death. And yet they decide to fight on, not because they hope to succeed or even make a difference, but because it's the right thing to do. In doing so, in my view, he achieves the Shanshu prophecy. While he doesn't LITERALLY reclaim his humanity, he does so symbolically.
But, like I said, if you consider the comics canon, they flush all that down the drain.
Pres Man, what exactly was the point of posting this?
You had to know that your opinions of Whedon and his works would not be shared by most people posting here. At best you're deliberately starting a flame war. At worst you're shocasing your own ignorance in the field of dramatic analysis, character study and story structure.
So what were you hoping to accomplish?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making no statement as to the respective opinions of Joss Whedon or Kevin Smith, Empire has always been my least favorite of the original SW trilogy. It's a movie of brilliant set pieces that starts in the middle and ends in the middle and ultimately has a lot of narrative motion but not a lot of narrative movement. It is the middle-moviest middle movie that ever middle movied.
Considering how Angel ended, I don't see where he should be throwing stones about things "not having an ending."I actually think that (excluding the post season 5 comics, which ruin it) the ending of Angel is magnificent. Much of the show has been Angel struggling to reclaim his humanity (via the Shanshu prophesy). The ending has Angel faced with an utterly hopeless situation, where they are obviously doomed to failure and death. And yet they decide to fight on, not because they hope to succeed or even make a difference, but because it's the right thing to do. In doing so, in my view, he achieves the Shanshu prophecy. While he doesn't LITERALLY reclaim his humanity, he does so symbolically.
But, like I said, if you consider the comics canon, they flush all that down the drain.
My point being that you can use the exact same argument he used about Empire can be applied Angel. It didn't have an ending. It just left you hanging, and without the expectation of any sort of resolution, unlike Empire where you knew you had a final movie coming. (No, I don't count comics. You don't switch mediums in the midst of a story. That's just bad form.)
Making no statement as to the respective opinions of Joss Whedon or Kevin Smith, Empire has always been my least favorite of the original SW trilogy. It's a movie of brilliant set pieces that starts in the middle and ends in the middle and ultimately has a lot of narrative motion but not a lot of narrative movement. It is the middle-moviest middle movie that ever middle movied.
Yeah, I completely agree with this.
I really enjoy Empire, but it resolves nothing. You can't just watch Empire without watching anything else. You can... but I can't imagine you'd get much out of it. It assumes a lot of familiarity with the main characters and all it does is set up more and more conflict to be resolved... at some point after the credits roll.
Pres Man, what exactly was the point of posting this?
You had to know that your opinions of Whedon and his works would not be shared by most people posting here. At best you're deliberately starting a flame war. At worst you're shocasing your own ignorance in the field of dramatic analysis, character study and story structure.
So what were you hoping to accomplish?
Pres Man likes to go after sacred cows. With this he gets to take punches at Joss Whedon AND Star Wars.
No one said you have to care.
I care....
No one said you aren't allowed to care.
|
It is the middle-moviest middle movie that ever middle movied.
... meaning it served it's part in the trilogy perfectly? I agree.
I don't know what's the difference between narrative motion and narrative movement, but I can say this - the movie is an action packed, dark story of adventure that ends with a huge revelation that leaves the viewer with the feeling that the heroes are now REALLY in the thick of it. There's trouble all around, the lines between good and bad are blurred, and everyone is taking that one last deep breath before plunging into the final confrontation that will determine the fate of a galaxy. The movie delivers on that emotional level perfectly, and the open ending is part of it.
About Whedon: I am curious to see how he approaches trilogy making, given his statements above and the fact that ht IS directing two more avenger movies. Are they going to just be three unrelated stories featuring many of the same characters? that's just not using the full potential of a trilogy I think...
Since one of our players was in Iowa City for a wedding, we didn't play D&D this weekend, we played poker. It was pretty unsuccessful, partly because nobody knew how to play and partly because the guy organizing the event forgot to tell everybody we were playing poker and nobody brought any money. It's easy to bluff when nothing's at stake, and our underwater welder friend brought her ten-year-old son who blew through all of his chips in three hands. To stave off his boredom, we offered to put a movie on for him. He really likes Star Wars so somebody put it in the player and he said, "No, no, no, IwannawatchEmpireStrikesBack!"
---
I was born at the tail end (like, less than a week to go) of 1976. Which means there is no possible way I could have seen Star Wars when it was released (or, at least, could remember seeing it). Yet, I have a vivid childhood memory of balling my little eyes out when Ben Kenobi got whacked before I balled my little eyes out when Han Solo got frozen.
This is because, as those of us old enough to remember, Star Wars was re-released in the theaters in the weeks before the release of ESB. In my opinion, this kind of renders Maestro Whedon's criticisms moot.
It also reminds me that one of the major influences on Lucas in making SW was the old-timey serial shorts they used to play before the main attraction back in the day. Imho, ESB resembles those the most.
But, then again, since semi-adulthood, I've been influenced by wicked film-snobby types, and I'd much rather watch a French movie--preferably by Goddard or Truffaut--than Star Wars anyway.
This is because, as those of us old enough to remember, Star Wars was re-released in the theaters in the weeks before the release of ESB. In my opinion, this kind of renders Maestro Whedon's criticisms moot.
Woops. I mismatched opinions expressed with the people expressing opinions. Nevermind.
I donna know gang, what do you think, Summer Glau and a guy like me?
River didn't kill all the reavers...
- Most of them were killed in orbit fighting the Alliance.
- The ones from the small ship that followed them down were mostly killed by the crew of Serenity at the bottleneck.
- Any stragglers were likely killed by the Alliance ground forces as they closed in in support of the operative.
- That leaves about a room full of reavers for River to handle herself. Impressive but hardly beyond the established "engineered weapon" back story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PS: Whedon rules!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About Whedon: I am curious to see how he approaches trilogy making, given his statements above and the fact that ht IS directing two more avenger movies. Are they going to just be three unrelated stories featuring many of the same characters? that's just not using the full potential of a trilogy I think...
Actually, the LoTR is a very unusual trilogy precisely because the "novels" fail to stand on their own. Ditto the Star Wars trilogy. Normally every element of a trilogy works as an independent work in its own right, with a particular story arc that is introduced, developed, and resolved within that volume.
One reason for this is that the publishers like to do it that way, because it enhances sales. More people will buy the first book if it tells a complete story (as Ep. IV does). If the first book doesn't sell well, you can walk away from the rest of the series with less loss. And if the second book also tells a complete story, then sometimes people will buy the second book, not realizing it's a sequel, and then come back and buy the first.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels are a good example; his breakout novel was The Light Fantastic, the second novel, not The Colour of Magic, the first. Similarly, Harris' Silence of the Lambs was much more successful than Red Dragon.
Does this publishing convention mean that a middle film/novel that doesn't resolve is a bad one? Of course not. But it can certainly be an annoyance to someone who is just looking for an evening's entertainment.
Thank you Orfamay. I tried to write up something like that 3 or 4 times but it always came out wonky.
I think a good example is most series' of novels (not just trilogies).
Take the Harry Potter Books/Movies (barring the last two-that-should-have-been-one movies).
In each book, a plot is presented. In each book, said plot is resolved.
In the grand scheme, each of these plots is merely a sub-plot of the overarching story, however they are all self contained stories which nevertheless move the series forward with each, but never end on a real cliffhanger or have no resolution.
Contrast to something like Lord of The Rings. There is no self contained plot in each book. The overarching goal is to throw the Ring into Mt. Doom, and the immediate goals in all 3 novels pretty much just exist to further that goal.
If you read Fellowship, you're only getting 1/3 of a story. Fellowship just kind of ends, on what may as well be a "To Be Continued...". The Tow Towers the same way.
They are not self-contained in any way, shape, or form.
Which is the superior is subjective (I prefer the former approach, it makes the books more approachable to new readers AND those wanting to re-read them), but there is a significant difference between the two.
I donna know gang, what do you think, Summer Glau and a guy like me?
No. I don't think so.
Take the Harry Potter Books/Movies (barring the last two-that-should-have-been-one movies).
In each book, a plot is presented. In each book, said plot is resolved.
That's actually a very good example -- especially the last two. Why should they have been one? Would the series have been better? I think so, and I believe that's the critics' opinion as well.
And a major reason the series would have been better is because the 7th movie had such a lousy ending.
There's a reason that people don't sit down to watch "the second reel" of films, no matter how good the films are.
|
|
About Whedon: I am curious to see how he approaches trilogy making, given his statements above and the fact that ht IS directing two more avenger movies. Are they going to just be three unrelated stories featuring many of the same characters? that's just not using the full potential of a trilogy I think...Actually, the LoTR is a very unusual trilogy precisely because the "novels" fail to stand on their own. Ditto the Star Wars trilogy. Normally every element of a trilogy works as an independent work in its own right, with a particular story arc that is introduced, developed, and resolved within that volume.
One reason for this is that the publishers like to do it that way, because it enhances sales. More people will buy the first book if it tells a complete story (as Ep. IV does). If the first book doesn't sell well, you can walk away from the rest of the series with less loss. And if the second book also tells a complete story, then sometimes people will buy the second book, not realizing it's a sequel, and then come back and buy the first.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels are a good example; his breakout novel was The Light Fantastic, the second novel, not The Colour of Magic, the first. Similarly, Harris' Silence of the Lambs was much more successful than Red Dragon.
Does this publishing convention mean that a middle film/novel that doesn't resolve is a bad one? Of course not. But it can certainly be an annoyance to someone who is just looking for an evening's entertainment.
I feel like you and I are talking in entirely different levels here... what I understand to be the main argument of your post has nothing to do with the story a trilogy wants to tell and is all about production and pragmatic considerations. That's a fine thing for producers to crack their skulls on, but frankly as the customer I just want the best possible story, and I'm willing to be patient in order to get it.
For about 99.999999999999999999999% of their existence, the star wards movies are going to be a trilogy that was already finished by the time you start watching it. My children would be watching Star Wars at any rate they'd like - all three movies the same evening, if they care for it (did that one, which was a load of fun).
So for 99.99999999999999999999999% of the time, it's better that the consideration you list be nullified and clear space for actual story considerations. Those are the times that are relevant to the question, "was 'The Empire Strikes Back' a good movie?'".
And I believe the answer is a resounding YES. Not only does it have numerous cool aspect that make it stand as an adventure movie, it also serves perfectly to transition the story of the trilogy from it's innocent beginning to it's ultimate and fateful ending.
@Rynjin,
Yeah, the Harry Potter books are of course a story with a VERY different structure than that of Star Wars... it's much longer and as you said episodic in nature. Not every story has to be episodic to be good (that is, some stories work better as a single line of plot rather than a discreet set of mini-plot that all string together to create a meta plot).
Basically, you said it yourself. Star Wards and Harry Potter are different kinds of stories, non is inherently better than the other, and I believe both are solid examples of GOOD stories of their structure. No point saying Star Wars was bad because it's different (in almost every possible way) from Harry Potter.
I feel like you and I are talking in entirely different levels here... what I understand to be the main argument of your post has nothing to do with the story a trilogy wants to tell and is all about production and pragmatic considerations. That's a fine thing for producers to crack their skulls on, but frankly as the customer I just want the best possible story, and I'm willing to be patient in order to get it.
Well, this is almost certainly not true. People's expectations are shaped by what they're familiar with. This is one reason why literary tropes exist and are used, because they are accepted and understood parts of telling a story. Similarly, the forms of stories are not just a marketing tool, but also a key part of framing the narrative in terms of the audience's expectations. Violate those expectations too badly, and you lose the audience.
That's one reason why so much classic opera is not performed any more; centuries of tradition have codified how long an opera should be, and the ones that are too long or two short tend not to be performed because the audience doesn't like it. That's one reason that most modern plays have eliminated the introspective monologue as a dramatic technique -- the modern audience finds it boring instead of illuminating. (It's one reason that the use of voiceovers has dropped off -- compare the use of voiceovers in "Murder, My Sweet," compared with the recent "Great Gatsby." That's fifty years of audience change you're looking at there. In both cases, the voiceovers were used to get inside the head of a a limited narrator and draw on the incredibly powerful language of a very gifted author, but it worked for the audience in the 20th century in a way that it didn't work for the 21st.)
I doubt you'd be patient enough to sit through nine hours of film, but sitting through nine hours of opera at one point was commonplace, because opera was supposed to be an all-day affair. (If you would be that patient, you're in the vast minority, as the box office receipts show. If you go beyond two hours, which fifty years ago was the standard length of the movie, audience drops dramatically. The target length now is about 90 minutes.)
So, basically, familiarity controls audience response. People don't like what they're unfamiliar with....
I donna know gang, what do you think, Summer Glau and a guy like me?No. I don't think so.
Heh..actually walked by her once at Dragon Con 2006, I sorta stared and she smiled seductively at me which kinda made me go whaaat..and then her bodyguard/escort pushed her along.
Whedon is correct in the statement that The Empire Strikes Back resolves nothing, but (IMO) wildly off the mark about it being some kind of 'Cardinal Sin'. Empire up the ante and makes the villains into a serious threat, rather than the standard cardboard badguys who are invincible to everyone except the heroes, to whom they fall over like a house of cards.
Not much too see here though. Nobody is going to be right 100% of the time. Nor wrong 100% of the time either.
I totally agree...I was first saw Empire when I was 11 and was shocked what happened to Luke and the others (wasn't too bothered about C3P0)...I think I went into the movie expected the heroes to finish the movie ok depsite the title..I think it was the first movie I saw where the good guys didn't come out on top..
Imagine watched Game of Thrones unspoiled in a less grimdark entertainment culture..that is what Empire was to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Slightly relevant bit of trivia:
The reason that "pop music" songs have a typical/standard length of around 3.5-4 minutes is that this was the maximum recording length you could achieve on the wax recording cylinders that were the first mass medium for recorded music. By the time they had developed coal and then vinyl records, the audience expectation for how long a song should be had been set and endured long after it became a technological limitation.
I wouldn't say "very unusual". It's pretty common in fantasy to have a series be one long story spread over several books. Partly due to Tolkien's influence the trilogy is very common. Common enough to be a standard fantasy trope.
Less common in SF, I think and much rarer in other genres.There are certainly many examples of loosely connected series or even fairly tightly connected ones that are still more complete in themselves, but plenty of examples of books in a series that don't stand on their own.
Zelazny's Amber would be an earlier example. ASoIaF and The Wheel of Time are more recent ones.
And let's not forget the trilogy that's growing in popularity in fantasy circles: The Kingkiller Trilogy by Patrick Rothfuss. Fantasy has plenty of examples of many books being used to complete a large story arch without any of them being self contained.
Maybe this tendency that appears to be used more in the fantasy genre than others is what makes it somewhat unique in its story-telling mode.
Pres Man, what exactly was the point of posting this?
You had to know that your opinions of Whedon and his works would not be shared by most people posting here. At best you're deliberately starting a flame war. At worst you're shocasing your own ignorance in the field of dramatic analysis, character study and story structure.
So what were you hoping to accomplish?
the emperor has no clothes, it seems.
[threadjack]
From watching the Serenity movie, I just wondered how a bunch of manic and maniacal, crazed and incoherent Reavers:
a) Get into and on a space craft,
b) don't destroy it,
c) pilot it successfully and then
d) land successfully, successfully reave and then do a-d all over again ad infinitum.
I mean they look about as capable of coherent thought as a raging vegepygmy on madness-pesh and look to have the team building skills of carnivores at an all you can eat freaktasm:
Scene - inside the Reaver Ship.
Reaver 1, swaying about almost without direction: (not particularly to anybody) "Graaah graaah gah grah raaaah rash rash!" (Probably not saying "Captain, we have detected an offensive weapon array targeting our vertical thrusters!)
Reaver 2 similarly motively guided: (not particularly to anybody either) "Raaaah raah raah graaah gah!" (Probably not saying "F89k! It's the verisimilitude police! I told Whedon the reverse time machine would fail and we'd be stuck here in these awful parodies of post apocalyptic zombie attire for eternity...It's a shame our act here as mindless cannibals is completely at variance with the lore pertaining to our swamping the galaxy. Our portrayal is definitely at odds with any kind of organization or even semi-successful-if-completely-chaotic-marauding..."
Reaver 3 - swaying inconsolably near the computerstuff: (not particularly to anybody as well)
"Graargh raargh raaaah grahhh rgahgrhgah" (Probably not saying "It won't give me my quarter back! And for what it's worth OSW - you're a douchebag!")
Still, I liked Firefly.Very nice. A real shame.
[/threadjack]
I wouldn't say "very unusual". It's pretty common in fantasy to have a series be one long story spread over several books. Partly due to Tolkien's influence the trilogy is very common. Common enough to be a standard fantasy trope.
Less common in SF, I think and much rarer in other genres.There are certainly many examples of loosely connected series or even fairly tightly connected ones that are still more complete in themselves, but plenty of examples of books in a series that don't stand on their own.
Zelazny's Amber would be an earlier example. ASoIaF and The Wheel of Time are more recent ones.
Yes, but Amber is arguably only 2 novels split up for publishing. At the time they were written, short pieces that could be sent in the mail to subscribers were a big thing. I haven't seen them new for sale except in the Big Book of Amber. In the 70s, when the Corwyn Cycle was written, there weren't many 500 page fantasy or Sci Fi novels, but you can find hundreds under 200 pages, many of dubious quality. Now 400+ pages is normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making no statement as to the respective opinions of Joss Whedon or Kevin Smith, Empire has always been my least favorite of the original SW trilogy. It's a movie of brilliant set pieces that starts in the middle and ends in the middle and ultimately has a lot of narrative motion but not a lot of narrative movement. It is the middle-moviest middle movie that ever middle movied.Yeah, I completely agree with this.
I really enjoy Empire, but it resolves nothing. You can't just watch Empire without watching anything else. You can... but I can't imagine you'd get much out of it. It assumes a lot of familiarity with the main characters and all it does is set up more and more conflict to be resolved... at some point after the credits roll.
I love Empire. It's my favorite of the Star Wars movies. And I think you (and Whedon) have good points. The movie is very middle movie-esque. But that's also one of its major structural elements, being part of a serial rather than a stand-alone movie. I think it works even better in that role now that all the movies are easily available on DVD - you no longer have a multi-year wait between the start of the serial with Episode IV and each of its follow-ups.
Empire also, of course, rides on the incredible popularity of its predecessor. Had Star Wars not been such a cultural phenomenon, the structure of Empire with its reliance on knowing the characters and the setting wouldn't have worked very well.
OSW congratulations on finally figuring out what I think everyone knows... that the reavers are not zombies. They have full use of their skills and cleverness. They are just massively aggressive to the point where they even enjoy pain and especially enjoy inflicting it.