Jump to content

Joss Whedon: So Cancelled His Thread Got a Sequel


Poobah

Recommended Posts

They're still at it too, in the responses to today WaPo article on the matter.

They even have gone so far as to declare the women went on to work with Polanski and Woody Allan, so, you know, they're just whining about nothing. A lot of those guys are revealing, w/o even noticing, their incel allegience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Zorral said:

They're still at it too, in the responses to today WaPo article on the matter.

They even have gone so far as to declare the women went on to work with Polanski and Woody Allan, so, you know, they're just whining about nothing. A lot of those guys are revealing, w/o even noticing, their incel allegience.

That comment section is truly depressing. Lots of name dropping.

I've seen Kubrick's name thrown around more than once. Was he tough because he was stroking his own ego on those sets or he was trying to achieve something great? I'd say it was the latter. There is only one reported instance where he was particularly brutal with an actor and that was Shelly Duvall. Details are thin, but everyone acknowledges he was especially tough on her. I wouldn't care to speculate as to how but I can't imagine it comes to close to anecdotes about Joss' behaviour.

Everyone else who has ever worked with him has nothing but good things to say. As far as I know, the only time Kubrick got romantically involved with an actor, he married her. They remained in that relationship until his death. 

Believe it or not, it is possible to be demanding, "tough" boss without fostering a corrosive work environment. What do I mean by this? The episode where Whedon spent 90 minutes publicly humiliating a staff writer for a sub-par script is an example of not doing it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

That comment section is truly depressing. Lots of name dropping.

I've seen Kubrick's name thrown around more than once. Was he tough because he was stroking his own ego on those sets or he was trying to achieve something great? I'd say it was the latter. There is only one reported instance where he was particularly brutal with an actor and that was Shelly Duvall. Details are thin, but everyone acknowledges he was especially tough on her. I wouldn't care to speculate as to how but I can't imagine it comes to close to anecdotes about Joss' behaviour.

Everyone else who has ever worked with him has nothing but good things to say. As far as I know, the only time Kubrick got romantically involved with an actor, he married her. They remained in that relationship until his death. 

Believe it or not, it is possible to be demanding, "tough" boss without fostering a corrosive work environment. What do I mean by this? The episode where Whedon spent 90 minutes publicly humiliating a staff writer for a sub-par script is an example of not doing it right. 

I thought malcom mcdowel had some thing to say about kubrick to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That they will lie about the young women with whom JW was working, that they also worked for Polanski (who hasn't even been in the USA since before these women were born) and Allan, with whom not a single one has ever worked either, shows what utter massive assholes they are.  Ignorant too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are setting themselves up for a good deal of disappointment and no small amount of cognitive dissonance if they expect those who provide a service to also be morally virtuous. We speak of Whedon and his numerous failings, Kubrick has already been mentioned, Hitchcock probably will be, there is no small notoriety associated with the likes of David O Russel, James Cameron, David Fincher and many, many others. Disney, Apple, and most other major players in the entertainment industry are falling over themselves trying to win over China, which is the modern day Nazi Germany with their ongoing genocidal activities.

More power to people if they feel a thrilling surge of righteousness at loudly declaring how appalled they are at these sordid deeds, and if they so fancy, perhaps boycotting the work of the offensive rapscallions.

I too will not watch Whedon's stuff, mostly because I think his work is substandard. No way will I ever have a problem with Hitchcock or Kubrick though. They may have been terrible people. A pity, but it certainly worked out for them, though - they were amazing storytellers. I will also continue watching Disney shows. People are for the most part incredibly evil. What can ya do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the difference is that Cameron works people hard and at times had meltdowns on set (less so as he got older), but he was also usually the first person on set and the last person to leave and threw himself into every insane situation he asked his actors to go through. I've met some people who worked with Cameron and they noted that they had no problems with all the things he asked them to do because they were used to tough, fast shoots on tight budgets in the UK, but some other people really couldn't hack it because they hadn't been in that environment before. Like actors throwing fits because Cameron insisted on them sitting in a water tank for entire days of shooting on Titanic, even between shots, but Cameron was literally sitting in the water with them, so a lot of the other actors (and certainly all the stunt players) were damned if they were going to complain.

There's the stories of working on Aliens in the UK and really butting heads with the crew to start with but they respected his work ethic and ended up with a film they were all extremely proud of.

OTOH, you have Spielberg who by all accounts is surprisingly chill on set given his reputation and usually has good ways of getting good results out of people, with relatively rare meltdowns or problems. Spielberg is the master of pre-planning, though, and seems to have had the most problems where the planning was substandard or he realised he hadn't spent enough time with his eye on the script in the early stages of planning and it was too late to course-correct (most volubly on The Lost World).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't think there's much comparison to the worst parts of what Whedon is accused of - and even now admitted - and the notorious things Kubrick did.  Which, to be clear, were still wrong and a director should not be allowed to do.  Here's a good interview from just last year where Shelley Duvall discusses her experience.  As for McDowell, his only real gripe seems to be the iconic torture was, indeed, actually torture:

Quote

Talking about an actual injury he sustained on set, McDowell said, “And of course this doctor comes over and he’s the guy in the movie. ‘You’ll have no problem, your eyes will be anesthetized,’ he said. ‘You won’t feel a thing.’ Well, famous last words. That wasn’t exactly accurate. So they scratch my corneas and then a week later [Kubrick] says: ‘I’ve seen all the stuff, and it’s great, but I need a real close-up of the eye.’ And I went: ‘Well, why don’t you do it on the stunt double? That’s what he gets paid for.’ ‘Malcolm, your eyes are… I can’t do that.’ So I had to go back in and do it again! And of course, they scratch my corneas [again], nothing like originally, but I knew it was coming. That was torture because I knew what to expect… but, you know, it was worth it.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whedon's work seems to be rather interesting now. He succeeded at creating rather iconic female characters with Buffy, Willow, Tara, Faith, etc. ... but insofar as his emotional involvement is concerned, he was *never* close to those women as characters, but identified with the sadistic male serial killer he had to have in most or all of his shows.

That doesn't destroy the work as such - especially since lots of other people contributed to Buffy and Angel - but it really highlights the fact that art is really different from the creator ... and that this is a really good thing.

One wonders how much of Whedon is in the piece of shit that is Buffy's Warren - in light of the fact the guy actually very much identifies with the Dollmaker from Dollhouse. Both the sex bot thing in Buffy as well as Warren turning his ex into a mindless slave seem to have been precursors to the Dollhouse idea ... and things Joss Whedon may have gotten off of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is free to draw the line where they please. If what Whedon did is unacceptable but what Kubrick or Cameron did is acceptable is where one wants to land, that is certainly a preference. And not a wrong one. These things are relative to one's comfort.

But it seems to me exhausting to not separate the artist from the art because so many people in power turn out to be awful. If the artist's  actions are illegal, hopefully there will be legal consequences, or they can be held accountable by some punitive lawsuit or such. Beyond that, I can't bring myself to personally care. One's miles may vary, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IFR said:

But it seems to me exhausting to not separate the artist from the art because so many people in power turn out to be awful. If the artist's  actions are illegal, hopefully there will be legal consequences, or they can be held accountable by some punitive lawsuit or such. Beyond that, I can't bring myself to personally care. One's miles may vary, of course.

Yeah it's never bothered me either, I'm totally fine compartmentalizing it and I'm not gonna feel bad about watching The Pianist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I thought malcom mcdowel had some thing to say about kubrick to.

McDowell's story has changed over the years. I don't know what he said about Kubrick but he later claimed he said those things because Kubrick ghosted him after the film was released and he thought they had become friends. This isn't about the eye injury.

17 minutes ago, IFR said:

I think people are setting themselves up for a good deal of disappointment and no small amount of cognitive dissonance if they expect those who provide a service to also be morally virtuous. We speak of Whedon and his numerous failings, Kubrick has already been mentioned, Hitchcock probably will be, there is no small notoriety associated with the likes of David O Russel, James Cameron, David Fincher and many, many others. Disney, Apple, and most other major players in the entertainment industry are falling over themselves trying to win over China, which is the modern day Nazi Germany with their ongoing genocidal activities.

More power to people if they feel a thrilling surge of righteousness at loudly declaring how appalled they are at these sordid deeds, and if they so fancy, perhaps boycotting the work of the offensive rapscallions.

I too will not watch Whedon's stuff, mostly because I think his work is substandard. No way will I ever have a problem with Hitchcock or Kubrick though. They may have been terrible people. A pity, but it certainly worked out for them, though - they were amazing storytellers. I will also continue watching Disney shows. People are for the most part incredibly evil. What can ya do?

Hitchcock has been accused of sexually assaulting an actress. What has Kubrick been accused of? Seriously, I'm not trying to show-up anyone, I'm just wondering if there's something I'm unaware of. 

Regarding your last point about separating the art from the artist, I accept that some of them will hold to views that I find objectionable or may have engaged in behavior I find repulsive. Where I definitely draw the line is when they use their time, wealth and good name to promote their views. Orson Scott Card is the prime example. Sometimes there's a grey area.

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think the difference is that Cameron works people hard and at times had meltdowns on set (less so as he got older), but he was also usually the first person on set and the last person to leave and threw himself into every insane situation he asked his actors to go through. I've met some people who worked with Cameron and they noted that they had no problems with all the things he asked them to do because they were used to tough, fast shoots on tight budgets in the UK, but some other people really couldn't hack it because they hadn't been in that environment before. Like actors throwing fits because Cameron insisted on them sitting in a water tank for entire days of shooting on Titanic, even between shots, but Cameron was literally sitting in the water with them, so a lot of the other actors (and certainly all the stunt players) were damned if they were going to complain.

There's the stories of working on Aliens in the UK and really butting heads with the crew to start with but they respected his work ethic and ended up with a film they were all extremely proud of.

Cameron is also someone who knows peoples jobs as well as they do. I don't know if he's ever done hair and makeup though. Titanic was a notoriously difficult shoot.

The UK crew was definitely difficult for Cameron on Aliens, and there was a bit of a culture clash. I think one of them even said there was some resentment over this "nobody director" doing the sequel to Ridley Scotts Alien. 

But there's a distinction to be made between being a tough, demanding director and just being a total psychopath. You're talking about a fundamentally creative process where some people are massively motivated and others are just collecting a paycheck. Maybe they have personal shit going on and they're taking it out on their co-workers. There's going to be some friction.

But I doubt Cameron ever took 90 consecutive minutes out of a working day to publicly humiliate one of his subordinates. That isn't dedication to the craft. There's no "art" there. That's just a ridiculous, egotistical power trip. Not to mention the whole "tortured soul" who "just had to" screw everything in sight malarkey. Gimme a break. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah it's never bothered me either, I'm totally fine compartmentalizing it and I'm not gonna feel bad about watching The Pianist.

It helps that movies and TV are collaborative and tons of people are involved. Like I'd never listen to Bill Cosby's stand up again, but I'll watch Ghost Dad! Ok probably not but my point stands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RumHam said:

It helps that movies and TV are collaborative and tons of people are involved. Like I'd never listen to Bill Cosby's stand up again, but I'll watch Ghost Dad! Ok probably not but my point stands. 

Yeah that's true.  I never liked Cosby anyway, but if I did I'd have a hard time watching something as individualized as his standup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of The Things about Kubrick, is that he directed the film made from novel Lolita, and thus has a whole lot to do with propagating the idea to the audiences that Lolita was a knowing seductress whose wiles made HH kidnap her, rape her repeatedly, and so on and so forth -- also older than was the novel's Dolores-Lolita. Many cannot watch this film w/o this in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing comments about Joss Whedon and Lena Dunham having "redemption articles" come out this week. What did Lena Dunham do exactly?

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

One of The Things about Kubrick, is that he directed the film made from novel Lolita, and thus has a whole lot to do with propagating the idea to the audiences that Lolita was a knowing seductress whose wiles made HH kidnap her, rape her repeatedly, and so on and so forth -- also older than was the novel's Dolores-Lolita. Many cannot watch this film w/o this in mind.

Speaking of Lolita, I was listening to the "Once Upon a Time in the Valley" podcast series on the Tracy Lords scandal (which is interesting BTW) and something that stands out to me is a remark by (stage name) Veronica Hart. Hart had a few bit parts in Paul Thomas Anderson films but never really crossed over to "straight" films.  Many adult film stars of the 70s and 80s were trained stage/screen actors in their own right and started doing it to pay the bills in between acting jobs. Hart was one of those with ambitions to cross over. 

Anyway, her observation was that the behind the scenes, sexist, "casting couch", behavior in "straight" Hollywood was much worse than it was in the adult film biz at the time. Food for thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

What did Lena Dunham do exactly?

Most of Lena Dunham's bullshit involves idiocy she's said or tweeted rather than active abuse (there is the moment where she wrote in her book a story that involved her regularly putting her fingers in her baby sibling's vagina when she was like seven or eight, but even there it's like - kid's do stupid shit at that age sometimes out of ignorance, it's the fact that she's grown up still thinking that's a hilarious anecdote that was the real issue), she's certainly not Whedon level of person, but she comes off as pretty horrendous.

And looking back, knowing that she told that story while also being aware that by then she'd been responsible for outing said sibling as trans to her parents without their consent seems to be a bit of an issue when you read that Cyrus had problems and still does (or did in 2014 at least) with Dunham using them and their troubles as basically a prop for her own life. 


And she did defend a potential abuser once, when a Girls writer was accused of rape she dismissed the victim as a liar claiming to know it couldn't possibly be true, but more recently wrote an article in which among other things she admitted that she hadn't known that and was just lying to protect a friend.

I mean, if you really want to get a list, there's a lot. Like I say, nothing that stands out as her herself doing anything Whedon level of abuse of power, but enough that I strongly suspect the redemption article is gonna go down just as well coz she seems incapable of not sticking her foot in her mouth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOME THINGS ARE NOT FOR SHARING. 

These kids with their social medias and the twitters and such. 

Here's a conversation reported in the book Easy Riders Raging Bulls between Paramount executives Don Simpson and Robert Evans. Simpson received the phone call at home at around midnight. Evans had just arrived in Malta, where Robert Altman was shooting Popeye:

Quote

Evans: Don? Don? (a hoarse voice whispered)

Simpson: Who is this?

Evans: It's Robert... Evans.

Simpson: Where are you?

Evans: I'm in Malta. I gotta problem. I need your help.

Simpson: (Sigh) Bob, could we talk about it tomorrow?

Evans: No, We can't. They lost my bags.

(What Simpson wanted to say was, "I'm President of Production, I'm not in charge of 'bags'." What he said instead was...)

Simpson: Gee Bob, I'm sorry.

Evans: You Understand? They lost my bags; And everything in them?

Simpson: Yeah.

Evans: Don, I had things in them. Don, A lot of 'things'. Because I was helping Altman out too. This... is for the film.

Simpson: ...Holy shit.

Evans: You got to get on the phone and call Henry [Kissinger]....

The next day, he got his luggage and everyone lived happily ever after.  

A fella can wrap his head around stuff like this. This new shit is too cutting edge for me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Hitchcock has been accused of sexually assaulting an actress. What has Kubrick been accused of? Seriously, I'm not trying to show-up anyone, I'm just wondering if there's something I'm unaware of. 

Oh, no worries! I don't take your post as antagonistic.

To answer your question, the most notorious behavior of Kubrick, to my knowledge, was his abuse of Shelley Duvall. Perhaps you disagree that it was abuse, or perhaps think that it was the sort of abuse that is acceptable for the art that is produced? No one can draw that line for you, of course. It wasn't sexual assault, but to that I say so what? Sexual assault isn't the only damaging behavior that exists, and clearly Duvall was affected in a dramatic and deleterious way by her time in The Shining. And Kubrick had a general reputation as a very harsh and demanding director.

What about Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman in Kill Bill? He seems remorseful now, but he deliberately put Thurman in a situation that jeopardized her life and resulted in serious injury. Is that an acceptable form of abuse for art?

Then there's Bernard Bertolucci and The Last Tango in Paris, not to mention old Hollywood in general.

Etc. Too many tales of Hollywood misdeeds to recite here.

13 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Regarding your last point about separating the art from the artist, I accept that some of them will hold to views that I find objectionable or may have engaged in behavior I find repulsive. Where I definitely draw the line is when they use their time, wealth and good name to promote their views. Orson Scott Card is the prime example. Sometimes there's a grey area.

Sure, that's fine as a preference. Some people may even take that to its next step, and refuse to watch any movie with actors or directors who affiliate with a party that is disagreeable to one's own ideology.

For me personally, if I lose my copy of Ender's Game I'll buy a new one without a second thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IFR said:

Oh, no worries! I don't take your post as antagonistic.

To answer your question, the most notorious behavior of Kubrick, to my knowledge, was his abuse of Shelley Duvall. Perhaps you disagree that it was abuse, or perhaps think that it was the sort of abuse that is acceptable for the art that is produced? No one can draw that line for you, of course. It wasn't sexual assault, but to that I say so what? Sexual assault isn't the only damaging behavior that exists, and clearly Duvall was affected in a dramatic and deleterious way by her time in The Shining. And Kubrick had a general reputation as a very harsh and demanding director.

What about Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman in Kill Bill? He seems remorseful now, but he deliberately put Thurman in a situation that jeopardized her life and resulted in serious injury. Is that an acceptable form of abuse for art?

Then there's Bernard Bertolucci and The Last Tango in Paris, not to mention old Hollywood in general.

Etc. Too many tales of Hollywood misdeeds to recite here.

Sure, that's fine as a preference. Some people may even take that to its next step, and refuse to watch any movie with actors or directors who affiliate with a party that is disagreeable to one's own ideology.

For me personally, if I lose my copy of Ender's Game I'll buy a new one without a second thought.

Yeah, I think "no sexual assault" is actually a pretty easy line to draw.

The THR interview on the Shelly Duvall on the Shining situation is really interesting. It was a long, difficult shoot and Kubrick should have been more sensitive to her physical and emotional situation; no question. Same for Bertolucci and Last Tango. If those films were made today, that would be the case.

The Uma Thurman Kill Bill situation is as egregious, if not more. It's difficult to "rank" these things but at least that's something specific you can point to and it's much more recent. That car on that road at that speed with a, untrained driver? Tarantino should have known better. And for what? so the wind would whip her hair a certain way? He should have just hidden a fan under the dashboard. Someone should have stepped in.

What does this even mean?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...