I think Joss Whedon is over-rated!

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Agreed. Whedon may not be the second coming or anything, but have you guys forgotten all the generic, cliched, one-dimensional writing we usually got in our scifi back then?! VOY, Stargate, Sliders, Earth: FC, Zena...

I don't know how any self-respecting scifi fan could NOT have been impressed by the witty, fresh, and original writing of Whedon's shows in comparison.

Exactly so. Throw Babylon 5 and its associated sequels/spinoffs into the list too, as far as plodding, pedantic dialogue and overly-familiar, predictable plotting is concerned.

Farscape is rather a nice exception, though.

It's hard to talk about popular fiction to people who don't get Whedon. It really is. Sometimes one can have a meeting of the minds over nuBSG. Otherwise...meh.

 

[Pingfah]

By network TV standards, every show Sci-Fi channel ever showed was low rated, and that includes outstanding work like SG-1 and Atlantis.

Erm, every show Sci-fi Channel ever showed wasn't on Network TV.

Network or cable, it would have gotten the same ratings...my point is that low ratings (in the eyes of the Big 4 networks) does not mean a bad show, as there are plenty of very GOOD shows on cable that would be considered failures by Big 4 ratings standards.

I did not say they were bad shows, I love Buffy, Angel, Firefly and (to a lesser extent) Dollhouse.

I was merely commenting that compared to the big network shows he competes with, his shows are not that popular.

 

[Phily B]

Agreed. Whedon may not be the second coming or anything, but have you guys forgotten all the generic, cliched, one-dimensional writing we usually got in our scifi back then?! VOY, Stargate, Sliders, Earth: FC, Zena...

I don't know how any self-respecting scifi fan could NOT have been impressed by the witty, fresh, and original writing of Whedon's shows in comparison.

Exactly so. Throw Babylon 5 and its associated sequels/spinoffs into the list too, as far as plodding, pedantic dialogue and overly-familiar, predictable plotting is concerned.

Farscape is rather a nice exception, though.

It's hard to talk about popular fiction to people who don't get Whedon. It really is. Sometimes one can have a meeting of the minds over nuBSG. Otherwise...meh.

Babylon 5? Really? Its better than anything Whedon has done.

 

[Neroon]

Please, everyone ... let's stay away form the "my show is better than your show" mindset, or at least the expression thereof.

 

[Lindley]

Babylon 5? Really? Its better than anything Whedon has done.

It really depends on what you're looking for in a show. B5 is much better at telling an epic story; Whedon is much better at crafting great characters.

That's not to say that B5 doesn't have a few great characters, or that Joss hasn't told some great stories. But the emphasis is different.

You can tell by the treatment of bad guys. Most of the minor bad guys on B5 are extreme cliches---to say the least. The big bad, the one you had to believe in....he's hardly featured at all. Just a name they throw around a lot. By contrast, on Buffy and Angel, the big bad was always featured heavily; and to the extent that there was a story arc, it was about all of that character's various schemes and plans. If the villain had been faceless the entire "arc" would have been nonexistent.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Exactly so. Throw Babylon 5 and its associated sequels/spinoffs into the list too, as far as plodding, pedantic dialogue and overly-familiar, predictable plotting is concerned.

Ok, what are you smoking? JMS's dialogue was one the the BEST things about B5. It's VERY witty, and has lots and lots of really pithy moments, esp when G'kar and Londo go at each other.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Erm, every show Sci-fi Channel ever showed wasn't on Network TV.

Network or cable, it would have gotten the same ratings...my point is that low ratings (in the eyes of the Big 4 networks) does not mean a bad show, as there are plenty of very GOOD shows on cable that would be considered failures by Big 4 ratings standards.

I did not say they were bad shows, I love Buffy, Angel, Firefly and (to a lesser extent) Dollhouse.

I was merely commenting that compared to the big network shows he competes with, his shows are not that popular.

Ok, I'll agree with that.

 

[I am not Spock]

I don't think he's perfect. No-one is. I love Buffy, Angel, and Firefly. Dollhouse needs to find its feet still.

What he is, though, is a damn fine genre writer. I think he deserves all the plaudits.

 

[Lindley]

Exactly so. Throw Babylon 5 and its associated sequels/spinoffs into the list too, as far as plodding, pedantic dialogue and overly-familiar, predictable plotting is concerned.

Ok, what are you smoking? JMS's dialogue was one the the BEST things about B5. It's VERY witty, and has lots and lots of really pithy moments, esp when G'kar and Londo go at each other.

B5 had great monologs. Its dialog was not up to the same standards.

Oh, there were some good exchanges, but there were plenty of cringeworthy ones as well. And the fact that JMS wrote so much of the show meant that at times characters who should not have had any reason to use similar turns of phrase, did so.

 

[Forbin]

I think Whedon himself was correct when talking about his forte. He knows how to write emotions.

He may not know squat about how to write about science, the military, or men with functional testicals, but he knows how to write emotions.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Exactly so. Throw Babylon 5 and its associated sequels/spinoffs into the list too, as far as plodding, pedantic dialogue and overly-familiar, predictable plotting is concerned.

Ok, what are you smoking? JMS's dialogue was one the the BEST things about B5. It's VERY witty, and has lots and lots of really pithy moments, esp when G'kar and Londo go at each other.

B5 had great monologs. Its dialog was not up to the same standards.

Oh, there were some good exchanges, but there were plenty of cringeworthy ones as well. And the fact that JMS wrote so much of the show meant that at times characters who should not have had any reason to use similar turns of phrase, did so.

First and foremost, I consider Babylon 5 one of my favorite shows. That being said, I am painfully aware of the dialogue shortcomings. Yes, the monologues were great, lyrical and well-written. At times, the everyday human dialogue could be stilted, banal, overly formal, and almost ready-made. Too directed and too unnatural.

I know JMS is on record stating that he wanted a certain linguistic formality among the humans, and has given his reasons for doing so. However, in hindsight, I feel this was a mistake. TNG already had the market on formalized English. JMS should've turned to more naturalistic, easy going dialogue. Like Wheadon after him.

E! did one of those Scott Baio-hosted Behind the Scenes on the making of "The Gathering", which I've been looking for a copy for years now. Used to have it on VHS, but that's another story. Anyway, everyone kept saying in the interviews how these were going to be more down-to-Earth humans with everyday problems, lovers, tainted relationships, the whole nine yards. They wouldn't speak in that overly grammatical English. They would speak like the average Garabaldi.

And in the pilot, it sort of was like that. Then in the series it kinda stopped in favor of what felt like standardized speech patterns.

Oh, well. It is what it is and I still love the show.

Now Joss, he can write some snappy dialogue. It's one of the things I enjoyed about his shows. Although I preferred Angel over Buffy, and Firefly most of all. Dollhouse, from the first few episodes, seemed to lack that Whedon spark in both story and dialogue. I wasn't looking for him to repeat himself but it couldn't quite grab me. Yeah, I hear it's gotten better. Maybe I'll give it another go.

 

[3D Master]

I think Whedon himself was correct when talking about his forte. He knows how to write emotions.

He may not know squat about how to write about science, the military, or men with functional testicals, but he knows how to write emotions.

If he doesn't know how to write men with testicals, he doesn't know how to write their emotions either.

Which, incidentally, is one of his major failings.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

If he doesn't know how to write men with testicals, he doesn't know how to write their emotions either.

"Testicles".

 

[cultcross]

I think Whedon himself was correct when talking about his forte. He knows how to write emotions.

He may not know squat about how to write about science, the military, or men with functional testicals, but he knows how to write emotions.

I think Firefly saved him on the count of being able to write men decently. Angel was getting there, but had rather too much holdover from Buffy, a show where a sizeable proportion of the male characters were either evil, or a blithering idiot. Or both.
But Firefly has a range of believable male characters with a realistic arrangement of personalities and attributes.

 

[darthraidr]

i enjoy most of Joss Whedon's work. but i do think the fans go overboard with their love for all things whedon. the fans have made me less of a fan. he's a lot like Kevin Smith in regards to fandom and fame in the geek community.

in the end, i'll check out what's he's doing because in the past i've liked it. but i won't simply like it because Joss has his name attached.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Fan(atics)s can turn you off anything. I hated Tarantino for years largely because of his fans. It's especially bad when it's a "geek" who's made it in Hollywood (Whedon, Smith, Tarantino...).

 

[Forbin]

ECHO! (echo, echo, echo...)

 

[SinglePurpose]

Meh, if the fans are annoying just ignore them. Why would you want to let someone ruin something that you might enjoy?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

JMS's dialogue was one the the BEST things about B5. It's VERY witty...

Witty? On the level of an eighth-grade lunchroom cut-down session, at best. Sorry, if the prolix dialogue, tedious soliloquies and adolescent humor of that show really impress one then one ought not to be challenging other folks on their taste.

 

[davejames]

Exactly so. Throw Babylon 5 and its associated sequels/spinoffs into the list too, as far as plodding, pedantic dialogue and overly-familiar, predictable plotting is concerned.

Ok, what are you smoking? JMS's dialogue was one the the BEST things about B5. It's VERY witty, and has lots and lots of really pithy moments, esp when G'kar and Londo go at each other.

Sorry, I found the dialogue on that show dull and pretentious as all hell. The characters never felt real or human to me, and only seemed to exist to make "deep and profound" observations about war, racism, or some other issue in every other scene.

I really wanted to like this show, but I just found the dialogue really tiresome and heavy-handed.

I admit a lot of Whedon's characters talk the same (and have the exact same sense of humor), but least they don't take themselves so damn seriously and are actually kind of fun to be around.