The Fall of Joss Whedon

[Noname Given]

Yes, she was still in HS when her relationship with Woody started , but she was also already well past the age of legal consent in both New York and Connecticut.

Also, Dylan vs Farrow is not truly a reliable source of information because its entire purpose is solely to get Woody Allen blacklisted and shunned (which is why I stopped watching it because that's not at all what I was looking for).

And here we go: Attack the victim. Why do you take Woody Allen's word over Dylan Farrow's? What makes him such a more reliable source of the truth for something like this?

You really believe the bullshit that Mia Farrow somehow brainwashed her child to believe Woody molested her when he didn't? What a load of bullshit.

 

[cooleddie74]

Just...wow.

 

[DigificWriter]

I'm not blaming anyone.

Dylan v Farrow was not a journalistic endeavor intended to expose the truth. It was a 'hit piece' produced solely to villify Woody Allen.

And I have no personal opinion whatsoever regarding Dylan's accusations, Woody's denials, or anything else when it comes to this whole situation.

I started trying to watch Dylan v Farrow because I was mildly curious about the subject matter, but what I didn't want was a one-sided "hit piece", and so I stopped watching when it became clear that that's what it was.

I won't watch or consume any piece of non-fiction media that doesn't deliver an unbiased accounting of its subject matter, regardless of what that subject matter is, because a one-sided POV is not appealing to me.

 

[matthunter]

Roddenberry had Carey banned from writing Trek novels after she dedicated her TNG novel Ghost Ship to a friend of hers killed in military service. "Star Trek is not about the military" speaketh Gene. That ban wasn't lifted until after Roddenberry died.

Didn't he name Khan after someone he served with, because he hoped he'd get in touch?

Fucking hypocrite.

 

[Ethros]

Given my av I'm obviously a fan of his older stuff, and do love Buffy/Angel/Firefly (Dollhouse is ok.)

But with or without all the claims agaisnt him, haven't been a fan since Age of Ultron anyway. God, the "Whedonisms" in that are unbearable, especially in the opening segement.

All the "please be a secret door, please be a secret door, yay!" and that soldier saying "no it wasn't!" I find so incredibly cringe and OTT "I'm Joss Whedon and I have to whacky all the time!" Always found him really annoying in interviews too, couldn't answer any question or talk about anything without doing lame gags all the time.
Like you don't have to make everything have some shit joke next to it. And obviously now see Justice League. He "fixed" Snyder's original by adding crappy quips & gags about brunch and whatever else.
Plus the Buffy quickly comics became an absolute mess.

So I'll stick with those original shows. As for now, fuck him

 

[Thestral]

And here we go: Attack the victim. Why do you take Woody Allen's word over Dylan Farrow's? What makes him such a more reliable source of the truth for something like this?

You really believe the bullshit that Mia Farrow somehow brainwashed her child to believe Woody molested her when he didn't? What a load of bullshit.

It's certainly possible for a parent to convince their child in that way. See: Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic of the 80s.

Which doesn't prove anything in favor of Woody Allen of course.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm not blaming anyone.

Dylan v Farrow was not a journalistic endeavor intended to expose the truth. It was a 'hit piece' produced solely to villify Woody Allen.

And I have no personal opinion whatsoever regarding Dylan's accusations, Woody's denials, or anything else when it comes to this whole situation.

I started trying to watch Dylan v Farrow because I was mildly curious about the subject matter, but what I didn't want was a one-sided "hit piece", and so I stopped watching when it became clear that that's what it was.

I won't watch or consume any piece of non-fiction media that doesn't deliver an unbiased accounting of its subject matter, regardless of what that subject matter is, because a one-sided POV is not appealing to me.

Do you even realize you make yourself look worse and worse with each post in this thread?

 

[cooleddie74]

Oh, that ship sailed long ago and went down with all hands.

 

[theenglish]

Yes, she was still in HS when her relationship with Woody started , but she was also already well past the age of legal consent in both New York and Connecticut.

Also, Dylan vs Farrow is not truly a reliable source of information because its entire purpose is solely to get Woody Allen blacklisted and shunned (which is why I stopped watching it because that's not at all what I was looking for).

Yes, it was a one-sided portrayal but its purpose was to give voice to the people in the case who have not been heard from prior. Nobody is disputing the taking of photos. There is age of consent but there is also the factor of the power differential in the parties involved. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Soon-Ye was being groomed as a younger teenager.

 

[publiusr]

Jeff Greenwald's book Future Perfect: How Star Trek Conquered Planet Earth includes a bit about the sex parties at Braga's place in the mid-90s.

I just don’t get that. I’d I had a choice of having a harem for an evening...with women *voluntarily* wanting sex...or an evening dinner with Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson discussing spaceflight...I’d chose the latter.

Are people really that empty? I guess so...

 

[Tosk]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

[CorporalClegg]

I'm not blaming anyone.

Dylan v Farrow was not a journalistic endeavor intended to expose the truth. It was a 'hit piece' produced solely to villify Woody Allen.

And I have no personal opinion whatsoever regarding Dylan's accusations, Woody's denials, or anything else when it comes to this whole situation.

I started trying to watch Dylan v Farrow because I was mildly curious about the subject matter, but what I didn't want was a one-sided "hit piece", and so I stopped watching when it became clear that that's what it was.

I won't watch or consume any piece of non-fiction media that doesn't deliver an unbiased accounting of its subject matter, regardless of what that subject matter is, because a one-sided POV is not appealing to me.

Take out a loan and go buy a clue.

 

[publiusr]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Heh.

It all gets back to why folks have more problems with sex than violence on TV. It makes perfect sense to me. Wile E gets blown up it’s funny. Someone says they hate you...honest emotion.

Someone comes on to you...you have no idea what that person wants.

Maybe it ends up well. Maybe it’s a remake of AUDITION

 

[Guy Gardener]

Given my av I'm obviously a fan of his older stuff, and do love Buffy/Angel/Firefly (Dollhouse is ok.)

But with or without all the claims agaisnt him, haven't been a fan since Age of Ultron anyway. God, the "Whedonisms" in that are unbearable, especially in the opening segement.

All the "please be a secret door, please be a secret door, yay!" and that soldier saying "no it wasn't!" I find so incredibly cringe and OTT "I'm Joss Whedon and I have to whacky all the time!" Always found him really annoying in interviews too, couldn't answer any question or talk about anything without doing lame gags all the time.
Like you don't have to make everything have some shit joke next to it. And obviously now see Justice League. He "fixed" Snyder's original by adding crappy quips & gags about brunch and whatever else.
Plus the Buffy quickly comics became an absolute mess.

So I'll stick with those original shows. As for now, fuck him

Are you watching The Nevers?

A Whedon Show with no jokes.

Of course, he's been ejected from the Nevers, but he seems to be listed as the director for every episode in the first season which is 6 episodes.

The 15 foot tall 10 year is a recycled Dawn plot from the comics. Other than that it's some very serious adult women, at war with the English Empire personified by rich white old dudes.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tosk]

he seems to be listed as the director for every episode in the first season which is 6 episodes.

Episodes 3, 4, and 6 were directed by other people. There was a really inventive fight scene in ep 3, and I was (probably unfairly) surprised that it was not a Whedon ep.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Episodes 3, 4, and 6 were directed by other people. There was a really inventive fight scene in ep 3, and I was (probably unfairly) surprised that it was not a Whedon ep.

Creators get their names on every episode even if they stay home, and check out.

 

[Tosk]

Yes. But not as director. Not usually, at least.

 

[USS Firefly]

When it comes to not wanting to support anything Whedon is involved with, the one thing I'm torn on is the new Buffy/Angel & Firefly comics. To best of my knowledge isn't directly involved with them, but they still have his name on them, which I would assume means he does get some of the money from them.

I will keep buying the Firefly books, but they aren't written by Whedon. But having the Joss Whedon complete companion in my bookshelf feels strange

 

[N-121973]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Yeah, there will be a lot of discussion about re-entry in both. And in the Harem plenty of practical demonstrations.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's certainly possible for a parent to convince their child in that way. See: Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic of the 80s.

Which doesn't prove anything in favor of Woody Allen of course.

Yeah, it's not exactly an uncommon tactic in divorce proceedings for one parent to deliberately "poison" their children against the other. Or to lie before the courts so that the other parent will be made to look bad.