Kevin Smith vs. Joss Whedon

POSTED BY: reginaroadie
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 20:46
VIEWED: 10934
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

SPACEANJL

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:55 PM

I'm going to put in a small aside here...

I'm a fan of a certain school of thought, that espoused by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. People make their own gods.

Every 'supreme being' is just a concept of people, only somehow bigger and stronger and better. In the classical world, you had gods and demons, demi-gods and heroes, then later, fantasy writers gave us elves, and the world of gothic gave us vampires. But it's all just folks.

And maybe one day, we'll move past the idea of pointing at the sky or the ground and saying 'they made me do it.' Look within ourselves and find our own compass, instead of relying on an external force to take responsibility.

Guess you can tell where I stand, huh? But I think writing that seeks to show how people make their own choices and decisions, and live with the consequences thereof, is stronger than one which takes the decisions out of their hands at some final level.

MALACHITE

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
I am one of the peeps who likes and admires both Joss and Kevin for various reasons. And yes I think their beliefs play a part in their work to whatever degree.

There have been some fanatastic points above but I have to disagree about one of the points made about Buffy/Angel, in that there should be some sort of balance. Whilst both shows used the term 'hell' in various ways, I never saw that it meant the actual supposed Hell where the Devil/Satan resides. Just in the same way that I never saw the PTB as anything to do with God or Heaven. To me they were just what was seen or described, alternate dimensions. Not something actually based on any belief system. If that sounds right?

By this thought I don't see why there has to be a balance between good and evil in Joss's work. One of the things I picked up on, and always assumed, was that evil far outweighed the good in Joss's world, but the good still went in for the fight anyway. This is particularly well referenced in Buffy when she accepts her destiny as a slayer and Angel when he regains his sense of purpose or the final moments of the series. Impossible odds but they do it anyway.

To say there should be some kind of balance is to apply 'real world' themes to a work of fiction. But then again, if you are a believer in God and the Devil etc, where does it say that there are roughly as many angels of God as demons of the Devil?

Although some of my theory can be blown apart by the fact that vampires fear crosses, which pertain to some kind of higher power, but again it's never stated that it's God (although it may be another god).

Just my opinion.

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

I agree that there doesn't have to be a balance of good and evil. I think for the purpose of making some judgment whether one work is "stronger" than another, you have to decide what makes it "stronger". Saying that one work deals with both good and evil in an in depth way (i.e. is more balanced) and the other one doesn't, was one way of determining "strength" for this discussion. Rather than using the word "stronger", it may be better to compare and contrast the two, noting their different treatments of the concept of God/good powers.

Incidentally, I don't believe in a "balance" of good and evil in real life, either -- certainly not in the sense that good and evil are equal and opposite forces and that if the scale is tipped, some sort of cosmic equilibrium will be disturbed. In the end, I believe good will triumph over evil. Where's the balance in that?

Edit to add: Oops, I don't think you were responding to any of my comments about balance but instead were replying to Regina's comments about there having to be a balance between good and evil.

REGINAROADIE

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:07 PM

No, no, I didn't mind it. I only remember most of the stories from the Bible from what I heard at Sunday School a long time ago, so the "real" versions of them I'm not totally familiar with.

I'm not 100% sure. It's still in the planning stages. Right now we're just spitballing some ideas and figuring out the format and whose going to contribute to it. I don't think it's going to be a Dark Horizons or an AICN type site. More of a QuickStop Entertainment thing of just some guys from Regina writing about their favorite movies, TV shows and music. Along with those two essays I have in mind, I'm also thinking of dusting off some of my old film studies essays and posting them on there for content. One was about the sociology of today reflected in GARDEN STATE and it's zeitgeist quality, another is a look at THE SHINING and THE DEAD ZONE and how an auteur can be both faithful to the book as well as his own filmmaking and storytelling sensibilities, and a third one about the differences between American and Canadian cinema through ARMAGEDDON and LAST NIGHT.

One thing I'm looking forward to is our first podcast. I think it's going to be us reading off our ten best lists for 07, even though we're well into 08, and talking about the movies on the list and debating their qualities. We have similar tastes, but we can disagree in big ways over different films. We both loved NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, but he thinks ATONEMENT was boring after the first 40 minutes while I almost cried at the end of the film. He thought CONTROL was an amazing film about the front man for Joy Division, I was glad to see the selfish bastard hang himself at the end of the film and thought that music was blah. And I gave him ACROSS THE UNIVERSE because I loved it and thought it was a wonderful film, and he thought it was hollow and had no chemistry. So I think it's going to be a blast to record it and the inevitable debates over the movies we either liked or hated.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

MALACHITE

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
I'm going to put in a small aside here...

Guess you can tell where I stand, huh? But I think writing that seeks to show how people make their own choices and decisions, and live with the consequences thereof, is stronger than one which takes the decisions out of their hands at some final level.

So, if Joss shared that perspective, he might feel that creating some more fleshed out concept of a good ultimate being would somehow detract from the decisions and actions of an individual and that this is undesirable in a show?

What do you mean when you say that having an ultimate power of good would take "the decisions out of their hands at some final level"? I'm not sure how its a bad thing or weaker in some way.

I disagree with the idea that simply having some ultimate power of goodness takes away the significance of or responsibility for our own actions. We still have free will.

Paradoxically, I also don't think we're in as much control or have as much control over things as we'd like to think... Kids and global warming come to mind...

REGINAROADIE

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:39 PM

Exactly. While there is an aspect of "glory to God in the highest", I think that God and Christianity would prefer it if we took care of ourselves. It's like what the high being in the "Godfellas" episode said to Bender.

"Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You need a light touch, like a safe cracker or a pickpocket...When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

MALACHITE

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Exactly. While there is an aspect of "glory to God in the highest", I think that God and Christianity would prefer it if we took care of ourselves. It's like what the high being in the "Godfellas" episode said to Bender.

"Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You need a light touch, like a safe cracker or a pickpocket...When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

What a great quote!

One could add that if God did too much or revealed himself too much, our free will to be disobediant or unbelieving might be compromised ala Jasmine from Angel.

It's a weird balance because God wants us to be dependant on Him but also take action (without necessarily obvious guidance) at the same time.

TANKOBITE

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:37 AM

I'm just throwing this out there, but I don't think there is a balance. From a Christian theological standpoint the war is over; ultimate good has won on the Cross and nothing can change it. I recall a pastor who related a story of some allied POWs in WWII; the Yanks had a radio and heard the Germans had surrendered and passed it onto the downed British Pilots; however the guard hasn't gotten the word and stayed for three days before disappearing into the night. The POWs were free then, but for them the war had been won three days ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

SPACEANJL

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:13 AM

Hmm, probably best if I stay out of this discussion, actually. I'm interested in the comparisons of work, but I'm also a non-believer, and liable to offend.

Though a thought occurs to me - I dislike organised religion, partly on feminist grounds. I wonder if Joss comes from the same angle?

(Gotta say, I did like that 'Futurama' episode.)

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
Though a thought occurs to me - I dislike organised religion, partly on feminist grounds. I wonder if Joss comes from the same angle?

Seems likely!

My comment is about the whole "stronger" issue - maybe I'm feeling a fannish need to defend my Jossman.

The definition I've picked up in this thread is this: so when you say "stronger", you possibly are meaning that the spirituality as portrayed in Kevin Smith's worlds seems to be more multi-faceted... which is a good point, and I don't think anyone's gonna argue against it. Kevin Smith wants to explore spirituality, that's quite clear, and has spiritual facets a'plenty, issues taken straight from the Bible and discussed in those terms. (I've only seen Dogma, which I found quite entertaining. I don't know about his other shows, if they're so blatant with the Biblical.)

But you're getting apple v. orange here if you use that definition as a measuring stick for other fictional works, especially Joss's verse. Joss is not out to explore religion-based spirituality. His interests seem to lie in the moral inner workings of people, not in the exterior forces of God or Devil as defined by the Bible. In fact, I'm with Spaceanjl that Whedon is more concerned with feminist issues than religious. That's a measuring stick that rings with me, much more than religion, but I can't expect it to be the center of every movie and TV show.

Anyhoo, ReginaRoadie - this is an interesting issue and good thread, and based on your thoughtful posts I look forward to reading your article. I just think your non-religious readers (like me) will have an easier time understanding your point of view if you're up front and clear with your definition of "stronger." I guess I'd want to understand why you expect Joss's work to address spiritual issues and obey Biblical rules of good/evil balance. Personally, I don't see those topics as necessities for "strong" entertainment, but that's just me.

It's all a matter of taste, right?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

MALACHITE

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
Hmm, probably best if I stay out of this discussion, actually. I'm interested in the comparisons of work, but I'm also a non-believer, and liable to offend.

Though a thought occurs to me - I dislike organised religion, partly on feminist grounds. I wonder if Joss comes from the same angle?

(Gotta say, I did like that 'Futurama' episode.)

Doh! I hope I didn't come across as being offended by your post. I was trying to understand more of what you meant when you were talking about how the presence of an ultimate good entity somehow minimized either the significance of our actions or our responsibility for our actions.

I agree with these posts about how Joss may have different priorities and interests when writing his shows and that feminism is quite a powerful thematic element in Buffy. One might even say that Whedon's work is "stronger" than Smith's in that sense and write some articles about it instead... (Alannis not withstanding)

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE