The premise, Joss's genre playground, and the problem. (slight movie spoiler!))

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 16:17
VIEWED: 9326
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

GHOULMAN

Saturday, August 7, 2004 5:28 PM

I found it interesting that there is talk the Western setting/premise to Firefly will be "downplayed" in the upcomming movie; Serenity.

From BtVS to Angel and now to Firefly, Joss and his team of creators are continueing thier latest spin on genre. The settings and characters from BtVS to Firefly are pretty much continuations. One might even say they are the same show but with different trappings and different characters containing the same motivations. These differences being superficial.

Now, we all love what Joss and Co. do with these genre trappings. They make great TV. Great stories and characters we love to follow. But...

... you can only do this for so long before the characters and even the setting becomes too self referential and self involved to interest anyone but the most devoted fans. Certainly we've seen this happen to every other TV show, usually because they have gone on so long that the show simply has run out of anything to say or do but collapse under it's own premise.

Angel had this problem big time. Certainly it's telling that Joss realized he couldn't "pare down" his story trappings with Angel and brought in more characters just as in later BtVS shows. Firefly, right out of the door, is PACKED with character detail, genre complexity of setting, and so on. Firefly is a culmination of everything Joss has done in the past.

This is where the problem starts to show itself. Where does this end? Where does Joss go once he has completey told these stories, all over again, with Firefly?

Well, he didn't get the chance (FOX... where WE deside what people will like!).

But now with Serenity coming out I detect that even Joss and his incredibly talented cadre have begun to see the limits of these genre trappings and, as I suggest, are in real realization (and trepidation) of becoming so referential and inward that they really need to "walk through the fire" as it were.

I wonder if any writerly types out there who wonder just where the Joss 'style' (or even formula) reaches a 'critical mass' of self delusion? Just where does the shark jump?

If Joss (and Firefly) is to really continue Joss needs to, and I think he is, let it go. Firefly (and genre in general) needs to find that exciting new voice and direction. Speculating what that should be is up for grabs!

Having said that, may I say that compared to the zombie like cultural eating frenzy of genre stories in Sci-Fi and fantasty today it's a JOY to see dead on characters and clever writing from Joss and his merry band. But the second I detect a rehashed Star Trek plot I'm outta here!

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Sunday, August 8, 2004 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

These differences being superficial.

B:TVS was a show about teenagers and the problems they faced. The fact that the later seasons of that dealt with the themes of Angel (about being in your 20s and not knowing about direction) has more to do with the passage of time than the fact the differences were superficial.

Aside from the fact that they are all ensemble shows, there are significant differences for all three shows.

Firefly was about making, not finding your place in the universe, to put it at its simplest.

The natural tendency for television is the ensemble cast - X-Files began as a two-header but swiftly added two or three recurring characters. Yes, Joss has a style which would be recognisable, but not necessarily derivative.

I've noticed with JMS that he has explored the same themes in several different areas of the genre - A Late Delivery From Avalon was repeated in a Jeremiah episode, but the fact that the characters and universe were different lead to a different response and outcome. For fans of both the shows, you might get drawn into the okeydoke of thinking you know what's coming, but for new fans, they judge the episode as stand alone.

"I threw up on your bed"

OUTSIDER

Sunday, August 8, 2004 10:16 PM

I remember reading something once (though I cannot for the life of me remember where) that said something along the lines of "Joss Whedon has one [creative] voice, and all his characters speak with it." Now, personally I didn't (and don't) agree with that statement. However, I can see why people might think that.

One need only listen to the dialogue for a few moments before being able to identify it as a 'Joss Whedon show'. Through Buffy, Angel, and Firefly, there is a recognisable quality to his work. I would imagine that everyone who visits this site does so because they appreciate that style. The nature of the stories might change, but certain themes and identifying marks carry through. This only really becomes a problem if Joss starts to significantly repeat his ideas. Buffy and Angel got away with that because one was a direct spin-off of the other. But if, for example, Joss tried his hand at another SF show, and those same identifying qualities were present again, there might very well be a case for arguing some kind of creative blockage. That's one of the reasons why I'm not keen to see Joss return to the Buffyverse - it's been done.

Someone suggested maybe giving Firefly a new voice. But if Firefly were to gain a new voice, would it still be Firefly? Joss IS Firefly. His voice is so dominant, that without it the show (or movie) would end up looking like poor fan fiction, where someone was desperately trying to imitate Joss' style.

Someone else mentioned Joe Straczynski. Take his work as an example - Babylon 5 worked, but the spin-off Crusade didn't work at all because it seemed to be covering similar ground. When he tried again with Legend of the Rangers, it failed again. But when JMS works on something radically different, such as Amazing Spider-Man for Marvel or his own comic series Midnight Nation (which EVERYONE should read, by the way), though some of the themes might be similar, they are presented in new ways and thus end up almost completely different.

So will Joss run afoul of the same pitfalls? Again, personally, I doubt it. If he tries to to repeat the formula that's worked for him in the past, then it might eventually turn his audience off. But I've always suspected the man is too creative for that. Serenity will (hopefully) expose Joss to a wider audience, and give him the opportunity to tell stories in radically different worlds than he's used previously.

That's why, as excited as I am about Serenity - and I'm DAMN excited - I'm possibly even more excited about what Joss might do AFTER that.

Hope I didn't prattle on too long, there.

--------------------

"Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."

TETHYS

Monday, August 9, 2004 1:15 AM

The differences are actually more than superficial, though I can see you've put some thought into the post. The main being, of course, the fact that BtVS is about high-school age people having to deal with everyday life and extraordinary circumstances at the same time. Firefly is set in a very adult setting with very adult characters dealing with very different issues (FROM THE START) than in Buffy.

Sure, allusions can be made between Mal and Angel, but Angel was a vampire that committed great sins and lost faith in himself. Mal was a veteran soldier that lost faith in the 'verse but NOT in himself. BIG difference there in and of itself, let alone the vast difference in the characters.
Any allusions that can be made comparing the characters and the plotline of the show can be alleviated the same way. Sunnyvale is a long ways off from the likes of Ariel, Hera, and the Black.

And the big thing is: two entirely different shows. If no other proof exists than this, here it is: though I LOVE vampire shows and movies, I have never been that much a fan of BtVS (sorry), but Firefly is my favorite show of all time.

"You replaced Firefly with *barf* Fastlane?!"
Zoe:"Take me Sir. Take me hard" - War Stories

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 9, 2004 2:23 AM

In the very basic, not trying to compare to it in any real way but just as an example, are we talking a lack of believable, workable extensions like was seen in The Matrix ? Where, no matter how much FX is invovled,or how many new characters are thrown in, the story line its self simply dead ends to a unsavory / unsatisfying end ?

How's that differ from say..the Alien series, The Terminator,X-Files or ANY sci- fi story line ?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIKKUKUT

Monday, August 9, 2004 3:11 AM

I'm trying to think of a long-standing sci-fi or fantasy universe in any medium that hasn't ultimately collapsed into something that is primarily about itself. What I mean by this is that stories in that universe reach a point where the only reason you care about them is if you already care about that universe, rather than because they are good stories.

Star Wars has, unquestionably. Ugh. The Matrix did to some extent, although I liked 2 & 3 better than most people did (and that's an argument we can have another time). Star Trek has done that on and off over the years, and seems to be in an "on" cycle just now. Most super-hero comics are poster children for this phenomenon. I'm not a fan of really long fantasy series, but from what I've heard, most of them eventually succumb. I never, ever want to read anything where someone tells me, "Well, the first six books were good, but after that he just got greedy." (That was re: Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time).

George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is brilliant and unpredictable, but some of my friends are skeptical that even it will avoid this pitfall as it gets longer.

So, is this the eventual fate of all long-form sci-fi and fantasy, an inevitable result of extended narrative within a universe other than our own? Can it ever be avoided? I'm honestly not sure. Perhaps Neil Gaiman's Sandman is a counter-example?

On the specific topic at hand, I think Firefly's got a lot of life in it before it hits that point-- more life than the average sci-fi premise. I honestly can't speak as to Joss, since this is the first thing of his that I've genuinely gotten into, but if Firefly is any indication, then he is a man of uncommon wit and creativity, and I expect great things of him.

____________________________
"You're mean. Firefly's making me reconsider my lifelong devotion to Star Trek." --My mother

BANRIGH

Monday, August 9, 2004 3:39 AM

Joss Whedon seems like he likes to challenge himself. Wasn't that the origins of the episode Hush? Everybody was commenting on how great his dialogue for the series was so what did he do?

And in the commentaries he always comments on how he doesn't like to lapse into the standard way of directing an episode.

So, I have faith.

CGREALMS

Monday, August 9, 2004 3:39 AM

"What I mean by this is that stories in that universe reach a point where the only reason you care about them is if you already care about that universe, rather than because they are good stories."

I would argue that the distinction is immaterial to those who are the primary audience. Hell, I love Star Wars. Part of what I love about it is the level it delves into it's own history. But then at the end of the day, you've still got an epic storyline of innocence, temptation, darkness, and redemption.

GHOULMAN

Monday, August 9, 2004 8:39 PM

I think these are all great comments.

There seems to be a little confusion about the difference between the inherent failings of genre and just going on for so long the "plot repeating" causes a shark to jump.

Myself, I'm 'deconstructing' with laser sharpness the inherent failings which, given this is the 3rd genre show from Joss, the dangers become rather obvious. You know, when I saw the ads for this show I hated it. Oh yea; the hooker with a heart of gold, the anti-hero, (people disagreed about the Joss' characters being 'similair'. Undersatand that it's about finding characters from ALL genre similar... not just Joss'. Genre usually has the least character variation and sticks to iconic personalities. Joss tries to play with this but he is still trapped imho) etc... seen it. Seen this dehumanizing propoganda a thousand times! Of course, I realize that most people aren't NEARLY as bitter and demanding as I.

Dig this - All genre is rehashing. Wether you're talking about Film Noir or Science Fiction the stories universally fall into a repetitive norm (perfectly natural of course).

It is the Artist who transends this failing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Banrigh:
Joss Whedon seems like he likes to challenge himself. Wasn't that the origins of the episode Hush? Everybody was commenting on how great his dialogue for the series was so what did he do?

And in the commentaries he always comments on how he doesn't like to lapse into the standard way of directing an episode.

So, I have faith.

And faith is what keeps me going with Joss.

I know he will surprise me sooner or later. HUSH is a terrific example of Joss having the ability to transend the failings and formula of genre story telling. But remember, as clever as HUSH was it was still trapped in a genre plot... and so of course, 'the bad guys were killed' (if this were ENT the bad guys would blow up... same diff). Now, is genre doomed to be so simplistic?

Please note - I could give a tribbles butt about SG-1, B5, or ENT. All of these shows fail miserably in just this fashion (or worse). Certainly I could pick other shows as examples but I'll stick to the Sci-Fi TV.

Take SG-1 - merely rehashed Star Trek plots from 40 years ago. The very same crap with far less savy. It just makes my head spin when fanboys scream with laughter how cheezy the old Star Trek is while praising SG-1 in the same breath. Inconceivable.

The thing is, the Sci-Fi the young are watching today is created by, well, guys of my generation. What were guys of my generation inspired by? Yup, the old Star Trek. What is SG-1, B5, and ENT? Yup, Star Trek plots over and over again. A very simple formula that is the standard for Sci-Fi TV shows today. They are all the same. Certainly I could say the newer Star Treks were proof of a formula being strip mined to death.

What zombies tptb think the viewers are. They do. Really. And they are right. Glad Joss doesn't care but still fights the good fight (love that crazy fool!)

I come to Joss for a little something different. And it was shows like THE BODY and HUSH that made me think this drop dead stupid Buffy the Vampire Slayer crap might be worth a look see.

It's ironic. Sci-Fi and fantasy should be the perfect opportunity for writers to take things into new realms and tell stories of biting vision and grand drama... but no - rehashed Trek from my childhood!

There is another great thread around where people are discussing the similarities between the characters. Xander is Wash. Mal is Buffy. Etc. Look for it as it seems to be a nice book-end to this thread. Happy reading and never, ever, rehash!

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Monday, August 9, 2004 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider:
Someone else mentioned Joe Straczynski. Take his work as an example - Babylon 5 worked, but the spin-off Crusade didn't work at all because it seemed to be covering similar ground. When he tried again with Legend of the Rangers, it failed again.

See my recent post for one other reason why Crusade failed (hint, it rhymes with shoots and its something you can wear) - haven't seen Legends of the Rangers because for some reason it vanished before crossing the Atlantic so can't comment, but I think Crusade was shot down too say it was covering similar ground - it was designed to appear familiar at the start at least.

Quote:

But when JMS works on something radically different, such as or his own comic series Midnight Nation (which EVERYONE should read, by the way)

Seconded - everyone should read Midnight Nation twice no less. Supreme Power is also going to some really interesting places.

"I threw up on your bed"

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE