Comic-Con 2011 Joss: New Buffy and Serenity comics, Dr. Horrible, Avengers

POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Thursday, September 15, 2011 06:01
VIEWED: 3368
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

BYTEMITE

Monday, September 12, 2011 12:56 AM

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/comic-con-2011-j
oss-whedon-talks-buffy-firefly-dr-horrible-and-oh-yeah-avengers

This was probably posted elsewhere on the board but I thought I'd relink it as newsworthy because of some important snippits.

For us Browncoats in particular:

Quote:
When a fan asked if he'd be telling the backstory of more "Firefly" characters in comics, Whedon said that "We now have license to not only tell backstory but move forward with these characters, too. It would be interesting to know what happens next."

RIONAEIRE

Monday, September 12, 2011 2:40 AM

Uh Oh, I'm paranoid and can't trust. But this is good news for most folk.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, September 12, 2011 3:30 AM

That sounds promising... Although, I have to say that comics are not my preferred medium. I wonder if they would ever consider writing novels. Novels would make me happy.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

GWEK

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:15 PM

Interesting story. I think it's telling that Joss sort of dodges talking directly about upcoming comics. I suspect that while he has the rights, there is nothing currently planned. (He's probably too hip-deep in Avengers stuff to think about it!)

I just hope that when they DO decide to do some more comics, they hand it to the right people. It's great that Joss wants to help his kid brother stay unemployed, but Shepherd's Yale was pretty much on par with Greedo shooting first.

Sorry to continue the generally negative feel of this message (Sorry, guys!), but I think the real news may be that Joss definitively stated there will be no sequel. I mean, on some level, we all KNEW it, but this is the first time Joss himself, the keeper of the faith, has stated it. That's not nothin'.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:28 PM

Eh, I dunno about that. What he said was:

Quote:
"I'm also still waiting for someone to tell me it's time to make that Serenity sequel." Cue massive applause, followed by Whedon saying, "But they won't. Sorry, that much love, I had to destroy it."

I'd actually put that as more of the classic Whedon humour than an actual statement that it's NEVER going to happen.

He's basically said that and like it plenty of times before, pointed out that the movie paid for itself but didn't make enough money to be an enticing sequel hook. I don't see that anything has changed, neither situationally or what news there is or Joss' way of putting that news. It still doesn't mean never, otherwise he wouldn't also be saying that on some level he is still waiting for a go ahead.

ZEEK

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
I just hope that when they DO decide to do some more comics, they hand it to the right people. It's great that Joss wants to help his kid brother stay unemployed, but Shepherd's Yale was pretty much on par with Greedo shooting first.

You didn't like Shepherd's Tale? I think it was pretty good as far as comics go. I'm sure it would be better in a film format, but that pretty much answered all my Book related questions. Except maybe how "I don't give half a hump if you're innocent or not? So, where does that put you?" What does that have to do with his past?

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:38 PM

Also, I thought Shepherd's Tale was all right. I thought the backwards storytelling was actually a neat narrative trick, suggesting Book's life flashing before his eyes.

Book's voice was written fairly well, he sounded like him, and Jayne and River sounded like themselves. Those appear to be Zack's strongest, as Zoe and Mal felt a little OOC to me.

But he improved in some of the subsequent work, such as Downtime and some little drabble exercises he posted on Dark Horse's blog.

My biggest complaint is maybe there's one panel in the chicken soup scene that really didn't need the extra visualization, and should have just had Book sitting in contemplation at the table.

Everything else, like wishing Book had been an Operative in accordance with the fan theories, is now irrelevant. The quality of a story shouldn't be discounted just because people wanted it to be about unicorns instead of bunnies.

And the question of whether Book's video camera mechanical eye might come up again and how will probably stay with the fandom. I can definitely see that coming back to bite or help the crew.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:51 PM

Zeek, I think that was meant to explore Book's inherent dual natures. In Objects in Space Book is having a conversation with Jayne about being a shepherd, River sees a flash of the time when Book was more of a wolf (most likely, when he was an Alliance interrogator). That's all there in Book: shepherd and wolf, Independent and Alliance, brutal determined survivor and maybe someone who could still be horrified by the brutality of the world.

GWEK

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
I just hope that when they DO decide to do some more comics, they hand it to the right people. It's great that Joss wants to help his kid brother stay unemployed, but Shepherd's Yale was pretty much on par with Greedo shooting first.

You didn't like Shepherd's Tale? I think it was pretty good as far as comics go. I'm sure it would be better in a film format, but that pretty much answered all my Book related questions. Except maybe how "I don't give half a hump if you're innocent or not? So, where does that put you?" What does that have to do with his past?

No, I'm sorry to say I didn't like Shepherd's Tale, and it has nothing to do with (as BM may imply) content of the story or expectations. In fact, if anything "saved" it, it was that there were a few nice twists.

No, I didn't like it simply because it was poorly written. The storytelling is muddled. Many of the facts are difficult to discern except on multiple reads (I know this because I've had to explain what happened to more than a few of my friends and also more than once on this forum). There is virtually no legitimate conflict. Character development is mininal. As an answer to a question, perhaps it suffices, but as a STORY, it's trash.

If there's any expectation that wasn't met, it's that, after all the time that had passed, I think Book's tale deserved much better writing. This was an important tale within the Firefly canon -- quite possibly the single biggest specific unswered question -- and it should have been written by a much better writer. The audience deserved for this to be written by Joss himself, or at least one of the regular writers from the Joss/Firefly stable, not a guy who had only a handful of writing credits overall and virtually no experience as a comic book storyteller.

I must admit that part of my resentment comes from the beauty of Book's response "No, I don't," when Mal says he'll have to tell his story someday in SERENITY. For me, that was one of the best-acted moments in the movie, and it laid to rest questions about Book's past in an elegant, if evasive, way.

To tell Book's story in a way negates that moment of the movie, and I feel like the moment in the movie was so strong that the telling should have been just as strong to merit it's existence.

In my opinion, the overall canon is worse off for the telling we got.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:01 PM

You don't have to have a central conflict to have a story. Granted, it's one of the most common forms of storytelling, but there's others as well: slice of life, character sketch, so on. This was a character sketch.

So I suppose you don't like Float Out either because there was no antagonist?

Muddled is possible, but I disagree there's no character development. It raises questions to us, a hallmark of good character development, means that it's revealed just enough to leave facets of motivation and characterization a mystery.

Did Book ever really believe in anything (it seems that he believes in Christianity now, but how do we know for sure)? Who's side was he on in the war? Was he just out for himself? Did he care about the people around him, even the people he was torturing or who abused him, or was he just always thrown into the fire pan and scrambling to save himself? Was what happened to the Alexander a betrayal, or was it planned?

Quote:
not a guy who had only a handful of writing credits overall and virtually no experience as a comic book storyteller.

Experience and professional experience are inconsequential to writing. It sounds like you more just wanted to have Joss or a familiar, and Zack wasn't either.

Quote:
To tell Book's story in a way negates that moment of the movie, and I feel like the moment in the movie was so strong that the telling should have been just as strong to merit it's existence.

How does it? Mal never learned from Book, the information is given to US, and we viewers always knew we'd get that story eventually. It is separate from this. The point of the scene is not for Joss to retrospectively tell us "and you never will find out because of what happens next," though I can see how you might have that reaction and it might increase the emotional impact you feel, but that was not what was intended. It's just a moment between Book and Mal, establishes that Book sees something of himself in Mal, but either is too ashamed to tell Mal his story or doesn't want to put that burden on him. It's also a bit of foreshadowing.

Will you be angry when they make a comic concerning Inara's backstory, another mystery?

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE