Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wait. What did Whedon get up to with the cast of Buffy? Is that confirmed or just hearsay? I kind of don't want to hate him, but I will if there's evidence.

He admitted to his now exwife that he had been having affairs and wielding his power as an exec for the past 15 years into thier 16 year marriage.

Some actresses have confirmed and expanded on the stories.

He said something along the lines of he felt like zeus on mt olympus and couldnt resist tthe power he held over cast members, fans, and others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also he fired that one chick on Angel because she was pregnant and gave her a bunch of gak about it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Also he didn't write Justice League. That hot pile of garbage was Zack Snyders fault.

IIRC, Whedon has a writing credit on JL, which means he's responsible for at least 1/3 of it. The film that made it to theaters *definitely* wasn't 100% Snyder. Whedon shot a bunch of new stuff.


I finally saw Infinity War. It was okay. It was fun seeing all those characters on screen together, and there was certainly tons of spectacle. Sure seemed light on story though, and it's definitely a film that needs you not to think too hard. It was a far cry from Winter Soldier and Black Panther, but I guess the point was the *event* of it all. The score certainly wanted to constantly remind you of how big and epic everything was.

Oh...so Thanos has genestealers! Who knew?

A writing credit can mean a lot of things. There are lots of examples of people getting a writing credit for doing small and trivial things. Sometimes people get a writing credit simply for changing some punctuation and cutting a deal. I am sure Joss changed some dialog and whatever. while negotiating the writing credit as part of being the director so that he could add both to his resume.

But JL did not play out, in any way, like a Whedon enterprise. That was a Snyder flick beginning to end.

 Lance845 wrote:
A writing credit can mean a lot of things. There are lots of examples of people getting a writing credit for doing small and trivial things. Sometimes people get a writing credit simply for changing some punctuation and cutting a deal. I am sure Joss changed some dialog and whatever. while negotiating the writing credit as part of being the director so that he could add both to his resume.

But JL did not play out, in any way, like a Whedon enterprise. That was a Snyder flick beginning to end.

No. There are rules and a process for this stuff, it's not something that just gets made up. Whedon had a "screenplay by" credit with Chris Terrio. Here's a summary of the writer's guild criteria from Wikipedia:

In the case of an original screenplay, the first writer must contribute more than 33% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. Subsequent writers must contribute 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit, unless the subsequent writer is a "production executive" (a producer or director), who must contribute more than 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. A "non-original screenplay" is a screenplay that is "based upon source material and all other screenplays" that do not qualify as original screenplays, such as sequels.[9] In the case of a non-original screenplay, any writer who contributes more than 33% of the screenplay is entitled to "screenplay by" credit. There is no heightened percentage for production executives.

Screenplay" - for theatrical motion pictures - and "Teleplay" - for television and new media motion pictures - is generally defined as "the final script (as represented on the screen) with individual scenes and full dialogue, together with such prior treatment, basic adaptation, continuity, scenario and dialogue as shall be used in, and represent substantial contributions to, the final script."

JL was a Frankenstein monster of a film, but large chunks of it were absolutely Whedon's.

 gorgon wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
A writing credit can mean a lot of things. There are lots of examples of people getting a writing credit for doing small and trivial things. Sometimes people get a writing credit simply for changing some punctuation and cutting a deal. I am sure Joss changed some dialog and whatever. while negotiating the writing credit as part of being the director so that he could add both to his resume.

But JL did not play out, in any way, like a Whedon enterprise. That was a Snyder flick beginning to end.

No. There are rules and a process for this stuff, it's not something that just gets made up. Whedon had a "screenplay by" credit with Chris Terrio. Here's a summary of the writer's guild criteria from Wikipedia:

In the case of an original screenplay, the first writer must contribute more than 33% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. Subsequent writers must contribute 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit, unless the subsequent writer is a "production executive" (a producer or director), who must contribute more than 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. A "non-original screenplay" is a screenplay that is "based upon source material and all other screenplays" that do not qualify as original screenplays, such as sequels.[9] In the case of a non-original screenplay, any writer who contributes more than 33% of the screenplay is entitled to "screenplay by" credit. There is no heightened percentage for production executives.

Screenplay" - for theatrical motion pictures - and "Teleplay" - for television and new media motion pictures - is generally defined as "the final script (as represented on the screen) with individual scenes and full dialogue, together with such prior treatment, basic adaptation, continuity, scenario and dialogue as shall be used in, and represent substantial contributions to, the final script."

JL was a Frankenstein monster of a film, but large chunks of it were absolutely Whedon's.

Yeah, except people actually have to complain to the writers guild to have anything done about it.

As an example of a time it failed and the long fight to set things right.

https://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/paul-hogans-crocodile-dundee-3-writing-credit-a-croc-of-gak/

But if all parties involved are happy to give the writing credit to somebody who comes on board late in the game to do reshoots and act as director then there is nobody to raise a flag and no issues to be taken. It's not like Whedon is some bastion of goodness. It's not like WB or DC are either. I get that the writers guild has rules. But if everyone involved doesn't give a gak then it doesn't matter what rules the writers guild has. There are specific payouts for having your name in different parts of the movie. Because it's unions, as standard, Whedon gets paid x for being director + y for a writing credit.

You have to be willingly blind to it if you think people are not tossing around "writing credits" and any other nonsense as parts of deals to act as part of their monetary compensation. Just because it's a rules doesn't mean it isn't bent and or broken.

What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.

 gorgon wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also he didn't write Justice League. That hot pile of garbage was Zack Snyders fault.

IIRC, Whedon has a writing credit on JL, which means he's responsible for at least 1/3 of it. The film that made it to theaters *definitely* wasn't 100% Snyder. Whedon shot a bunch of new stuff.

JL is nothing like what Snyder intended. None of the plot points follow from the previous 2 films. The break from Snyder to Whedon is harsh, like switching from Lars Von Trier to Merchant Ivory. I'm kinda surprised Snyder didn't "Alan Smithee" JL.

Some of that is the change in director, but its also a result of cutting the 2 part film down to one.

 Lance845 wrote:
What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.

You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.

To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.

Yeah, the opening Batman scene on the rooftop was designed to be a comedy esque, pretty much a classic Whedon scene.

Then people went, "eff no, that's just insane and doesn't fit with anything else" so did a lot of work trying to massage it into something. - It's why so much of it is just awkward to see.


Frankenstein's monster of a film is exactly right. Snyder tone originally, then all the Whedon-ing, then people jumping back, trying to find a mid-ground.

To be honest, I'm actually alright with the JL film. I mean, sure I really wish it didn't have all the problems it did, but I'd quite happily sit back and watch it as essentially a live action "Justice League cartoon" episode. Sure, it won't be a particularly great one, but still enjoyable enough.

Personally, I think the film would have been bad if it was either full Snyder, or full Whedon.


Anyhow, Infinity War was really good.

I can definitly see that batman scene where he quips with a man with a gun who just tried to murder him and then lets him go scott free being a whedon thing. Its exactly his kind of poor characterization and writing.

 gorgon wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.

You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.

To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.

Man, I'd REALLY love to get ahold of a pure Snyder version of the film. Some of the differences I think would work out better.

 Just Tony wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.

You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.

To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.

Man, I'd REALLY love to get ahold of a pure Snyder version of the film. Some of the differences I think would work out better.

I picture Batman telling Flash to just kill one person.

Or having Superman have another mental break and hallucinating his dead dad stacking rocks in the snow again.

Because that made a lot of sense.

This was a frankenstien of a movie. Sure. But a pure Snyder film doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

 AduroT wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.

You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.

To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.

Man, I'd REALLY love to get ahold of a pure Snyder version of the film. Some of the differences I think would work out better.

I picture Batman telling Flash to just kill one person.

I really like Man of Steel, and I don't need lots of forced, jokey lightness or corniness in my superhero films. But I'm not sure that Snyder was on the right path with JL. If you want to have Batman lurk around underground, fine. I don't know that a big fight in the sewers is a good choice visually or thematically for characters like Flash and WW. The big battle in Russia was also originally supposed to be a night battle (or at least have very dark clouds), as you can see from the early trailers. The red skies (which is a long-running DC 'Crisis' thing) were added by Whedon. At times it's like Snyder's instinct is to double down on darkness whenever he's criticized for it (and at times unfairly!).

There was some buzz that in one of the Snyder iterations of the movie (remember that there purportedly was the original script, and then the one that Snyder shot after WB demanded changes), Cyborg was torn to pieces and killed by Steppenwolf. I dunno if it's true, but it's certainly believable that he'd just snuff a liked character and also eliminate its future possibilities fairly pointlessly.

As I've said before, WB wasn't wrong to step in. Their mistake was not stepping in right after BvS like some execs supposedly wanted, instead of hoping for the best and then trying to slap Band-Aids everywhere. Lucasfilm and Disney would have. *shrug*

Unless there's a film called Justice League: Infinity War that I've missed, isn't all this off topic?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Unless there's a film called Justice League: Infinity War that I've missed, isn't all this off topic?

Only if they don't introduce Logan Wayne in the sequel.

Trying to head back on topic - I enjoyed both JLA and Infinity War equally.

I read a theory that supports all the vanished characters not being truly gone (other than most of them having announced sequels).
In Doctor Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme could not see any futures beyond her own death. Yet Doctor Strange was able to see 14 million futures beyond his own "death".
So either that is an overlooked inconsistency, or Strange knows 100% that he isn't gonna be gone for long.

Maybe the snap had to occur in a specific way to leave specific characters alive to reverse the snap?

-

 Galef wrote:
I read a theory that supports all the vanished characters not being truly gone (other than most of them having announced sequels).
In Doctor Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme could not see any futures beyond her own death. Yet Doctor Strange was able to see 14 million futures beyond his own "death".
So either that is an overlooked inconsistency, or Strange knows 100% that he isn't gonna be gone for long.

Maybe the snap had to occur in a specific way to leave specific characters alive to reverse the snap?

-

I'm sure strange did something with the time stone before he handed it over, and that was leading down the 1 path that lead to a victory. A path that needed Tony Stark in order to succeed. Then with some bill & teds shenanagins, I'm sure the end of the next avengers movie will undo the snap.

Or they'll just have deadpool wake up at the start of the new averngers movie, or the credits sceen from captain marvel and say 'what a dream, thanos just killed 1/2 the universe. That's what happens when I go out for burritos after I killing thanos last week.'

I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".

Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.

Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.

 Easy E wrote:
I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".

Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.

Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.

I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers

I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.

I liked his minons

Yes, zero sense, but his power and charisma still attracted crazy fanatics to follow him. This is just another in a long line of 20Teens movies about nihilism.

Finally, after watching the post-credits bit, I was wondering how many people thought it was the Rapture.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".

Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.

Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.

I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers

I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.

I liked his minons

Could be an ongoing effect. I’m curious if the whole Megan thing is setting up something along those lines.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".

Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.

Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.

I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers

I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.

I liked his minons

Could be an ongoing effect. I’m curious if the whole Megan thing is setting up something along those lines.

Megan? Not sure the Royal Wedding was included

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".

Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.

Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.

I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers

I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.

I liked his minons

Could be an ongoing effect. I’m curious if the whole Megan thing is setting up something along those lines.

Megan? Not sure the Royal Wedding was included

Whoops. I meant Morgan.

On a completely unrelated note, the Marvel Universe has been forming for about a decade now. However, how much time has gone by in the Avenger's world? A year or two? All the movies seem to tie their timelines pretty tightly together.

 Easy E wrote:
On a completely unrelated note, the Marvel Universe has been forming for about a decade now. However, how much time has gone by in the Avenger's world? A year or two? All the movies seem to tie their timelines pretty tightly together.

They are treated as basically following real time. That's why it was problematic when Spiderman: Homecoming forgot how many years it had actually been since the Avengers film.

 Easy E wrote:
On a completely unrelated note, the Marvel Universe has been forming for about a decade now. However, how much time has gone by in the Avenger's world? A year or two? All the movies seem to tie their timelines pretty tightly together.

Well they specifically call out that Spiderman: Homecoming is 8 years after the Battle of New York, so presumably the flow of time has been roughly the same cinematically as it has been in the real world.

I ask, because, at the beginning of Black Panther, he is watching the death of his dad on the BBC as if it only happened a few days ago.

In addition, in Dr. Starnge, the good doctor has the chance to work ont eh test pilot of a Hammer suit in Iron Man 2.

Things like that.