Whedon to Direct Episode IX???

The one that showed he had artistic integrity and wanted his movie to be good instead of dumbed down popcorn crap aimed only at making money and promoting other films?

Just out of curiosity, are your fears based off his Avengers work only? Because Whedon is capable of writing without the joke a minute pace. He did it frequently in his TV shows and some of his earlier script work. Its just that his best known work is Avengers so people assume that is all there is to him. (Similar to people who base fears of JJ off only his Star Trek work and ignore everything prior) I think he is unfortunately type cast in this way. I do understand the criticisms and agree that a stand alone may be a better fit. But I think he would do a great job with the trilogy proper if it was handed to him. He is not only the sum of his jokes. he is a great writer who will fit the tone to the source material.

 

More Smoke!
http://www.latino-review.com/news/star-wars-star-wars-loves-joss

Short version for those who don't want to read the article. (but its a very interesting read, so I suggest clicking the link)

.

 

I agree with the visual style complaint. That's the one I can get behind. But it's also something that can be worked around with a good DP. And he does show some flashes. Portions of serenity and ultron were visually impactful. He's just yet to nail it consistently. Again something a better DP could help with.

There are plenty of great visual directors out there whose movies feel hollow because they don't understand character or dialogue. (I'm looking at you zack Snyder). I feel like the visual side is the easier side to grow into but I understand the concern.

As to the speaking out of turn comments...I say more power to him. After marvel ousted wright and then pulled the crap they did with ultron I don't see a problem with a departing director with clout letting the situation be known. Otherwise future talent will run into the same problems. Perhaps with the outcry and people saying we would prefer to see the directors vision rather than the studios they'll learn their lesson and give artistic freedom top priority over franchise building. Unlikely I know but at least in the light of day people will be watching how civil war turns out and not immediately attacking the Russos if there is clear studio meddling again.

 

Alas, it was all clickbait.

 

I don' think that's a fair paraphrasing of those quote.

- On Dr horrible- He said this in an interview being done for a piece about Marvel's business model based on paying talent on the rise low amounts to keep production costs low enough to swing the large casts and CG budgets. And it was in the context of Whedon just receving his very lucrative Ultron contract. The intent being that he was referring to how they took a chance on him and now he was getting paid for it. Throwing out the Dr Horrible example might not have been the best idea, but it was an illustration of how the studio system is rigged against up and comers and how Marvel is aiding in stopping that.

- On captain Marvel, Joss goes on to say that its for the best she wasn't introduced at the end, because he thought it would be a disservice to introduce such an important character as a throwaway like that.

-On Coulson: This was in the context of people asking him if a certain new character will stay dead. And he is absolutely right. Coulson's resurrection completely undermines the power of his death in Avengers. It was a poor choice made in the name of having a recognizable face on the TV show. Now, are we saying he can't disagree with the decision of the studio and still work with them? Creatives disagree all the time. Overcoming that and compromising is the way to great art. The fact that he disagreed but still created the show shows his maturity and ability to work within that system. I mean he will still be executive producing SHIELD next year even after walking away from the MCU.

Joss has always had a big mouth. Going back to ripping the Kuzuis who directed the feature Buffy movie for not understanding his script, through all the network meddling on Dollhouse. It just shows he's passionate and proud of what he is creating. I don't blame him for being vocal about losing control of his art. Could he tone it down a bit to be a better soldier? Possibly. But the person who is willing to tone down their voice may find that it isn't as strong when they go back to their art as well. That conviction in interviews is present in his writing and is a part of what makes it so appealing.

The original article has been mostly dismissed. But the subsequent stuff from slashfilm and LR are more credible.

Listen, I am the first one to cheer on the MCU. head over to the MCU thread if you doubt me. And I loved Age of Ultron. I love the interconnectivity. . Its made it one of my favorite film franchises of all time. But when connectivity crosses the line of damaging the work, it ceases to be worth the payoff. There is a balance that can be found. And the friction over what that balance is is what caused problems on Ultron. It needs to be done in tandem with the director, not against them. Joss did what he was supposed to. It just made the movie over three hours long. And when the suits got involved, they wanted him to cut real parts of the movie (the farm), the parts that make it great, to cut it down to size. They can't have it both ways. Either pump it full of interconnectivity and have the movie be long, or don't have the links to other films. Stripping the film of its coherence so you can cut off Ulysses Klau's hand doesn't serve the overall product.

 

I don't think Feige is the problem here. If you'll recall, Feige was with Whedon on Edgar Wright. There are people holding the purse strings beyond Feige and they don't like people who take risks with their money train.

To put this in MCU perspective. Feige is Nick Fury. Whedon is Tony Stark. And those that Whedon was upset with were the World Council. Shadowy figures saying things like cut 45 minutes, remove Thor's storyline, or nuke Manhattan.

 

I think what you are not listing among Whedon's strong points are his ability to weave theme, subtext, and symbolism into his story. This is what differentiates Whedon from average popcorn writers but sadly I think most audiences don't care about that aspect of the art form anymore. There's more going on in a Whedon script than just the plot and the dialogue.

Just take a quick read on this cursory piece from BMD on the themes of Ultron, Whedon's weakest work in my opinion. There's more going on in something people are calling a "muddled mess" than there is in the majority of mainstream movies released. And these connected themes and parallels disproves the idea that he is writing around good scenes.
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/05/04/age-of-ultron-consequences-legacies-killer-robots

These are the things that Whedon brings to the table that others don't. There's an intelligence and artistry to his writing that he refuses to give up which is why he has so much friction with the studios he works for. They see what most see, snappy dialogue and genre based plotting. But that's not all there is to his writing. Unfortunately most overlook it.

 

And that's why the Social Justice Warrior mentality is horrible to associate with. One wrong step (which in this case referred to him writing a fictional woman who suffered from an issue that some real-world women have to deal with) and you've got a ton of insane ideologues screaming at your front door. It's worth noting that the woman that's being parodied on the Twitter post threw Joss under the bus after the movie came out, right after she got free publicity from him.

Of course, to get back on topic, considering that he's said that taking on Avengers: Age Of Ultron was immensely stressful upon him as it is, and that he wants to do a sort of "Feminist Batman" project that is much smaller in scale than either Avengers movie, I think that he won't be taking part in something as huge as Star Wars anytime soon, if ever. He could probably write a comic for the setting, though.

 

Or It could be that two intelligent adults agreed on one topic then disagreed on another and it was blown out of proportion by people on the internet. This is what happens when topics get complex. You have multiple angles from which to view it and like-minded people can disagree and still end the day amicably.

Its not a war. People don't have to pick sides and stay loyal. Its philosophical conversation. Nuanced opinions and civil disagreement are not only allowed, but encouraged in order to enhance the discussion.

Its the hangers on on both sides that treat these celebrities as more than they are and rally to their supposed cause in both the real world and social media that are the issue. They politicize and polarize the nuanced viewpoints and make it into a battle and corrupt the discussion in the process