Interviews
Exclusive Interview: Joss Whedon
Posted by Brian C. Gibson (brian@filmschoolrejects.com) on August 24, 2007
It was pretty weird to be sitting with the one man who is singularly responsible for some of the most passionate fanboy followings in all of entertainment. It’s fair to warn you, don’t ever say anything bad about “Buffy” or “Angel” when you are at Comic-Con. You will be killed… I recently had a chance to sit and talk with Joss Whedon about the upcoming release of Serenity: Collector’s Edition DVD that hit stores this Tuesday. Furthermore, Joss is my boy for making Firefly and Serenity, so tone down the hate people.
First off, I want to start a brawl right now and say that Serenity is the best film of its genre since Star Wars. When I asked Joss about what he thought of the comparison he too a more than modest approach. “I think it’s lovely for people to say that Serenity is this generation’s Star Wars, but I do not think it is accurate. Star Wars had a cultural impact that is unprecedented and almost untraceably large. Serenity is not that. It’s like comparing apples to…unbelievably HUGE apples.” So what is Serenity then? I especially wanted to know, mostly because there are alot of unfamiliar fans that might even think that this release of the DVD is the film’s first. “It’s a Sci-Fi action thriller that is very exciting, very funny and very human. It has spaceships chasing each other, and it is necessary in life that spaceships chase each other.”
What most of you probably want to know though, is if Serenity is worth buying for a second time around? So I asked a Joss what fans could look forward to most, “I wanted to get the whole cast together, and we managed to get five of us together to do some commentary. Nathan (Fillion) is so much fun, and Adam (Baldwin) and Ron (Glass) and Summer (Glau). We got to put the River Tam sessions on it, which is a video thing I did that doesn’t exist anywhere, so I’m glad that it has a home finally. There was a documentary made, that was beautiful, about the fans that shows the transition from show to movie.”
What can fans expect next from Joss? He is writing and directing a film called Goners, which not many people know anything about, and Joss didn’t want to talk too much about it because he is in the process of rewriting it. He is also busy on his comics, especially Sugarshock. He was wearing the only existing t-shirt showcasing the comic’s lead character Dandelion, which was drawn by Fabio Moon.
So there you have it, make sure you go out and pick up Serenity: Collector’s Edition DVD. I know I did, and I highly recommend it.
Read more articles by Brian C. Gibson
13 Comments
August 24th, 2007 at 2:36 am
That doesn’t exist anywhere? Okay okay, so I do actually understand what he means by that, heh.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:15 am
I bought the DVD of Serenity and I was disappointed. Really, the movie is too dark in aperture, film wise–causing eye strain, which still needs to be adjusted, and thus, the picture lightened up by a great degree–this is needed desperately so, and is a pet peeve of mine. That said, I still love the movie and am hoping for sequels and a new Firefly tv series. But, in regard to this new release, I was hoping that they would do some much needed color adjustments (color timing), and the film aperture adjustments I spoke of earlier. The new 2 disc DVD, has none of those much needed improvements–none…it’s still the same DVD. The cover art is nice, as is the cast posing with the axe wielding River on the inside back, but as far as additional footage, we really don’t get any. I was hoping for a different cut, i.e., an extended cut of the movie…but we got nothing. And “The River Sessions” give us no real insight on anything…in fact, they are boring and add nothing to the character or her experience in Alliance custody, rather, it serves to make them, The Alliance seem, strangely nice, and certainly not threatening as it should.
I wish they had given us some 3 minute animated film shorts of Serenity and the further adventures of its crew to go along with this movie release…and new documentary footage, however, what is included seems to only be a old special from the Sci-Fi Network and something on the cinematographer and his children…that’s it. Pretty much, if you have the old Serenity DVD, thrust me, there is no reason to re-buy the movie again!!!
August 24th, 2007 at 9:03 am
‘Really, the movie is too dark in aperture,’ etc.
perhaps you should play with the ‘Brightness’ knob on your 21 inch Walmart special.
‘I wish they had given us some 3 minute animated film shorts ‘
They already made comics… what more do you need?
August 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Believe me Blue Gloves, with an attitude like that, no-one’s gonna thrust you.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
does it say anything that fans are trying to evaluate the comparative cultural impact of serenity not even five years after its release, whereas star wars has had about 30? now is the time to continue making that cultural impact, not to sit back and evaluate it.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Please, while “Serenity” is a great movie (and I’m a huge fan of ‘Firefly’), the cultural impact - even if measured over decades - is and will be nothing like that of Star Wars. The impact of Star Wars on pop culture was felt *immediately* during 1977 and continues to this day in the way films are marketed and viewed. Trust me, if you’ve never seen movies in the theater before 1977, you have no right to comment on the “cultural impact” of it other than to say that it happened. Movies before 1977 didn’t have much in the way of toy tie-ins or other marketing. The biggest film before Star Wars in terms of toys, marketing tie-ins, and cultural impact was probably “Planet of the Apes,” (no, not Jaws, sorry…Jaws is just responsible for the origination of the term “block buster,” since it refers to lines to get into movie theaters that go “around the block” and beyond). Seriously, ‘Serenity’ may be great, but it’s no Star Wars in the terms of cultural impact. Is it better than any of the prequel films? Oh, HELL yeah. Still, “Serenity” owes so much to the original Star Wars that I would say that Star Wars continues its cultural impact on America straight through ‘Firefly’ and ‘Serenity.’ Joss himself referred to Firefly as (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Star Wars” if Han Solo hadn’t picked up the old guy and that annoying kid.
Seriously, put the ‘Serenity’ pop culture impact thing to bed. Great movie, no significant cultural impact, make another one soon. End of line.
- T
August 24th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
What caused STAR WARS to have cultural impact was the fact that Lucas owned and exploited the rights to all of STAR WARS’ marketing. Since this had never been done before and FOX, which funded STAR WARS, thought the movie would be an overbudget flop, they let Lucas have the marketing rights.
Now regarding SERENITY & FIREFLY… Sadly it is true that it hasn’t had the same cultural impact, but only because of said marketing. The tv show FIRFLY and the movie SERENITY have all the earmarks of greatness that STAR WARS has, though it has received little support in the way of marketing except through the “guerilla marketing” efforts of us the fans, ie Browncoats.
Were we to have the same advertising as say LOST or HEROES or the same product lines to indulge in as does STAR WARS, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN or LORD OF THE RINGS to name only a few, then we would indeed have the major blockbuster that we as Browncoats know we have in SERENITY & FIREFLY.
This is a case where the avid (or would that be rabid… LoL) fans know what they want and we would be by far a larger fanbase if the rest of the world were allowed to enjoy it as we have.
Is SERENITY as big as STAR WARS?? … not yet, but it could be if given half a chance by the “powers that be”.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
To Nina and Pat:
You guys are just sell-outs, for the sake of simply selling out!!! The truth is the truth, however…and I for one, have spoken the truth about the DVD transfer. As I said, I like the film, Serenity is a favorite of mine, but as far as the aperture, technically, it is off…as well as the color timing. The point is, it is too smokey…either the cinematographer screwed up in his lighting, although i doubt it, based upon his reputation, or Joss was attempting to hide problems with the special effects. Darking down the aperture is a known industry trick for hiding problems with effects. And there is a 3rd option, pausibly Joss didn’t notice the problem…but it is there and should be corrected.
I’ve watched the movie on several different tv sets and the same problem is present…it is too dark. As a consumer, I shouldn’t have to constantly re-adjust, and thus wash-out the picture on my various TVs just for the pleasure of watching a DVD which I have now bought twice at 20 dollars a pop (each)!!!
The reviews seemed to promise significantly extended scenes, but I could only count a few added lines from outtakes. I had assumed that perhaps we’d get a extended recut version of the movie, maybe some effects shots that were left on the cutting room floor or amped up sound effects for the new re-release of the Serenity DVD, but sadly, I was wrong.
That said, save for the new packaging, which looks great, an added documentary about the nepotism filled ways of the director of photography, and some old recycled documentary from The Sci-Fi Channel, the DVD is still the same!!! Other than that, there is nothing new here, and all of you know it!!!
PS: I wan’t my 20 dollars back!!!
August 25th, 2007 at 2:20 am
I first saw Serenity a few days before the wide release, a friend at a tv station had free preview tickets. The picture was much brighter in “aperture” at the preview than when I watched it again with my husband several weeks later (loved the movie the first time around and wanted to support Joss, as I am a Buffy and Angel fan) at a sub-urban venue. In the second viewing, many scenes were so dark in comparison to the first showing, I remember commenting to my husband that there must have been a problem with the projection staff or the film…Everyone that I saw the film with the first time, and they were not fans of Firefly or Joss-just free movie junkies, I guess, really liked the movie and thought the special effects were great. Don’t know if this sheds any “light” on your discourse. The DVD I bought later was also very dark. What can I say but that someone needs to lighten up!!
August 25th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Thanks for your more than intriguing and insightful views on this matter Rufus. Based upon your writings, it looks like this was some kind of ill advised last minute creative decision on the part of the studio, technically speaking, as far as the dark aperture is concerned–one that I am hoping Joss Whedon will correct someday!!!
As I said earlier…like you, I really enjoyed Serenity, and maybe even love this movie, and thus…would like to see sequels and a new tv series made. I just want to see the best print made available to the fans…most likely, the very same print that you first saw at the preview screenings of Serenity!!!
Take care Rufus, and thanks again!!!
August 27th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Wouldn’t a dark image be used not to compensate for special effects — which are after all CGI and not, therefore, “shot” with “aperture” — but rather to compensate for not enough money in sets? This movie’s budget of US$39 million is really quite small as far as space movies go, and if I recall my Firefly-on-FOX history that original Serenity set cost them a cool US$10 million. Then it was torn down, thrown away, and reconstituted (another US$10 million) again for Serenity. If you’re spending a bunch on effects, and buying just a few sandwiches for the crew, it requires some sleight of hand to accomplish.
PS, in space it’s dark.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:35 am
It’s called Green Screening. If for instance, you want want an extravagant set, often times it is smart to shoot against a Green Screen, and then matte in a background and mid ground made from a miniature, matte painting, a digital matte and or a back drop, any of these steps would have been preferable to darkening the film’s aperture to hide bad sets like the Bar. The whole bar scene could have been Green Screened or simply shot on location, at a pre-standing site…i.e. a real bar. It would have cost them very little money to do it and saved them the cost of building over expensive sets.
James Cameron even once warned filmmakers against building a massive set when you are only going to use it for a brief scene. He suggested only building parts of it, say a staircase, and then using matte paintings, forced perspective via miniatures, etc., to accomplish your vision without spending too much money unnecessarily. That money can be better spent elsewhere.
PS, in Hollywood, it doesn’t have to be overly dark. That’s what they mean by the saying: Lights, Camera, Action!!!
August 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Amended:
It’s called Green Screening. If…for instance, you want an extravagant set, often times it is much smarter to shoot against a Green Screen, and then matte in a background and middle-ground made from a miniature, matte painting, a digital matte, and or, a back drop…any of these steps would have been preferable to darkening the film’s aperture to hide bad sets like the Bar. The whole bar scene could have been Green Screened, or simply shot on location, at a pre-standing site…i.e., a real bar. It would have cost them very little money to do it and saved them the cost of building over expensive sets.
James Cameron even once warned filmmakers against building a massive set when you are only going to use it for a brief scene. He suggested only building parts of it, say…a staircase, and then using matte paintings, forced perspective–via miniatures, etc., to accomplish your vision, you can do it without spending too much money unnecessarily. That money can be better spent elsewhere.
PS, in Hollywood, it doesn’t have to be overly dark. That’s what they mean by the saying: Lights, Camera, Action!!!