I am also happiest with a closed canon. But I won't buy the comics either way, so it's kind of a moot point for me.

---

So you don't trust Joss anymore? (Or...never trusted Joss?)

I don't put my faith in any one writer or creator. That way leads to bitterness. This feels (as does the Spike movie notion) like more cash cow to milk than a genuine interest in returning to the universe.

Plus, umm, I think Joss is fairly uneven as a comic book writer. The medium is unkind to his weaknesses as a storyteller.

---

The medium is unkind to his weaknesses as a storyteller.

What do you see as his strengths and weaknesses?

I've been thinking about this lately in relationship to Serenity.

---

From the Whedonesque post:

See, the Buffyverse glows in my brain with a new, overreaching arc that will include the comics, Spike, and more. It's taking shape and soon you will know its name. And you will tremble.

See, I really do think Joss likes to play in that sandbox.

Well, I certainly can't say much more, except that Wonder Woman is finally kicking ass that is not my ass, as in, I'm loving this script. She's saving the world in a tiara, people; this is why there's a me!

Saving the world in a tiara. Sounds like a movie we'd like.

---

See, I really do think Joss likes to play in that sandbox.

I think that's how he talks about everything.

---

Sounds like a movie we'd like.

Sounds like the new Bitches thread title. IJS.

---

I think that's how he talks about everything.

Yeah, but he is genuinely enthusiastic about the things he's working on, particularly when he's in control of the project.

I think he wants to do the comics because he wants to tell that story. It's not like needs the money or will make much money off the comics.

The only cynical angle I can figure is wanting to keep the franchise alive because it gives him leverage and visibility.

---

I think he wants to do the comics because he wants to tell that story.

But after the first few, it's going to be a continuing series. His motive there isn't, "I've always wanted to have unspecified editorial control over a comic book that someone else writes." If he just wanted to tell one particular story, he could certainly make a deal to just do that.

I don't think it's pure greed, but I think he wants to keep the universe alive. From what I recall, he's always been enthusiastic about the idea of creating a neverending franchise.

---

The only cynical angle I can figure is wanting to keep the franchise alive because it gives him leverage and visibility.

Well, duh.

See, the Buffyverse glows in my brain with a new, overreaching arc that will include the comics, Spike, and more. It's taking shape and soon you will know its name. And you will tremble.

There's at least one word in there that makes me tremble, but not in the way he thinks it should.

What do you see as his strengths and weaknesses?

His strength, in the main, is a strong grasp on emotions. However, it's a large part of his weakness as well. He handwaves a lot of world building, privileges emotion over sense-making, and tends towards both pandering and melodrama.

---

Well, duh.

That doesn't make me cynical though. That's just Hollywood savvy in my book.

His strength, in the main, is a strong grasp on emotions. However, it's a large part of his weakness as well. He handwaves a lot of world building, privileges emotion over sense-making, and tends towards both pandering and melodrama.

Melodrama? I don't know. He might cop to that under the heading "Operatic." He does like big juicy emotions.

I don't think he panders, particularly. He's conscious of his audience but doesn't go out of his way to bend toward their preferences.

I think he's weak on plot, but I think his biggest strengths are in a kind of vertical compression. That is, he's very economical in his writing to compress exposition and character and plot and witty play all into a few lines. Sort of the Steve Woz engineering trick.

That's also a virtue of his use of language which is distinctive and metaphorically rich. He mostly reminds me of Shakespeare in that regard - in that Shakespeare's plots often have holes in them, or logic gaps, or dangling subplots, but that isn't the point.

They both have a density within their storytelling which overcomes their plot deficiencies. You can tug at each character and thread and there's a complex backstory and arc to each one. You can turn the story around and look at its different facets and there are multiple structures on view.

For example, Serenity can map out as Joss working out his issues with Fox (i.e., You Can't Stop The Signal). It can also be seen as him revisiting and fixing what he disliked about the finished version of his Aliens 4 script. It also works as Joss rehabilitating and investigating the original conception of Han Solo - in short a critique of what's gone wrong with the Star Wars franchise. It's also Joss exploring the complex moral history of post-Civil War America.

That's just the meta-structures. Within the story he does a lot of doubling and refracting of character arcs that's very pleasing. The spiritual paths of Book and Mal. Zoe/Wash ending to Simon/Kaylee beginning. Jayne and River taking different paths to being integrated into the crew. Wash and Kaylee's functions within the crew. Jayne & Zoe as different warrior images. The way each crew member reflects something back of Mal. Book and The Operative. Mal and The Operative. You can go on and on.

---