Slashdot Mirror
Gaiman and Whedon Discuss the Rise of the Geek
CABridges writes "In a lengthy Time Magazine interview, Neil Gaiman ("Sandman," "American Gods") and Joss Whedon ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Firefly") talk about their audience.
Gaiman: "Mostly they're people. They're us. That's what they look like."
Whedon: "They're a lot more attractive than I am, actually, which kind of disturbs and upsets me."
Both men, known for their cult-favorite creations, have movies debuting this Friday. For Gaiman it's MirrorMask, for Whedon it's Serenity."
Here's what I had to say on my little bio site about myself: geek - while it used to be a four letter word, it is now a (somewhat?) coveted title. Either that or people just have short memories. Regardless, knowing about technology and having a desire to constantly improve it is now almost as accepted as jaywalking.
fak3r.com
In the list of works for which Gaiman is known..."Don't Panic" is missing!
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
The folks on this site are more attractive than Whedon?! Holy shit, he must be really disfigured!
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I got to see Serenity three weeks ago and it was GREAT!! Seriously, go tell everyone you know to see it because the movie business requires a great opening weekend or else they quickly disappear. And if it disappears, no sequels.
One of my acquaintances also saw the special preview and he went out and bought the DVD's of the series.
Quick question, I heard that there are eight different versions of the movie that they were previewing, and that they were going to gauge audience reaction before the final release. Is that true?
there's no geeks around here.
So what are the rest?
Technoli
... but PETA complained about the chickens so I had to stop. Now I'm just a nerd.
AVClub article
AVClub is from the same guys who do The Onion
This interview also features Dave McKean.
Ryan Fenton
Geeks are attractive when they have big wallet bulges. Now that a few internet stocks have revived, especially the Google monster, geeks are in fashion again.
Atlanta has a showing of mirrormask for 1 week only. The artist of mirrormask also does the sandman covers.
h p?date=0
Movie Times: http://www.atlantamovietimes.com/movies/4798910.p
- z
http://www.cgisecurity.com/
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
Always with the multiple pages, yes I know you get ansy and start doubleclicking words or some other psychological thing, but for those with attention spans:
One Nice Single Page With No Ads
The 'Rise of the Geek'??!? Well I guess that's nice for the next generation if up and coming nerds, but that doesn't make the pain and humiliation that was childhood any easier. So I like Star Trek, just leave me alone asshole! Hey, I'm trying to read my cosmology book, go away!
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
What's awesome about these two movies is that the talents behind them (and I include Dave McKean here) had complete control of the movies. The scripts, the direction, the marketing - everything. And guess what, it works. They follow through on their vision, no compromise for execs who don't get it, and produce something faithful to what they want.
/. isn't going to make anyone pay 5 bucks for a movie ticket, but if Mirrormask is on near you, go see it.
:)
And they produce excellent movies. Thought-provoking, entertaining, well directed, beautifully shot movies (without any 6 figure salaries).
I was luck to see both Mirrormask and Serenity at the Edinburgh Film Festival this year and both were amazing films for completely different reasons. I realise some random comment on
If you haven't seen Firefly, and Serenity is playing near you, go see it.
This is the new age of the auteur
"JW: But I also think there's a bit of misconception with that. Everybody who labels themselves a nerd isn't some giant person locked in a cubbyhole who's never seen the opposite sex. Especially with the way the Internet is now, I think that definition is getting a little more diffuse."
/.? YES
translation: Anyone geek can get laid with net pr0n.
Am I a geek? Let's see...
Pocket protector? NO
Bad hair/teeth/smell? NO
Own my own RAID? NO
Write apps for fun? NO
Collect Buffy and Transformer dolls? NO
Post on
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
That's the beauty of Whedon's work, he's the quintessential geek and he manages to showcase the self-deprecating humour so inherent in people with interests outside the mainstream.
Reading an outline for Buffy 10 years ago, you would have instantly assumed it was destined for a short-lived run and eventual shunting to a 2am timeslot before dissapearing into obscurity. Instead it became a cult hit, ran for seven seasons and spawned a massive franchise, including one of the few successful spin-off television shows.
Firefly, with it's mesh of sci-fi and old west, would have seemed likely to suffer the same fate. However after it's network axing, fan support (to which Whedon has paid tribute) has seen a movie release.
Both of these shows have succeeded, in part, due to Whedon's offbeat writing and his affinity for geek references. They've been elevated to cult status and after all, you can't beat a geek for obsessing about a television show.
Allyson Hannigan.
She married Wesley (Alexis Duchanov?)
Firefly is not EQ/WoW/Buffy/Angel.
They are drifting into it at the end of the series a tiny bit- apparently Joss likes supergirls.
No idea about Serenity except that I am going to see it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Please watch Firefly. It's nothing like Buffy, by which I mean both are good in their own ways but: "It's like watching EverQuest, World of Warcraft, and EverQuest II on TV. A bunch of well endowed girls with doll-like figures capable of defeating creatures 10 times their size." does NOT apply to Firefly.
Is that cute red-head in Serenity?
Nah, there is a completely different cute redhead with precocious personality traits.
Honestly, I'm not impressed by their work.
I find most Whedon's work so campy that I just can't watch it. I usually leave the room, despite other geeks attempts to get me interested. One day, however, someone threw on the DVDs of the Firefly series and after seeing three episodes I was hooked. I went out and bought them a couple days later. I highly recommend giving Serenity/Firefly a try, it is one of the best sci-fi shows to come out in years.
Take a look at the Mirrormask promo site. They list all of its theaters on a single page. Not exactly a major blockbuster release, but hey one of them is near me, so I won't complain.
The trailer looks like a sharp left turn from Labyrinth, although I may have been swayed by the Henson logo.
Inspiration & visuals by Dave McKean, written by Neil Gaiman, where have I seen that combination before? But it's the first feature-length movie for both of them. If they're even half as good at film as they were at comics, should be a surreal treat.
I think one of the things that really propelled Joss Whedon to the front stage as a "great writer" is that the shows he did, a la Buffy, Angel, and Firefly, where competing against things like Suddenly Susan and Friends. His shows, and Buffy especially, had a wicked attitude, a beautiful fantasy/character driven show, and for most of us that started watching Buffy back in '97 it was a take on your every day high school, replete with jocks, cliques, bullies, and a-hole teachers. I think as it progressed, there was a certain age group that followed the series into through high school and into college, while they themselves were making the same transitions. And I'll definitely be seeing Serenity. Sci-fi just had a Firefly marathon so I'm ultra stoked.
suck my ping!
That said, Whedon has to be one of the most overrated writers, ever. IMO, YMMV, etc.
Sure, but Kaylee & River are both hot!
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
Too bad. Gaiman's work is a lot more interesting.
This login name for sale.
lately, I've been wondering why this is. It seems that "geek hood" is actually approaching a phenomenon. When people ask me what I do for a living, I'll usually give them a grin and say "Oh, I'm a professional geek". To which I usually get the response:
"Oh? What kind?"
Not a look of disdain that those growing up before, say, the 1990's might have received. Part of this I think it because of the dot-com boom (and bust): people saw that geeks could become millionaires, and if there's anything that influences people to do something it's money.
But the other thing is how much technology affects our lives. Cell phones and the Internet are on everyone's minds - you can't go 10 minutes without one some days. Because of this, geeks are now something of mystical wizards, the people who bring these cool "toys" to the masses to play with, including their iPods, the current status symbol, which 5 years ago was purely a geek music toy.
And because of this, I think that society is slowly starting to see the benefits of intelligence. Where before "egg headed intellectuals" would have been scoffed, intelligent activities are starting to aquire some respect. Look at TV shows: the most popular ones weren't just mindless driven, they were shows like "Lost" and "Battlestar Gallactica" and yes, "Desperate Housewives" (which I haven't watched), shows which contain very complex relationships and huge shades of gray in character.
The most popular books: Harry Potter, a book about a geek (a kid who likes to go to school and is best friend with the school uber-geek - a geek girl no less). Manga is becoming popular - I went into a bookstore and saw two whole isles, with 14 - 20 year olds hanging around - and not just the ugly ones, but cheerleaders looking at what once was only "nerd" material talking about how cute so-and-so is.
This isn't to say that those who are smart or different are entering Utopia - look at the current "Intelligent Design" debates and issues with extreme religious people trying to convert government to their way of thinking (as a religious person, this behavior really irks me. There's a reason why the "Render under Ceaser speak was made, and it's still applies, folks), or corporations muddling science (global warming? Where? Have another Hummer!) -
But things are getting better. Saying "I'm a professional geek" makes me the guy at parties people want to talk to. They ask about security, or about games they're playing (amazing how many executives have a PS2 these days), or just computer talk about their iPods or whatever. Yeah, they don't think I can play basketball, but that's ok.
I don't have to - I'm a geek.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Joss Whedon has done some remarkable things. Probably none of these are original, but he's combined them consistently, into packages which are only less precious (like some entire series of Buffy) because of the sheer volume.
- He mixes long story lines with short ones so you can enjoy both individual episodes and entire series.
- He has unconditionally excellent camera work, with many long shots, excellent lighting, and hand-held effects that seem cheesy but actually work well.
- He makes great use of music.
- He develops stable groups of characters, bringing interesting social dynamics to the plots, and letting us identify with different characters. I'd like to be Spike, but I know I'm really Xander.
- He stays semi-real, semi-fantasy, allowing him to explore dark subjects (death and loss) in different ways.
- He brings big-screen production quality to every episode, so the DVDs are really worth having.
- His dialogues are usually so good that in the few cases where the characters become formulaic stand out.
On the downside, his work tends to be very politically neutral, which makes it safe, but bland. Serenity was cancelled because it was slyly political, Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham style. The shocker is that it managed to get aired at all, on Fox TV, which is basically a mouthpiece for the Sheriff.
The unfinished Serenity first series, by the way, was fantastic. A wonderful cast, and every single aspect of the production deliberate and perfect, as far as I could tell. I don't normally make an effort to see specific films but I'm eagerly waiting to see Serenity.
My blog
I find tons of people into what have been labeled as "geek" passtimes from the entire d&d thing to the sci-fi fanatics but it seems that the more these people are into these "geek" activities the less they seem "geek" to me.
Am I expectiong too much out of the geek label? Or do I have the wrong definition? I always seemed to think of a geek as someone with a high technical/mathmatical/scientific proficency. It just seems the more "hardcore" fans of geek entertainment seem to be less into the logistical/technical aspects of life and more into simply the fantasy world that real geeks (by my standards only) often get lumped in with.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It is all about creative control. Someone with a real strong vision can make something uniquely cohesive and brilliant. Whether it's Straczynski's Babylon 5 or Frank Miller's Sin City, it's amazing what can be done when the grubby fingers of mediocrity are kept away from someone's bright ideas.
Of course, creative control doesn't guarantee quality. (See Ilene Chaiken's utter failure to even have consistend characterization on The L Word.) But a lack of it will pretty much guarantee mediocrity.
I want to come out of the theater saying "I have never, ever seen anything like that before." I did that after Sin City; I did that after the preview screening of Serenity that I saw.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
But I watched an episode here and there, and I began to realize how good the writing really is. How good the stories get sometimes.
There's a lot of subtext in the Buffy scripts. Everything is a metaphor, especially the monster/vortex/curse/evilfishpeople of the week. So there's this one level on which the show is beautiful fluff - kick-ass chicks and scary blood-sucking monsters - and then there's this other level on which the single-minded, relentlessness of the monster is played as counterpoint to some other character's desire to get that boyfriend/that 'A'/that job at all costs, and hurt whoever they have to to get there.
And all that aside, it's _entertaining_. What makes something entertaining is hard to define, but, in my subjective viewpoint, this show had it in spades. The imagery, the dialogue, the whole look and feel and sound and experience of it - it ain't TV crack, but it ain't bad.
These are classic geek genres, and Wallace & Gromit is something I can watch with the kids!
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Feh!
Kaylee and River are cute, but Inara is the hot one!
As a typical /.er, I doubt that any of those actresses would give me the time of day, much less go on a date with me...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
From interviews with Neil Gaiman, the movie got started when the Henson company looked at Dark Crystal and Labyrinth and noticed that while they didn't do very well in theaters, they've turned out to be quite successful in the home video market. People keep buying the tapes, DVDs, etc. year after year.
So they went to him and said, "Can you come up with an idea for a movie in this style, that we could produce on a low budget, and could you put in a word with Dave McKean? And we know we can't affort you as the writer, but would you at least come up with the story?" At that point he said something like "If Dave's direting it, I'm writing it," they got the deal, the two of them went off to spend a week or two in the Hensons' vacation home developing the story, and launched into it from there.
So while it would be wonderful if it did well in theaters, the studio is really counting on it being part of their home video line for the next 20 years -- just like The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth.
I remember ST:VI was completely different in the theater then it is on the home release, they re-cut the entire movie. Valeris was part Romulan and guy in the Klingon mask at the end was actually Klingon. They added all the stuff about the Fed military brass wanting to preemptively attack the Klingons. Plus a bunch of little dialogue changes were made.
They never really explained why or even noted that it had been re-cut (to my knowledge). In the theatre the whole thing was a Klingon-Romulan plot, where as at home it was a Klingon-Federation plot. The home version was really much more true to the Star Trek ideals of breaking down the barriers of racism and old rivalries (which is I suppose why it was re-cut); but I do wish I could see the theatrical version again, just for the sake of not paving over SciFi history.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
As far as Whedon's writing skills are concerned. Best TV writer...possibly ever. There is no one else out there who has been able to successfully do the following 1. Write character arcs over SEVEN years that show true character growth. No one has ever done this-- with the possible exception of Joel Fleischman from Northen Exposure ALL TV character basically remain the same. Whedon changed that-- but if your're looking for characters that never mature...stick with the crap that's already out there. 2. Tackle controversial subjects without preaching..."Realistic" TV sermonizes...Whedon entertains and actually demonstrates the complexities of truly controversial subjects-- homosexuality, despair, feminism...etc. 3. Treat Death with dignity-- watch "The Body" from Season Five--- Six Feet Under could've taken some lessons from that episode. Real death was never trivialized on a Whedon show, the way crime shows and supposedly "avant-garde" shows on cable trivialize death. But then again for a nation hooked on narcissistic reality shows--- Whedon's writing skills may go unappreciated.
Great, pet peeve alert.
Anachronism eh? SO. Since you feel that in the Future we will all have equal access to all technology, how do you explain the fact that we are chatting to each other via a global information network while many thousands of people still live in subsistance communities?
Do you think that when phasers, lasers, or other -ers are invented; that they will be handed out to all who ask? Do you think that when terraforming dozens of planets, that each planet will receive state of the art machinery requiring expensive fuel and electricity? You don't think that there will be a place for livestock at all?
Where do you think hamburgers and the like come from? Do you think that food will be delivered via spaceship to entire planets? If so, where does the food come from in your idealized scifi universe?
Please, describe your all "futuristic and shit" universe. Explain how people living on the edge of civilization will have access to very expensive technology other than that required to maintain their lifestyle. I guess you believe that the Iraqi insurgents have helicopters, tanks, tactical nuclear weapons, submarines, etc. I guess that's why they are taking on our military directly instead of doing makeshift hit and run attacks, oh. Wait.
Does it not make more sense that people would use the scifi tech they need and can afford, and make do with the rest? I.e. they have a scifi space engine, but use guns. Their scifi engine does the job they need it to do, their guns do the job they need them to do.
So I guess I should get over to Mongolia and help out with the water well-based community IPO they are offering next month. Maybe get them to finally upgrade from horses and oxen to cars and tractors, because gas is so cheap and easily available to them; unlike grass. The grass that grows on the hills. That feeds the horses and oxen directly. Yeah. I guess that makes sense in your head.
Bah, it's only a different species if they can't produce fertile offspring with humans.
Oh... wait.
That's certainly true, and I can't speak for the gentleman you are replying to-- but one of the big reasons I *liked* Firefly was that it didn't suffer from the "perfect futurism" that too many sci-fi shows do. It's part of what made the original Star Wars so unique among movies... dirty desert huts and subsistence farming mixed in with dingy used robots and patchwork spaceships. *Much* more likely than the shiny-clean all-pervasive techno-future of Star Trek. Hell, we can't even manage to get everbody basic sanitation, let alone internet access.
A thousand years from now, someone will still be growing rice the hard way for a pittance.
Heee. Shit like the parent reminds me of a conversation I had awhile back - a mistake on my part, attempting to divulge some information about the cyberpunk world I've been developing. Started talking about the communications hardware being essentially exactly what the cops have now and the geek in question threw a fit - got red in the face and started insisting they cops would be using quantum encryption and all sorts of fifty cent words and flavor-of-the-month TLAs he'd obviously pulled out of a recent issue of Wired.
:P We have functional beam canon, but the military is still using howitzers. Why? Beam canon are expensive and part of the point of the howitzer is that nice big crater the shell leaves. Why would alt-future cops be using super expensive high-maintenance technology (in a desert environment) when CB radio is not only cheap but rugged?
Like Gibson said - the future is here, it just isn't widely distributed yet.
Bleh. People either read/watch sci-fi for the science or the fiction - Personally, I like the fiction. I find the people that are too fixated on the science to be even more removed from reality than cosplayers and DnD geeks.
I'd like to be Spike, but I know I'm really Xander
I'm stealing your line.
I have to admit, I only got into Buffy et al recently, because continuing storylines in TV series, while I love them, are impossible without a regular schedule. I'm a full-blooded geek, I do the comics thing, I do the Star Wars thing, I write my own Atari 2600 utilities... but I never "got" Buffy, for the above reason mostly, but also because it really seemed to be a "chick" show. A show about a girl(s), for girls. With a few attractive supporting male charcters. Gilmore Girls with vampires. When Angel debuted, it seemed even MORE targetted squarely at 16 year old girls. This is how I viewed Buffy, and the occasional epidose I saw didn't draw me in enough, because it just seemed to be Sweet Valley High with vampires.
A couple of years ago I started getting the DVDs on the recommendation of a friend, and after the first season, I was hooked. I realized that the show was far more than some easily stereotyped genre film. Moved on to Angel, and actually got Firefly without even realizing it was Whedon's work. Been loving them all, even though it's damn near a thousand bucks spent at this point. I've tried explaining the attraction to non-fans, and most of them share my earlier opinion: it's a show for teenage girls.
Anyway, you've summed up exactly what it is about Whedon's work that draws me in: I'd like to be Spike, but I know I'm really Xander. Every show has its archetypes: the jock, the nerd, the cheerleader, the psycho (yes, I watched the Breakfast Club far too many times). Usually, I'd see the jock, wish I could be him, realize I'm the nerd, and get all irritated. With Buffy and the rest, that sort of realization makes me feel GOOD about myself.
Maybe it's just that the characters are not one-dimensional. The show presents the typical, simplistic view (cool tough guy vs. useless weak sidekick), but by the end you realize just who the real hero is of the two. And in a far more believable way than something like Spider-Man. The scene with Xander and Tara talking about what it's like to be "ordinary" people was something I've never seen done properly in fiction before. Amazing stuff.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I am probably going to get modded down on this greatly as a troll or the like, but I have to say it so I will...
Everyone keeps talking about Firefly and Serentity as being wonderful and great programs. While I'll accept these as wonderfully fine opinions, it is important that some of you remember that this isn't what the majority of people are going to think, and don't be too surprised if the numbers for the movies are poor.
Just some thoughts on Whedon's 'great' shows: only one of them ever made it to a major network, Firefly, and we all know it didn't last long. Now it can easily be argued that this is because it was sci-fi or people can start the....the masses just don't understand...speeches, but in reality it might truly be a show that was never meant for network, or at least not the big four. We have all seen FOX makes some dumb decisions on shows (i.e. cancelling Family Guy) and making some dumb decisions on picking up shows. The truth of the matter is that FOX gambled on the show based on success of Buffy and/or Angel on their 2nd tier networks, and they lost.
I am not going to openly say that the show sucks, because some of what I watched of it I did enjoy, while other parts I trulty loathed, though that can possibly be said for other shows as well. It should also be noted that the movies launch date is post-Labor Day. With the exception of LotR in recent years, the movie industry makes its money during the summer run. So it might be possible for this to eke out a first or second place simply on your typical low fall movie turnout.
In the end I would like to see what more people say after seeing it, instead of just the people who went to the preview, most of whom have problem had the day circled on calendars for months. I also am tempted to see what the major movie critics say, because their opinions often influence the decisions of the masses. So there it is said, you can mod me up or down as you see fit...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I'm excited about both of the projects and I'm planning on going to a midnight showing Serenity tomorrow. The most interesting part of this though is the fundamental shift in the entertainment industry that both of these movies represent. "Movie" studios have been firmly taken over by their DVD divisions. There have been a lot of comments here asking why Firefly was given a movie deal after being seen as such a failure for Fox. The answer, it sold a boatload of DVDs, and Universal is counting less on a succesful theatrical release then they are on selling another boatload when it comes out on DVD. Plus, the markeing campaign for the movie acts as marketing for the existing DVD set, increasing sales there as well. Mirrormask, as someone else pointed out, was produced to be sort of a spiritual successor to the Dark Crystal and Labrynth, 2 movies that didn't have very successful theatrical releases but proved to have very long legs in the DVD sale market. I think these releases are really interesting becasue I think the studios are floating these out there as a test of a new business model, and if these movies spawn lucrative DVD releases, I think we're goign to see some major shifts in movie releases: a shortening of the window between theatrical and DVD releases, an increased emphasis on studio releases straight to the customer like home viewing of downloaded content (which might be great news for the BitTorrent guys if they can become the defacro transmission protocol) and eventually the death of the movie theater as we know it. These ideas of where the business is heading certainly aren't new, but these are the first releases I've seen that look like their number one goal is DVD sales and the theatrical release is secondary.
I am going to say this again: Geek sex is the best! Trust me!
PS: to any woman reading this - Don't even try to mess with my geek. Get your own!
My husband likes star trek...
...he is a Sys Admin...
...all other geek signs included....
Yes! He gets blowjobs and he does not have to ask for it !
He also gets porn occasionally, just to spice it up.
So... you see, if you have to ask for it (or pay for it), YOU are the one not doing it right!
'Anachronism eh? SO. Since you feel that in the Future we will all have equal access to all technology, how do you explain the fact that we are chatting to each other via a global information network while many thousands of people still live in subsistance communities?'
My wife spent six weeks in Uganda this summer in a village there. They recently got electricity for the first time ever, their houses have dirt floors, and they have to carry water half a mile from the well whenever they need it, since they don't have plumbing.
They also have cellphones and a few laptops, and they drive into Mbale to send and receive email. There are services in the city that will charge your electronic gear for a fee; you leave your phone or whatever with them and pick it up a few hours later.
It's quite possible to live in (nearly) subsistence communities and also 'chat via a global information network'... I don't think things are so clearly partitioned. The farmers in Mongolia may need global communications in order for them to sell their crops abroad.