I'd guess the Firefly posters were more a nod to geeks. Deadpool 2's director, David Leitch (also directed John Wick), did stunt work in Serenity. Or could be a joke about Ryan Reynolds, Fireflies in the Garden, though that one is a bit more of a stretch. I'd guess it mostly is about just a nod for the sort of geeks who got behind the project in the first place... or perhaps a casting hint at who may be in Deadpool 2...

As for a rehabilitation idea, this may have filmed around the same time Fox said they'd be open to a reboot if Joss himself would be on board. Though given that came news came out in early February, I'd think this had already been filmed and in the bag by that point, unless they cut things that close in film making. If it was filmed after that news, then it certainly was a nod to that news.

I am a fan of Alien Rez, not because of Joss Whedon's patchwork script, but because at least it had the familiar comedic elements of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and his usual returning ensemble cast (Ron Pearlamn, Dominique Pinon), as well as Sigorney Weaver being a badass mother.

Just my opinion. I love all of Jeunet's films; as wild and varied as the genres, his film style and character driven stories transcend the genre. City of Lost Child, Amelie, Delcatessen, Micmacs -- really excellent track record. Cool bit of science fiction in all of his films, even if just sort of a chaotic sense of fate and surrealism.

Ridley Scott is hit or miss -- but then again, Ridley Scott has far more a prolific film career so it's like arguing the planetary distances versus the intergalactic distances, we can't fully comprehend the multitude of influences involved in making a film and the secret to making it a good film, so what does it matter if it's 1 astronomical unit, 2 light years, or 26 billion light years, it's all beautiful art.

My kindness aside, his last 5 films: Robin Hood, Prometheus, The Counselor, Exodus, The Martian -- typical and BORING blockbustery movies. 1492 and everything after have been epic suck fests. Even Hannibal was a let down. They're all movies you're sort of excited about, if it weren't for the fact that he drags them out and adds little element of noticeable flair. Like Spielberg, hidden in realism. I want the stylistic elements of Alien and Blade Runner and Legend that PULLED YOU OUT of the movie experience to say loudly: This is art.

The soundtracks especially -- Ridley Scott replaced the original scoring of his movie Legend, which was a dazzling score by Tangerine Dream -- he replaced it with Jerry Goldsmith in rerelease... which sort of makes it all come full circle when you listen to the awful, typically EPIC score of Prometheus, minus all the atmosphere that the original soundtrack provided.

I hope this means Ashley Johnson's going to be in more Joss Whedon projects because I just, I just want to look at her all the time.

Joss Fong.

She's the quick way for me to describe "the perfect woman".

I'm definitely not a film student (or a student of films). I'm not really savvy enough to confirm this guy's thesis about what Snyder is doing wrong.

But one part rang massively true for me -- when he talked about Avengers Age of Ultron and the farmhouse scene. Honestly, I didn't like Age of Ultron all that much, but that scene stuck out as a good one. From being a fan of Joss Whedon's TV shows, I think he is a master of making characters that we get invested in. We identify with them or see elements of friends / family / whatever in them, and that makes it much more rewarding to watch them do amazing (or even mundane) things.

That farmhouse scene in Age of Ultron was a really good example of that. And I didn't feel anything like that, at all, for any of the characters in Batman v Superman.

I don't know that Whedon's very character-centric approach is necessarily a whole lot better for creating extremely compelling storylines either, but I think it can cover a lot of blemishes in that department.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

@gorillaman, I admit I'm veering close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but equally, I never claimed that all feminists were sane and moral people.

The difference is, I think most people these days are reasonably feminist and I think the vast majority of them are not man-hating nutjobs. There's undoubtedly a lunatic fringe, but that's the case for every group/ideology.

I also agree that meanings change over time. "national socialism", shorn of its historic baggage, doesn't sound that terrible. But we know that what it actually signifies is actually national fascism, racism and other abhorrent concepts.

The question is at what point the lunatic fringe comes to represent the whole. For example, at one point the Republicans were once the party of small government and fiscal conservatism, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to describe them as anything other than the party of religious nutjobs and idiots.

I don't feel feminism has been hijacked to the same extent. I believe there are still a lot of normal rational people who describe themselves as feminists (I'd like to think I'm one, for a start).

Finally, I'm with Joss Whedon.... "feminism" is a terrible word, but ultimately, "You either believe women are people or you don't. It's that simple."

He totally screwed up the part were River gained or had her "powers" naturally (she was only naturally/gifted mentally, that is, she was a genius or prodigy). That came from the experimenting FROM the Alliance... Same with her fighting abilities, that was also an Alliance "gift" (to use her as a "psychic weapon"). But I think Joss already made the point IN the show that Mal was indeed a very shady person, if you didn't get that you are an idiot!

You were supposed to know that the Alliance brought a lot of great things with them, but they also stole your freedom...essentially (in exchange for a world with lots of rules).

But, what the Alliance was up to "behind the scenes" is what was really everyone's main concern--which they covered in Serenity a bit... In Serenity we found out that they had been up to a LOT more terrible things than just taking individuals like River--they were in the business of thinking they knew how to make all people "better" people...and one day they would try to institute it in force, en masse...

It seemed like the show was more a story about the civil war had the wrong side won--to some degree; I think you could make an argument for both. But it was obvious from watching that "Mal's side" was the "Confederacy", but they didn't stand for the same things, it was just that the history of things were playing out the same in many ways...and that was the point.

If The Union had been lying about a huge amount of things and started to institute policies that you went into action then they'd seem so very much like the Alliance in the show (BUT, some actions are exactly like what The Union did to Confederate "states" after the war; which DID leave them in states of welfare were citizens were left to fend for the most basic of necessities on their own--the Wild Wild West didn't just appear from comic books... Even the citizens had to fight off Indian attacks here and there and most of these attacks were born from the legacy of military campaigns and other actions via The Union (or before the States went to war--but, it's easy to see what the "Reavers" were based on, at least I assume that is what he had in mind).

Ironically, right now in our government it's doing the things that Mal was so concerned over that many that HAD lived in the Alliance regions hadn't been as worried about: slowly eroding our civil liberties, our regular freedoms are being taken away or one-by-one being hamstrung, and regulation is being destroyed allowing the corrupt to make this circle all that much worse (of course one day this cycle will just feedback on itself and create a revolution--as it always has). That is what The Alliance was doing, especially to the planets that didn't join immediately...so it does have a lot in common with our history. As The Union did do some pretty annoying and considering all of the people that needed help and were not getting anything, they actually directly killed a large amount of completely innocent people...just to punish some wealthy land owners and other people that had something to do with the Civil War. They should have taken the matter directly into their hands, but there is a lot on that as well (just like the show...why the Alliance never intervenes in the outer planets...).

God how I miss that show. I can only imagine what Joss could have accomplished in 7 or 8 seasons (maybe more). He could have made a show that could easily be written about in a college setting, about the civil war and the topics related to it. How grand the adventure could have been, except for one dickhead producer at Fox...

(*I take no responsibility for the parts of my comment I messed up on...* )


*nerd rant*

So every ship in the Firefly universe contains the same crew of characters spouting Joss Whedon dialog?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'firelfy, serenity, joss whedon, nathan fillom, captian malcolm reynolds' to 'firelfy, serenity, joss whedon, nathan fillion, captian malcolm reynolds' - edited by Fusionaut

Though I'm surely forgetting some more obscure work, I certainly can't think of any Aisimov novel or short story that has ever been transitioned into a decent film.

It's possible, as ChaosEngine alluded to, that the Foundation "trilogy" could make a decent film trilogy or miniseries, but it would require an exceptionally good screenwriter and director to make it work--and a LOT of creative liberties. It just covers too great a timespan, too many characters with complex and cross-generational relationships, and frankly very little of real significance happens during reasonable spans of time. Frankly, and though I can't claim to have read all of his works (though probably most), Asimov is probably best left in the realm of literature.

What we really need is a film version of the damn Sprawl Trilogy. I mean, that's just begging to be made into a trilogy of films. The screenplay would almost write itself. I'd say Joss Whedon should direct.

That's not what @Shepppard said. He said "I've never looked into anything to do with feminism in the media" (emphasis mine) in response to your point about how the word has been under assault in the media.

For the record, I am for treating everyone equally and as such, I'd call myself a feminist. At the same time, I think it's a terrible choice of word. We don't call anti-racists "blackists" or "jewists", or lgbt supporters "gayists".

Personally, I'm with Joss Whedon

@bareboards2 such withering scorn!

Why are you making a big deal of the fact a male sent you that cartoon? Did you expect that I would respond with something like "oh a MAN sent it? Well, if it wasn't some awful feminazi type, then it must be right!"?? I would have thought that our interactions on this site would be enough for you to realise I don't think that way. The originating gender is irrelevant.

As it happens, I fully agree with the video.

What I dislike is the idea that any group of humans does not have a place in a discussion around interactions between other humans. If this was a discussion about an all-male field (let's say a male pro sports team), are womens opinions not relevant? Sure, you should have some basic knowledge of any subject before you espouse an opinion on it, but I think gender relations is a topic that pretty much everyone has at least some experience of.

The solution to past exclusionary, discriminative or even downright abusive practices is not more exclusionary practices. When Joss Whedon said "feminists are just people who think women are people too" , is that not a useful contribution?

I agree that it's not about making men the subject, but surely a white hetero man's opinion on gender, race and sexuality is no less valid than a black lesbians?

It's not Joss, it's his sister in law's brother... It's not so good really.

I'm watching TMNT but this is Joss Whedon so I'll come back and fall in love with it later.