Pisher, you jump to useless conclusions about my intentions. I was giving my observations Whedon, an overview. I was not defending him, I was finding fault in him. Maybe I didn't sound mean enough for you to realize what I wrote says that I don't like him (from what I distantly know of him). But I don't like many people whose work I have enjoyed.
The amount of money someone has does little to alter how I think about them. I hope it doesn't mean what I think it does about you the way commented on other people having a lot of money, how much you want it to matter to me and inform my feelings.
Your ideas about how collaborative artistic endeavors work are largely wrong. Most of them are due to a single person's vision and driving force. Successes as well as, unfortunately, failures. A lot of you're notions of creative "collaborations" sound like they are coming out of a frustrating, petty bureaucracy - a dead end.
Your definition of real genius is ill informed as well. It is often a fleeting thing. Brains change. Developmentally, people are at their best in some fields in their early twenties. So many creative people suffered bipolar disorders that stopped them early, some by "self medicating". And so on. You made up your own definition of genius and assume other people will buy it.
David Fury sucks. Minor talent, if talent is even the word for what he does. I may not like Whedon but I loathe Fury.
Edited to remove a lot of the nasty. That's a stupid road to start on.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: lager,
Pisher, you jump to useless conclusions about my intentions.
I don't think you understood my post, but continue.
quote:
I was giving my observations Whedon, an overview. I was not defending him, I was finding fault in him.
I got that. But I think you were missing some pretty critical faults. I think your explanation of what went wrong with his career doesn't make sense. Frankly, you don't explain what went wrong. You can, however, see that something did go wrong. Kudos.
quote:
Maybe I didn't sound mean enough for you to realize what I wrote says that I don't like him (from what I distantly know of him). But I don't like many people whose work I have enjoyed.
I honestly don't see what liking or not liking somebody you're never going to know has to do with anything.
quote:
The amount of money someone has does little to alter how I think about them.
I was just pointing out that barring some really bad investments, he's not in any danger of going broke. Even then, he could hire himself out as a script doctor. He's fine--maybe upset over the failure of yet another show, but you know, success doesn't always bring happiness either. He's been given a lot of chances, as a showrunner and a movie scriptwriter, and even as a movie director--he's mainly failed. And he's gotten rich mainly failing. Don't you wish you could get rich by mainly failing?
quote:
I hope it doesn't mean what I think it does about you the way commented on other people having a lot of money, how much you want it to matter to me and inform my feelings.
You are taking this awfully personally. I'm not.
quote:
Your ideas about how collaborative artistic endeavors work are largely wrong.
I respect your opinion. I do not share it. I do not think you argue it very convincingly.
quote:
Most of them are due to a single person's vision and driving force.
There's an element of truth in that, but it gets so badly overstated by people trying to live vicariously through some creative figure they admire that it becomes a lie.
quote:
Successes as well as, unfortunately, failures. A lot of you're notions of creative "collaborations" sound like they are coming out of a frustrating, petty bureaucracy - a dead end.
You mean like the Cathedral of Chartres? No single architect for that. So many amazing works of art are the result of many people working together and pooling their talents. It has nothing to do with bureaucracy.
When a lot of people are needed to create something, there is such a thing as collective creativity--real creativity doesn't come from the individual, but from a collective zeitgeist, and some individuals channel it better than others, is all. That's why so many creative people have the same idea around the same time. Well, that and plagiarism.
quote:
Your definition of real genius is ill informed as well. It is often a fleeting thing. Brains change. Developmentally, people are at their best in some fields in their early twenties. So many creative people suffered bipolar disorders that stopped them early, some by "self medicating". And so on. You made up your own definition of genius and assume other people will buy it.
Are you writing a term paper or something?
quote:
David Fury sucks. Minor talent, if talent is even the word for what he does. I may not like Whedon but I loathe Fury.
Well, I think Whedon would tell you you're an idiot for saying that. So argue the point with him.
quote:
Edited to remove a lot of the nasty. That's a stupid road to start on.
Geez, this is the EDITED post?
Maybe you need to hire a better editor.
And maybe you're not smart enough to be much of an authority on what genius is.
