Or maybe it was the brilliant ones.
Printable View
Or maybe it was the brilliant ones.
If he said he liked the area's beer would you still be confused?
Here's a response in the form of a novella, in case anyone is legitimately interested:
I'm regretting that post already, because it might only be read like I'm trying to stigmatize marijuana users (that's not my intention) and inspire indignant responses. I thought I explained where I was coming from in my post, but maybe my reaction is still inexplicable somehow. As for the beer thing, I don't know. It might have also surprised me, yes, but that depends on the context of his hypothetical answer. I don't drink and I don't smoke. But if we're talking about having a single beer at night and smoking a joint, I don't think there's a real equivalency there. So, there's that. It's not an even comparison, and I'm not sure if it has much bearing on the fact that this is about my perception of Whedon. He could strike me as someone who has the occasional beer but not someone who smokes weed, right? And this could be the case without it also being a critical judgment of people who partake of either alcohol or marijuana, right? Also: I'm not saying weed is necessarily worse than drinking. There's the potential for excess and damage in both cases, but I'm not especially qualified to authoritatively comment on that topic. I know that I avoid them both, so there's my personal stance on the matter.
Of course, there are prodigious examples of the intersection between creativity and substance abuse (and use). So, I shouldn't find this surprising. My initial surprise just speaks to my erroneous impression of Whedon, which has a basis in a bunch of interview responses and my own knee-jerk assumptions. In other words, I'm not making any categorical statements about the irreconcilability of creativity and drinking and/or smoking marijuana. Still, those varied and complicated examples notwithstanding, some of the things I've observed in my life have led me to regard these substances with distaste and suspicion. This might sound sanctimonious or alarmist to some of you, I guess. Due to my own stance on the appeal (or lack thereof) of these substances, I just don't naturally think of smoking and drinking as necessarily positive and useful. For better or worse, I admit that such positive associations aren't always foremost in my mind when I'm thinking about weed or alcohol.
So, maybe that's why I made the mistake of not immediately drawing a natural connection between weed and my sense of Whedon's monastic work ethic.
This doesn't mean that I look down on people who drink and/or smoke, or that I think highly competent and brilliant people can't also drink and/or smoke. Whedon himself mentions the feeling of uselessness that follows smoking weed. He qualifies his references to his marijuana use very carefully. Some of these points are in accord with my perspective, sure. But it's not like I'm saying, "how could Whedon smoke weed and still be so brilliant?" While I have my own views about weed and alcohol, I'm not oblivious to the idea that some people think these substances are a creative boon of sorts, and I get that you can imbibe and smoke and still maintain strong creative energies. At any rate, this isn't really about my personal position on drinking or smoking...yet here I am rambling about it...in a thread about Marvel movies...
To reiterate: I had an impression of his personality and he simply didn't seem like the kind of guy who smoked weed. There is obviously no reliably discernible "type" to look out for, as all kinds of people partake in those habits. Sometimes you misread people or build up assumptions that turn out to be baseless, though. That's what happened here. People meet and defy our impressions of them all the time, and sometimes you formulate impressions that end up being pretty dubious or inaccurate.
And yes, to leaven any perceived negativity, maybe he smoked pot and thought of brilliant ideas. That's obviously plausible. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I mean, who knows? After writing that, I thought back to season 4's best episode, "Spin the Bottle." I'm pretty sure that's the only one written and directed by Whedon in that season. It seems like a good candidate, if we're speculating about which ideas he's referring to, but again, who knows? It could be anything.
I was playfully making fun of season 4, not people who smoke marijuana. Sorry if it came across the wrong way.
No one cares about marijuana in 2015.
I would be offended, but I'm too high to care.
That's a long post. I doubt many people are going to read that. Let's put it this way: Whedon didn't strike me as a pot smoker. Turns out he is. OK.
One more thing. I mentioned my impression of Whedon and what I've gleaned from interviews, etc. Here's a good example of what I mean, just to further contextualize some of what I said in my last few posts (i.e., my reference to his "monastic work ethic"). I realize that part of this is Whedon's self-deprecating levity, but there's clearly some sincerity here as well.
Quote:
SIMON MAYO: We were talking about work ethic just before the news and sport, because everyone in comparison with your output Joss, and your work ethic, would appear to be slack and lazy, because, y’know, people work very hard in life and they get their pay but you seem to be working like a hundred times harder than anybody else.
JOSS WHEDON: Well, um, part of that is smoke and mirrors I think, but part of it is that I, I… do love the work and also I have a problem, serious mental problems, workaholism and it’s not fun. I don’t do anything else. Other people have lives and they’re nice to their friends and do all sorts of things that I forget to do in the morning. Also basic hygiene but let’s not talk about that.
MARK KERMODE: Do you genuinely not switch off? You’re not – you can’t stop?
JW: Um, every now and then I’ll take a few hours and go, ‘I’m not gonna have a purpose for what I’m gonna do next, maybe I’ll go for a walk; that was fun, and I had an idea for a new movie during it.’ Um, no I can’t, I really can’t turn it off. I can’t sleep very well, not out of anxiety so much as just sort of anticipation of the next thing I want to do.
I don't do drugs. I am drugs.
Spider-Man: The New Avenger is the rumored title.
http://media.aintitcool.com/media/up...sbiography.jpg
Interesting take on Reed Richards. Bend space around him?
Very cool twist. I like it.
Still boggles my mind how anyone could like this movie. "Thor the Dark World is lookin' pretty good right now"
I don't know how, but I forgot about those scene transitions. Ugh that's so gross.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U55NGD9Jm7M
Ha, 2003 Hulk looks like Sci-Fi Channel CGI
It's still one of (if not the) best Marvel character movies ever.
Affecting, well paced, fantastic acting and direction. Loved Lee's very literal interpretation of a "comic book movie".
I can definitely see why others don't like it, but man, I love it. Up there with Nolan's Batman and Donner's Superman.
Hmmm. I can't agree with anything you posted there. The acting was terrible, as shown in the video. The pacing was terrible, as there is really only 1 good Hulk scene in the movie. Most of the other Hulk scenestakes place at night or under water and you can barely see anything. The plot is fucking stupid, Hulk Poodle and David Banner cloud. The editing is shit, as seen in the video, what were they thinking with those transitions??? And the directing... well... Lee is pretty much responsible for everything so... no I dont think the directing was good at all. I'd watch 1986 Punisher over this.
It's kinda funny though, The Incredible Hulk is technically a reboot, but they did leave it open ended as Hulk/Incredbile Hulk end and begin (respectively) in South America.
I thought that video was pretty stupid because it showed scenes and shots out of context.
I loved the entire final confrontation between Banner and his father. Not only did the dialogue scene where they're both in chairs in the warehouse have real gravitas due to two great performances (I seriously loved Bana in this), but the fight was a great merging of Lee's two main stylistic influences in this film - comic book paneling (as their fight gets frozen into single still images in the clouds as lightning strikes), and classic Greek tragedy (it felt suitably godlike, almost otherworldly).
The transitions and strange effects were great and again went towards achieving that comic-book-on-celluloid look. One image I always remember is a school of jellyfish floating in the desert. So cool.
Really the performances all around were great. Connelly was effectively heart wrenching in her "I was going to have to watch you die" speech, and Elliott played the conflict inside the general really well, and managed to make what could have been a one note "I'm a military dick!" character someone with actual depth.
Hugely superior to the ho-hum Edward Norton flick. Better/more action does not a better movie make.
Maybe, but that heartbeat scene... was... painful- Whether you see it out of context or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by megladon8
Disagree on both sentences. I don't want to see Banner OR Hulk brood through an entire film.Quote:
Originally Posted by megladon8
Less action doesn't mean broody. That's one thing BOTH movies got wrong - way too grim.
Can we both agree that the best movie Hulk is in The Avengers?
I always liked how Whedon reinstated the dark scene Norton wrote that Marvel forced him to cut.
Put me in the liking Ang Lees Hulk camp. Its definitely an anomaly of a film, but not a major misstep imo.
I liked it too. Quite a few missteps (that unholy shade of green, Hulk Dogs), but holds my attention throughout in a good way. A weirdly appealing mix of serious (without being grim) and stylish fun.
Yup, love Ang Lee's Hulk. Same significant issues as Peng, but man, it's just such a rare blockbuster that feels like the unfiltered, singular work of a director's very specific vision. Anyone who complains about Marvel Studios films being stylistically homogenized (which includes me at times, despite being a pretty big fan) needs to at least appreciate what Lee got to do here. It's so weighty, weird and wonderful.
I even think that at times the rendering of the movement and the green guy's skin textures in the CGI (especially during the military base and desert scene especially) look better than anything in Letterier's '08 movie. Really fluid and tangible, not choppy (which is even an issue I had with how he often looked and moved in Age of Ultron).
Was basically going to say these things exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by megladon8
Can you elaborate on this? I'm drawing a bit of a blank.Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
Banner tried to shoot himself in the head but the Hulk emerged instantaneously and he survived. So he finds out in an absolutely awful way that he's pretty much invincible.
Heh, I still really like Ang Lee's Hulk... and I realized it watching the Honest Trailer.
I had just re watched Hulk this weekend, and still thoroughly enjoy it.