• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:

    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!

    2. Fourteen thousand people can't be wrong.

    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.

    4. See 1 through 3.

    Come on, register already!

Ray Fisher finally speaks on what happened

NothingVentured

Potential
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
363
I agree that it does not excuse his behavior, however his behavior as now detailed by Fisher appears to primarily be a creative clash, so the studios decision to bring in Whedon is rather relevant as Fisher signed up for a completely different movie really. Which really sucks, as once he was committed to the project he couldnt just leave despite the huge changes made. If Whedon had been at the helm from the start, things may have been different as the conflict wouldn’t have arisen mid-project. Though, it seems like the studio was wrong wanting Whedon in the first place, as it appears that the audience in general always wanted the Snyder cut/version!

You can clash creatively and still be respectful. He knew what the WB wanted and agreed to do it. He shouldn't have. The WB basically wanted to compress a storyline as sprawling as Infinity War/Endgame into a sub 2hr movie. It can't be done.

As far as the quality of the final product in either case, I don't blame either Snyder or Whedon. It's on the WB and top execs there. It's hard to say what fans wanted, but I don't think fans of the DCverse wanted their franchise "Marvelized" especially when so many of the storylines used are quite similar to ones the MCU already did.
 

Synch

Townie
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
77
Age
43
Snyder shot about 5h (rough cut), cut it to about 4h and showed it to WB in Jan '17 even though Warner asked him to do a film less dark, and more light in tone, compared to BvS, and with 2h of running time. Snyder tried to convince them with his 4h cut and they said it was 'unwatchable'.

WB hired Joss around March (Batgirl) and brought him to JL with Snyder still directing it. They met only once to discuss studio notes.

I guess Joss accepted in exchange of his Batgirl project. Maybe only as a script doctor/new artistic voice. Snyder left around May 2017 and then Joss took over at 100%.
 

thetopher

Member of the Church Of Faith
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
10,710
Location
The Moot, England
Sineya
and they said it was 'unwatchable'.

Only in the figurative sense. :)
I would credit Joss at least a little for trying to trim a 4hr crapfest to a 2h one, wasting less of everyone's time. Also trying to make Superman a little less...'Psychotic Murderman-y', plus we have more understandable human motivations for many of the characters (because Zach seems incapable of writing humans well).
Yes, we got lame jokes and a bizarre rubber-lip Supes, less Cyborg and Flash, but also much less sloooowww-mmooo and no more godawful Leto-Joker.
 
darkspook
darkspook
He did what he was hired to do... acted like a massive jerk while doing it but it was still the job he was asked by the studio.

darkspook

Potential
Joined
Dec 13, 2020
Messages
270
Age
36
I was just thinking the other day that it is interesting to note that from what I understand Zach Snyder's endgame was for Superman's son to become the new batman. I'm not on my comic book lore but I'm pretty sure that is massively against canon and what has been done before. Seen little or no blowback. All the comic book fans who demanded a Snyder cut hadn't gone 'hey wait a minute!' Again no doubt a lot of this is the news and stories about Joss in the media but just interesting that Snyder seems to get a free pass on changing characterization or key relationships.
 

Spanky

Scooby
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
24,290
Black Thorn
Superman's son turning into the next Batman would be awesome. It'd see it. Especially if the Superman were dead and Batman was left to raise the kid. Yeah, I could like that actually.
 

Dogs of Winter

Potential
Joined
Jul 10, 2020
Messages
239
Age
48
I finally read the Hollywood Reporter article with Ray Fisher and I am still waiting for the explosive revelations he has been promising.

One of the people it mentions in the article is a Nadria Tucker who worked with Geoff Johns and who was brought in to support Ray Fishers allegations against Geoff Johns (who was being accused alongside Joss) . GJ had objected when a black female character on a show he was on had changed her hairstyle which would affect continuity. NT had dismissed this and told him that Black women tend to change our hair frequently. It’s not weird, it’s a Black thing and he had replied ‘No, it’s not.’
So NT had refused to speak to GJ since that day as he didn't have the right to disagree with her as a black lady when she said it was a black thing .

This seems bizarre. Just because NT is black doesnt mean she can speak for all black ladies. There may be a lot of black ladies who do change their hair frequently but there are also plenty who don't. Its just a stereotype and GJ was right to pull her up on it, and he had been married to a black lady at one time so probably knew at least something about it.
Not to mention if he wants continuity for a character on a show then he has every right to complain if they suddenly change their hairstyle without telling anyone

There are so many genuine complaints out there re discrimination and to me things like this belittle those genuine ones

 

Bufy

Townie
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
7
Age
41
If you are an actor suggesting things and the writer dismisses it then I don’t think that’s a reason to go complaining about it, specially publicly, after all a writer knows best, let them do their job, however, the stuff that was said that came from Charisma is definitely serious and it sadly ruined the perception I had of Whedon forever.
 

ILLYRIAN

Druish Pervonian Wizard
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
9,103
Age
65
Location
Toodyay
Black Thorn
Here's a thought, could it be that most actors were not much good and needed lots of directing. We have known of Joss' failings for many many years. His wife complained of his attitudes when doing BTVS. But the thing is the end result gave him extra impetus to his own belief he was right to act the way he had. In the films since then virtually most of them became quite successful. Strange how the actors in those films are now complaining about his attitude.
So here's my theory, if Joss Whedon hadn't behaved the way he had would we be asking what the failed actor Ray Fisher from the failed film Justice League was complaining about?
 

Punkie

Townie
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
43
Fischer sounds like a spoiled brat who wants to lash out because he didn’t get his way. He needs to grow up.
 

wickedwillow

Potential
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
176
Here's a thought, could it be that most actors were not much good and needed lots of directing. We have known of Joss' failings for many many years. His wife complained of his attitudes when doing BTVS. But the thing is the end result gave him extra impetus to his own belief he was right to act the way he had. In the films since then virtually most of them became quite successful. Strange how the actors in those films are now complaining about his attitude.
So here's my theory, if Joss Whedon hadn't behaved the way he had would we be asking what the failed actor Ray Fisher from the failed film Justice League was complaining about?


I find these issues really fascinating but hard to comment on. Anyone who knows even a pinch of cinematic history knows that some directors behave like outright dictators, is it acceptable because they're seen as creative geniuses, or is it some sort of patriarchal myth based around the alpha male that allows people to behave atrociously when they'd be able to get the same/better results even if they were nice to people.
 

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
9,611
Age
31
I find these issues really fascinating but hard to comment on. Anyone who knows even a pinch of cinematic history knows that some directors behave like outright dictators, is it acceptable because they're seen as creative geniuses, or is it some sort of patriarchal myth based around the alpha male that allows people to behave atrociously when they'd be able to get the same/better results even if they were nice to people.

I think the problem with directors is that they're under pressure to make a successful film or else they get associated with flops. Reputation is currency in Hollywood. A film that has Steven Spielberg attached as director is likely to get a lot of interest based off of Spielberg being attached. He's made such classics as Jaws, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, ET etc therefore any film with him attached must be good, right? On the flipside, Batman and Robin basically killed Joel Schumacher's career.

Hollywood has a lot of egos, sometimes directors can't be all buddy buddy with actors because then some actors would start thinking they can call the shots and a weak director would find that hard to reign in. That doesn't mean a director has to be an absolute arsehole to their actors (like Hitchcock was known to be, especially to Tippi Hedren in the Birds) but sometimes a director has to portray themselves in a way that demands respect on set.

In my opinion, Ray Fisher was a no name actor with a massive ego that threw a tantrum because he got told no when he demanded script changes. If he wasn't black and the racist organisation crap wasn't happening, I seriously doubt he would've gotten any media coverage. If Jussie Smollett had pulled his fake hate crime stunt after May last year, he would've probably have gotten away with it because it played to the narrative. It's no coincidence that Fisher chose to come out with his accusations when he did. Don't forget, Fisher's original accusations weren't about Whedon being a dickhead, they were about Whedon being "racist", and given that their was no evidence whatsoever to support those claims, Fisher is trying to change the narrative and piggybacking off of CC's experience with Whedon.

Some of CC's accusations make her sound egotistical eg complaining about the 1am call time, complaining that Whedon wasn't happy with the massive rosary tattoo she got on her arm etc, and I do wonder if their issue with Whedon isn't so much his behaviour (even though there are instances where he's unprofessional) but the fact that Fisher and CC got on so well with the person Whedon replaced (Zack Snyder and David Greenwalt respectively) that when Whedon came in and didn't give them special treatment, they just didn't like it and therefore in their view anything Whedon did was somehow a deliberate attempt at victimising them.
 

wickedwillow

Potential
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
176
Some of CC's accusations make her sound egotistical eg complaining about the 1am call time, complaining that Whedon wasn't happy with the massive rosary tattoo she got on her arm etc, and I do wonder if their issue with Whedon isn't so much his behaviour (even though there are instances where he's unprofessional) but the fact that Fisher and CC got on so well with the person Whedon replaced (Zack Snyder and David Greenwalt respectively) that when Whedon came in and didn't give them special treatment, they just didn't like it and therefore in their view anything Whedon did was somehow a deliberate attempt at victimising them.

Maybe Joss Whedon's blew up more as well because Btvs and his self-presentation gave him an aura of being a feminist? So he had further to fall than say someone like Hitchcock who is directing in another error and I think was always known to objectify his female actors (although I think he investigates the phenomen of the male gaze himself in films such as Vertigo and Rear Window so that is kind of interesting on a sidenote too).
 

TriBel

Scooby
Joined
Jun 25, 2017
Messages
3,517
Location
Manchester
I find these issues really fascinating but hard to comment on. Anyone who knows even a pinch of cinematic history knows that some directors behave like outright dictators, is it acceptable because they're seen as creative geniuses, or is it some sort of patriarchal myth based around the alpha male that allows people to behave atrociously when they'd be able to get the same/better results even if they were nice to people.
"Creative genius" and "patriarchal myth" kinda go hand in hand. Hence the importance of Giles comment in Chosen: "Buffy, what you said, it—it flies in the face of everything we've ever—every generation has ever done in the fight against evil. I think it's bloody brilliant." Giles couldn't imagine the Chosen Spell - Buffy could because for a brief while (Touched) she and Spike lay outside patriarchy.

I think he investigates the phenomen of the male gaze himself in films such as Vertigo and Rear Window so that is kind of interesting on a sidenote too).
[/QUOTE]
As does Whedon (perhaps Noxon) in S5-7 (mostly 6-7). Robin Wood is named in homage to RW, the Hitchcock film scholar. Whedon met Wood at Wesleyan and waxes lyrical about Wood's essay "The incoherent Text".

Whedon can, in theory, be a feminist - in the sense he can apply feminist theory. It doesn't stop him being a class A clown in practice. Plenty of 'em about.
 

Faded90

Scooby
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
845
Age
63
I think the problem with directors is that they're under pressure to make a successful film or else they get associated with flops. Reputation is currency in Hollywood. A film that has Steven Spielberg attached as director is likely to get a lot of interest based off of Spielberg being attached. He's made such classics as Jaws, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, ET etc therefore any film with him attached must be good, right? On the flipside, Batman and Robin basically killed Joel Schumacher's career.

Hollywood has a lot of egos, sometimes directors can't be all buddy buddy with actors because then some actors would start thinking they can call the shots and a weak director would find that hard to reign in. That doesn't mean a director has to be an absolute arsehole to their actors (like Hitchcock was known to be, especially to Tippi Hedren in the Birds) but sometimes a director has to portray themselves in a way that demands respect on set.

In my opinion, Ray Fisher was a no name actor with a massive ego that threw a tantrum because he got told no when he demanded script changes. If he wasn't black and the racist organisation crap wasn't happening, I seriously doubt he would've gotten any media coverage. If Jussie Smollett had pulled his fake hate crime stunt after May last year, he would've probably have gotten away with it because it played to the narrative. It's no coincidence that Fisher chose to come out with his accusations when he did. Don't forget, Fisher's original accusations weren't about Whedon being a dickhead, they were about Whedon being "racist", and given that their was no evidence whatsoever to support those claims, Fisher is trying to change the narrative and piggybacking off of CC's experience with Whedon.

Some of CC's accusations make her sound egotistical eg complaining about the 1am call time, complaining that Whedon wasn't happy with the massive rosary tattoo she got on her arm etc, and I do wonder if their issue with Whedon isn't so much his behaviour (even though there are instances where he's unprofessional) but the fact that Fisher and CC got on so well with the person Whedon replaced (Zack Snyder and David Greenwalt respectively) that when Whedon came in and didn't give them special treatment, they just didn't like it and therefore in their view anything Whedon did was somehow a deliberate attempt at victimising them.
The ironic thing is that it was probably Greenwalt’s love for the character and subsequently ‘Mary Sueing’ her that destroyed her character. They then had to basically retcon it (which was always the most likely option as it was so OTT) or they would have to run with it and continue with the bland and ‘perfect’ Cordy where they would have ran out of story eventually for anyway. Once you remove all characters flaws there’s not really anywhere to go anymore
 

Punkie

Townie
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
43
MT baited people into thinking Whedon had been sexually inappropriate with her when she was underage, yet it turns out it was a verbal altercation
This is unfair.

She posted a childish and ambiguous mess of words with annoyingly (and childish) incorrect punctuation. She didn’t actually accuse him of anything except being “inappropriate” which is about as nebulous and subjective an accusation as anyone could make.

A bunch of people decided to twist her words into fitting the conclusion they wanted so badly to jump to. But she didn’t actually accuse him of that, which was pointed out more than once on this board.
 
B
Btvs fan
Just for the record she's 35 , shes not a child

thrasherpix

Scooby
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
3,770
Age
38
This is unfair.

She posted a childish and ambiguous mess of words with annoyingly (and childish) incorrect punctuation. She didn’t actually accuse him of anything except being “inappropriate” which is about as nebulous and subjective an accusation as anyone could make.

A bunch of people decided to twist her words into fitting the conclusion they wanted so badly to jump to. But she didn’t actually accuse him of that, which was pointed out more than once on this board.
I'm with DD on this one.

Of course she was nebulous. If she wasn't then she'd be subject to a lawsuit (or worse) that she'd almost certainly lose, in addition to giving her an out on responsibility when others, as she intended, interpreted it as they wanted to.

Given her profession, I believe she knew exactly what she was doing. She wasn't sloppy, she was calculating. (The only other alternative I'd accept is that her agent put her up to it, assuming she has one, but otherwise still applies.)
 

Btvs fan

Scooby
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
1,584
Age
39
This is unfair.

She posted a childish and ambiguous mess of words with annoyingly (and childish) incorrect punctuation. She didn’t actually accuse him of anything except being “inappropriate” which is about as nebulous and subjective an accusation as anyone could make.

A bunch of people decided to twist her words into fitting the conclusion they wanted so badly to jump to. But she didn’t actually accuse him of that, which was pointed out more than once on this board.

She said he was inappropriate with a Teenager. Everyone knows what that normally infers.
She then posted a 2nd response to someone who was shocked and had posted support and who thought that too. He response was There was a rule not to leave her alone in a room with Joss.

Again that's pretty stark. Don't leave the Teenager in a room with the middle aged man !! MT is in her late 30's now, she knew exactly what that would imply and what people would think
 
Top Bottom