Joss Whedon Breaks Silence: Calls Ray Fisher, “A Bad Actor In Both Senses”

[SpiderTBliss]

Gadot has a career , Whedon does not anymore.

She was just in one of the biggest Netflix films that streamed with Dwayne Johnson and Ryan Reynolds.

And the % of those streams that can be attributed to Gadot in a film also staring the Rock and Deadpoolwas probably about 1%, maybe 2%...

[Kirby101]

Gadot is not Meryl Streep, but to call her talentless is absurd.

[CSTowle]

Whedon's done (and, while I'd like to hear more details, probably deservedly for the Trachtenberg minor situation alone), but he doesn't seem to be wrong about Fisher being less than on the up-and-up and probably a bad actor in this situation. Both things can be true. I don't doubt actors would close ranks to support their own, especially against a last-minute outsider with an ego. It seems like this whole situation is toxic. It's just a shame that the alternative is a dark, brooding "Snyderverse" that we're supposed to somehow cheer for because it's only crap on the screen rather than awful behind the scenes.

While it has no impact on the right or wrong of the situation, I'd also echo the opinion that both Fisher and Gadot are actors of little talent. There are a dozen young black male actors who would have brought more attention and talent to that role and might have had it beefed up on account of not wanting to waste that talent. He clearly isn't at that level. Gadot is very pretty, like ScarJo, and like ScarJo doesn't do much more because they generally don't have to. For what it's worth, I'd say the same about Mamoa or Hemsworth. Feed them a quip and, given enough takes, they can pull it off. No more or no less than I'd expect someone who's been in a high school play to be able to pull off. Make me feel something? Make me believe you feel something? Not so much. Luckily/sadly these aren't Oscar-worthy films for the most part, so I'll take my good acting moments where I can get them. And live with the Gadots/Mamoas as eyecandy for those looking for that. After all, these movies are made for a broad audience and meant to make money. Not necessarily make you feel something.

[Hellscream]

As I see it Joss Whedon would be the same nerdy dude that would be leering and stalking women when they Cosplay at Cons. And think he can get a quick feel. Actors and ex mention his behavior before this and people didn't do anything. Similar to Harvey weinstain professional players mention his behavior and actors literally said dont go to this hotel if you get a call. So people are in the know when it comes to Hollywood. If you make enough money for the pimp or person in charge you can get away with foul behavior. A workplace dont have to be toxic, people make it so.

If Whedon was not close to this behavior, why Feige not going to bat for him? Nor getting hired by Disney/Marvel.

[AndrewCrossett]

Whedon hasn't been accused of any sexual misconduct.

He may be a dick. If so he joins a looooong line of successful directors who are or were dicks.

His career may be done. Better this way than some phoney Apology Tour trying to save his ass, though.

[AnakinFlair]

There is one aspect we have to look at with Cyborg in this film. Its true the Snyder cut gave us a great Cyborg and it was leaps above what we saw released. But as one Youtuber brought up...the Snyder cut was 4 hours. Joss Whedon had a 2-2:30 hour film to cut and do . Maybe 3 hours if Warners would have done it. But they wanted the film to air a lot and likely dictated that the film have a 2 hour run time.

There just wasn't much time to go in-depth with Cyborg in that span with the foundation of....Batman brings a team together , they unite , they battle Steppenwolf , Superman returns from dead and finally they defeat Steppenwolf.

Whedon is terrible for sure. But here he had limited film time and the story beats he had to hit in the film was these. Snyder got a 4 hour film to do EVERYTHING he wanted to do and it worked great.

There were things that Whedon could have cut in his version to make room for the Cyborg story. We didn't need Batman's opening scene on the roof, for one. Or Barry drawing on the guy's face at the prison. Things like that could have been trimmed out, the Cyborg plot added back in, and MAYBE the film is longer by a few minutes.

There was a LOT cut from Whedon's version if we remember. There was characters and more he didn't use because of the time constraints to try and tell a cohesive story in 1 film. Being honest had Warners taken their time and did a Flash film with Cyborg to actually give him an origin film maybe it would have worked best. Then he gets more screen time in this one etc. Instead WB rushed this big team up movie together with trying to give all these characters a bit of back story and ...it failed as we saw.

I agree with this. WB was so eager to catch up to Marvel that they shot themselves in the foot. There should have been solo films for the other characters first BEFORE Justice League. Maybe save Cyborg for JL, but have an Aquaman movie and a Flash movie first. Otherwise, none of those characters get served well.

[Alan2099]

There were things that Whedon could have cut in his version to make room for the Cyborg story. We didn't need Batman's opening scene on the roof, for one. Or Barry drawing on the guy's face at the prison. Things like that could have been trimmed out, the Cyborg plot added back in, and MAYBE the film is longer by a few minutes.

They could have been cut, but the flipside of that argument is that you'd be giving more screen time to the character people care the least about.

If you're going to see a Justice League movie, you're going to want as much Batman and Flash as you can get. Nobody is there for Cyborg.

I agree with this. WB was so eager to catch up to Marvel that they shot themselves in the foot. There should have been solo films for the other characters first BEFORE Justice League. Maybe save Cyborg for JL, but have an Aquaman movie and a Flash movie first. Otherwise, none of those characters get served well.

I think Man of Steel set the pace wrong.

We needed a movie to establish Superman and have him fight badguy and win BEFORE we brought back people from Krypton and had him forced to kill somebody.
Then you do Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, THEN Batman vs Superman.

Now once you've establish everyone else, you can take some time and give Cyborg room to breathe.

[Kirby101]

Gadot is very pretty, like ScarJo, and like ScarJo doesn't do much more because they generally don't have to.

This is more ridiculous than saying Gadot has no talent. Johansson has won a Tony and nominated for two Oscars for her dramatic roles. She is a fine dramatic actress who does much more than look good.

[Agent Z]

Gadot is not Meryl Streep, but to call her talentless is absurd.

Making this about Gadot and Fisher's supposed lack of talent is nothing but blatant deflection. For Whedon's defenders, it's easier to act like other people are equally at fault rather than admit that maybe Whedon isn't all that great a writer or director on top of being an *******

[Agent Z]

Whedon's done (and, while I'd like to hear more details, probably deservedly for the Trachtenberg minor situation alone), but he doesn't seem to be wrong about Fisher being less than on the up-and-up and probably a bad actor in this situation. Both things can be true. I don't doubt actors would close ranks to support their own, especially against a last-minute outsider with an ego. It seems like this whole situation is toxic. It's just a shame that the alternative is a dark, brooding "Snyderverse" that we're supposed to somehow cheer for because it's only crap on the screen rather than awful behind the scenes.

While it has no impact on the right or wrong of the situation, I'd also echo the opinion that both Fisher and Gadot are actors of little talent. There are a dozen young black male actors who would have brought more attention and talent to that role and might have had it beefed up on account of not wanting to waste that talent. He clearly isn't at that level. Gadot is very pretty, like ScarJo, and like ScarJo doesn't do much more because they generally don't have to. For what it's worth, I'd say the same about Mamoa or Hemsworth. Feed them a quip and, given enough takes, they can pull it off. No more or no less than I'd expect someone who's been in a high school play to be able to pull off. Make me feel something? Make me believe you feel something? Not so much. Luckily/sadly these aren't Oscar-worthy films for the most part, so I'll take my good acting moments where I can get them. And live with the Gadots/Mamoas as eyecandy for those looking for that. After all, these movies are made for a broad audience and meant to make money. Not necessarily make you feel something.

The Snyderverse isn't coming back, so this complaint is totally irrelevant. The movies aren't the only place to watch these characters.

[Thezmage]

A monkey could have directed The Avengers and it would have been financially successful.

That is not even remotely true. It applies to Age of Ultron but at that point the future of the MCU rested entirely on Avengers' ability to stick the landing. Of the phase 1 films, only the first and last (Iron Man and Avengers) are particularly well-remembered these days.

[Thezmage]

This is more ridiculous than saying Gadot has no talent. Johansson has won a Tony and nominated for two Oscars for her dramatic roles. She is a fine dramatic actress who does much more than look good.

Her panic attack in the first Avengers was fantastic and made me instantly a fan of the character

[AnakinFlair]

That is not even remotely true. It applies to Age of Ultron but at that point the future of the MCU rested entirely on Avengers' ability to stick the landing. Of the phase 1 films, only the first and last (Iron Man and Avengers) are particularly well-remembered these days.

I'd throw Captain America: The First Avenger in there as well. While it has been overshadowed by Winter Soldier and Civil War, it was still a solid, GOOD movie. But not a lot of people like Thor or IM2, and I think that everyone tends to forget about The Incredible Hulk.

[Thezmage]

I'd throw Captain America: The First Avenger in there as well. While it has been overshadowed by Winter Soldier and Civil War, it was still a solid, GOOD movie. But not a lot of people like Thor or IM2, and I think that everyone tends to forget about The Incredible Hulk.

I may be bringing my own feelings a bit too far into this, but I personally do not feel like CA:TFA truly succeeds as a movie due to the overusage of montages breaking up the narrative

[sunofdarkchild]

Whedon's defense doesn't work in a world where the Snyder cut has been released. I would never call it anything in the ballpark of a masterpiece, but it is universally acknowledged that it is the superior film compared to the 2017 movie and that keeping the Cyborg storyline intact was the better creative decision while cutting it cut out the heart of the film. Whedon should have just said he had an impossible job to make a film of under a certain length while being stuck with finishing someone else's story, and so good material had to be cut. Deflecting blame up would be more effective since the higher ups do bear a lot of the blame for how it turned out. Claiming that Cyborg's storyline made no logical sense when it has been so widely praised and the product he directed makes far less sense just doesn't work.