DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Dick Whitman]

Fisher is primarily a Theatre actor. It does not appear he has much concern about building a film career. He is Standing up for his principles. Perhaps based on things actors with more experience in Hollywood would just shrug off or keep to themselves. Until we hear details it’s hard to know.

 

[Christopher]

Sure, but it strikes me as the kind of thing that should be invited, and if Joss Whedon was open to it then there's no problem, but if he wasn't and Fisher took it upon himself to start insisting he change the script, that strikes me as kind of a bad move for a new actor to pull on a writer/director who's been working pretty consistently in the industry for almost 20 years.

Sure, there are directors who act that way, like they're superior to everyone else because of their accomplishments, but I think that's egotistical. I have a better opinion of those directors who treat everyone on their sets as an equal partner in the creative process and make them feel free to contribute suggestions. I think those directors get better results, because working together as a team usually produces better results than one person bossing everyone else around and making them feel subordinate.

After all, Whedon came from television, so he's used to working with a writers' room, and with actors who know their characters quite well. It stands to reason that he would expect the process to be collaborative.

 

[Anwar]

I hadn't realised until I looked him up on IMDB that he's only had one other acting job since 'Justice League'. He's either very picky or no one's interested in hiring him. Maybe he's hoping for a nice fat cheque from Warner's to pay the bills?

I think he's mainly a stage actor. Wouldn't show on IMDB.

 

[JD]

Sure, there are directors who act that way, like they're superior to everyone else because of their accomplishments, but I think that's egotistical. I have a better opinion of those directors who treat everyone on their sets as an equal partner in the creative process and make them feel free to contribute suggestions. I think those directors get better results, because working together as a team usually produces better results than one person bossing everyone else around and making them feel subordinate.

After all, Whedon came from television, so he's used to working with a writers' room, and with actors who know their characters quite well. It stands to reason that he would expect the process to be collaborative.

Sure, but my point is, if Whedon wasn't looking for input from Fisher, then it strikes as kind of a bad move on his part to start wanting changes made to the script. If I'm in the middle of my first on screen acting gig, I'm not going to start giving uninvited script notes to a writer/director who's been working fairly consistently in the industry since I was at least 2 years old. Just for reference I looked Whedon and Fisher up, and Fisher was born in 1987, and the earliest credit on Whedon's Wikipedia filmography was Roseanne starting in 1989.

 

[EnderAKH]

Sure, but my point is, if Whedon wasn't looking for input from Fisher, then it strikes as kind of a bad move on his part to start wanting changes made to the script. If I'm in the middle of my first on screen acting gig, I'm not going to start giving uninvited script notes to a writer/director who's been working fairly consistently in the industry since I was at least 2 years old. Just for reference I looked Whedon and Fisher up, and Fisher was born in 1987, and the earliest credit on Whedon's Wikipedia filmography was Roseanne starting in 1989.

Not to mention having written and directed one of the highest grossing superhero movies of all time. I would think that would buy him a little slack that just MAYBE he knew what he was doing.

 

[Christopher]

Sure, but my point is, if Whedon wasn't looking for input from Fisher, then it strikes as kind of a bad move on his part to start wanting changes made to the script.

First off, as I've explained, I don't see any reason to assume that Whedon, who came from television and was used to collaboration, would not be open to it. Why would it be inappropriate for an actor to offer thoughts on how to play his own character? That's pretty normal.

Second, the WB statement only refers to Fisher's "suggested script changes." Suggesting is not demanding. You're talking as though making suggestions was some kind of exceptional act of presumption on Fisher's part or a violation of filmmaking etiquette, and that's just not how the process works. A movie script, after all, is a highly mutable thing. It's normal for it to change constantly during filming and afterward, due to input from many different people. Yes, if the WB statement was accurate, then it was presumptuous of Fisher to assume they were obligated to agree to his suggestions, but it was not presumptuous of him to offer them.

If I'm in the middle of my first on screen acting gig, I'm not going to start giving uninvited script notes to a writer/director who's been working fairly consistently in the industry since I was at least 2 years old. Just for reference I looked Whedon and Fisher up, and Fisher was born in 1987, and the earliest credit on Whedon's Wikipedia filmography was Roseanne starting in 1989.

And any director who thinks that way is an egotistical fool. A good director is willing to listen to ideas from anyone. It's arrogant to assume your own ideas are automatically better than someone else's, no matter how experienced you are. The moment a creator stops being humble, the moment they decide they have all the answers and don't have to listen to anyone else, that's when the quality of their work starts to deteriorate. A great idea can come from the guy at the craft services table for all you know.

 

[theenglish]

I can see a very good reason he wasn't open to collaboration. He was given some very specific requirements from WB to fix something they thought was broken--he was given a budget and a time frame that he had to complete. He didn't have the time to spend listening to every cast members ideas--especially if they were based on concepts already rejected by the studio. The rest of the cast probably understood the situation; Fisher being young and inexperienced didn't get it. I can very well see a situation where Wheadon spends the first few days trying to be nice and then has to get more and more blunt with Fisher. Maybe Fisher even saw his character as being sidelined or white washed -- he might have interpreted as a racial discrimination thing. Often work place treatment complaints are just misunderstandings.

 

[Christopher]

I can see a very good reason he wasn't open to collaboration. He was given some very specific requirements from WB to fix something they thought was broken--he was given a budget and a time frame that he had to complete. He didn't have the time to spend listening to every cast members ideas--especially if they were based on concepts already rejected by the studio.

Well, that's getting it backward. If you're on a tight schedule, you need all the help you can get. Collaboration makes it go faster, not slower.

I mean, good grief, you just said it -- the whole reason Whedon was there was to contribute his ideas to the improvement of someone else's work. That's how he got his start in the film industry, in fact; he was one of Hollywood's leading script doctors long before he became a director. So it's contradictory to think that he wouldn't believe other people's contributions could benefit his work. He's been on the other side of that equation enough to know better.

The rest of the cast probably understood the situation; Fisher being young and inexperienced didn't get it.

That he shouldn't assume his suggestions would be used? Sure, that much is logical. That he shouldn't even make the suggestions? That's an assumption I can't get behind.

Yes, there are some directors so dictatorial and egotistical that they quash input from their collaborators, but I've always believed that the smart filmmakers are the ones who respect their teams and invite input, and that they get better results that way. And Whedon's filmography gives me every reason to expect him to be one of the smart ones whose priority is making a good film along with his team, rather than the egomaniacal jerks whose priority is asserting their superiority over others.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Well, that's getting it backward. If you're on a tight schedule, you need all the help you can get. Collaboration makes it go faster, not slower.

Is that true, though?
"Here's the scene, we're shooting it as scripted, go!" is slower than "Here's the scene as scripted, what do you all think, let's chat and discuss it and see what we can do to make it better."?

The latter is infinitely better, for sure, but I'm not sure it's faster.

 

[Christopher]

Is that true, though?
"Here's the scene, we're shooting it as scripted, go!" is slower than "Here's the scene as scripted, what do you all think, let's chat and discuss it and see what we can do to make it better."?

The latter is infinitely better, for sure, but I'm not sure it's faster.

You're kidding, right? Filmmaking is not fast. It can take hours to set up a shot that takes up mere seconds onscreen. There are literally people whose entire job is to stand where the actors will be standing when the shot is finally ready, so that the camera and lighting people can take the time to set things up right without forcing the actors to stand around doing nothing for an hour or two when they could be studying their lines or whatever. There's abundant time to discuss anything before the shot is actually filmed. And that's not even counting table reads and rehearsals before shooting actually begins, script meetings, late night e-mails, etc. The actual time spent performing in front of a rolling camera is a tiny, tiny fraction of the production schedule.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

That seems so reductive, I've never been on a movie set but I can't imagine WB paid Whedon to come in and sit in his trailer until being called out to film the actors and leave. He was mandated to work within the already established framework and bring it in at no more than two hours (JL apparently runs exactly 120 minutes). While maybe he should be open to collaboration it doesn't sound like a great environment for it.

 

[StCoop]

I'd love to send Christoper back in time and have him walk up to Kubrick or Hitchcock and tell them about all his great ideas about how they could make their films better.

 

[kirk55555]

I'd love to send Christoper back in time and have him walk up to Kubrick or Hitchcock and tell them about all his great ideas about how they could make their films better.

To be fair, Hitchcock and Kubrick were notorious assholes who abused actors, which isn't the norm.

Related to that. I've seen people argue that they weren't that great at their jobs, and if they were better directors they wouldn't have needed to abuse their actors to get what the thought was the right performance. So, they might not be the best examples of the director/actor relationship.

 

[Christopher]

That seems so reductive, I've never been on a movie set but I can't imagine WB paid Whedon to come in and sit in his trailer until being called out to film the actors and leave.

I never said that -- what a bizarre misreading of my words. What I said is that far, far more time is spent discussing and preparing for shots than actually filming them. It should be obvious that anything that complicated is the end result of a great deal of preparation and planning and conversation. Nobody's just sitting idle in their trailers -- they're busy doing all sorts of stuff, including exactly the kind of stuff we're talking about. And one of those things would normally be discussing rewrites, because movie scripts get rewritten on literally a daily, if not hourly basis during filming. It's not some intolerable intrusion upon the process, it's a built-in part of the process already. True, some directors would be picky about who they allow to make suggestions, but it's got nothing to do with how much time they have. And I've already explained why I don't see any reason to think Whedon in particular would be hostile to that kind of input, given his background.

(In the case of actors, yes, sometimes they're catching up on sleep in their trailers, but more likely they're running their lines, getting their makeup or hair or wardrobe done/adjusted, working out to stay in shape, calling their agents to line up their next jobs, giving interviews, trying to squeeze in a few minutes here and there to talk to their families, etc. They don't have time to sit idle, which is why they need stand-ins to take their place on the set until they're actually needed for filming. So if you thought I was talking about anyone sitting idle, you completely missed the point.)

He was mandated to work within the already established framework and bring it in at no more than two hours (JL apparently runs exactly 120 minutes).

What the hell has that got to do with anything? We're not talking about the length of the final cut, we're talking about what happens on the actual set. The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. The length of the final cut is determined in editing, not in filming. You can have five or six hours of raw, usable footage and cut it down to 150 minutes, or 120 minutes, or 75 minutes, depending on the decisions made in post-production months after filming is ended. Surely you know this -- think about how Batman v Superman had an extended cut on home video that's fully half an hour longer than the theatrical cut.

I'd love to send Christoper back in time and have him walk up to Kubrick or Hitchcock and tell them about all his great ideas about how they could make their films better.

I have already acknowledged repeatedly that there are "auteur" directors who would not be receptive to such input. And I have stated repeatedly that I don't see any reason to assume Joss Whedon, a veteran of television writers' rooms, would be one of them.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I guess in my lowly peon mind I thought maybe the forced length may have lead Whedon to script out exactly what he wants and needs to achieve and wouldn't want to deviate from that. However, I'm sure you've already explained that because your posts always tell us that you've already explained it.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

Does Fisher think that his role as Cyborg would have been any more significant if Snyder had been allowed to stay on as director and finish the movie the way he wanted to?
Snyder turned in a three hour + rough cut of the movie that WB executives said needed to be 'lighter' and with a shorter run time; which is why Whedon was initially brought in. To help punch up the dialogue and help lighten what the studio perceived as a 'dark' movie. Fisher's scenes still could have ended up on the cutting room floor.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Thing is, while this is all going on, Fisher is still in active negotiations to appear in the Flash movie.

 

[JD]

First off, as I've explained, I don't see any reason to assume that Whedon, who came from television and was used to collaboration, would not be open to it. Why would it be inappropriate for an actor to offer thoughts on how to play his own character? That's pretty normal.

Second, the WB statement only refers to Fisher's "suggested script changes." Suggesting is not demanding. You're talking as though making suggestions was some kind of exceptional act of presumption on Fisher's part or a violation of filmmaking etiquette, and that's just not how the process works. A movie script, after all, is a highly mutable thing. It's normal for it to change constantly during filming and afterward, due to input from many different people. Yes, if the WB statement was accurate, then it was presumptuous of Fisher to assume they were obligated to agree to his suggestions, but it was not presumptuous of him to offer them.




And any director who thinks that way is an egotistical fool. A good director is willing to listen to ideas from anyone. It's arrogant to assume your own ideas are automatically better than someone else's, no matter how experienced you are. The moment a creator stops being humble, the moment they decide they have all the answers and don't have to listen to anyone else, that's when the quality of their work starts to deteriorate. A great idea can come from the guy at the craft services table for all you know.

Once again, I know all of this, I've followed a lot of movie productions over the years, so I know how all of this weeks. But my point is that this seems like the kind of thing that would be invited by a director, and that an newbie actor, who has no onscreen credits to his name, shouldn't just assume the director is going to be OK with them wanting changes to the script.

 

[theenglish]

Well, that's getting it backward. If you're on a tight schedule, you need all the help you can get. Collaboration makes it go faster, not slower.

That is not true, or rather it is only true in specific instances when you have a group who is completing a specific task toward a specific goal. Constructing a building or a bridge or something pre-designed.

When working in a job where multiple viewpoints can be considered, that only works when there is sufficient time to listen to and evaluate viewpoint--and then work at bringing the group to a consensus. When there is an emergency situation or something that needs to be completed urgently, that is when leadership requires a top down approach. Of course, as a leader, you want to hear input if you are about to make a serious mistake but it can derail things and be emotionally draining and time consuming if you try to be "nice" and let everyone have their say.

In the case you mentioned, setting up shots and preparing to film scenes--is a collaboration where everyone involved knows their specific task and how to get it down. There is probably a lot of questions for the director about how something should be done and discussion about the best way to achieve it--but that is technical discussion.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I can easily imagine that, regardless of how collaborative Joss Whedon might normally be on a project, that the Justice League reshoots were a totally different kettle of fish. I'm guessing that the revised script had already gone through several layers of Warner Bros. execs on its way to approval. So, input from the actors, constructive or not, would be a total waste of time in that situation.

I wonder if part of Joss' issue was a frustration with an inability to Whedonize Cyborg's character. The Flash is a reference-spouting ADD motormouth, much in the vein of Xander, Andrew, Topher, or Wash. Aquaman is a lovable lunkhead; very Jayne-esque. Batman comes across a bit like Angel or Mal-- trying to posture as the big hero but constantly tripped up by the fact that he's not as cool as he thinks he is. Superman got a few Buffy-style quips. Wonder Woman, from a comedic perspective, was mostly there to be the straight woman who rolls her eyes at the immature antics of the men around her. (Wasn't that basically what Zoe & Inara did?) But Cyborg doesn't seem to lend himself to any particular Joss Whedon type.

Much as I love Joss Whedon, it probably doesn't help that his record with POC characters isn't the best. The main line-ups in both of his Avengers movies were all white. Buffy didn't have a single non-white actor in the main cast. The one black guy on Angel was often so badly underused that they basically made an entire episode in Season 4 just to apologize for it.

My suspicion on why his cast mates have been quiet - they have been in business much longer. They know that often being an actor means making the director and studio happy. Making the best of ideas you do not always like.

I wonder if any of them have tried to get in touch with him and point that out to him?

I think the statement from Warner Bros. is very telling. They're not saying that they don't believe Fisher. They're saying that nothing that Fisher has alleged is actually anything that anyone can do anything about.

Thing is, while this is all going on, Fisher is still in active negotiations to appear in the Flash movie.

Yes, it's all a clever ploy on the part of Fisher & his agent to make himself so radioactive that his asking price will be next to nothing!

I used to think that Fisher was whacking his movie career in the kneecap with these allegations. Now it seems he's going for the killshot. I figured that we might at least see Fisher in Flashpoint even if no other studio would touch him. But now, I don't think Warner Bros. will even keep him around that long. I think he's done. Even Josh Trank didn't dig himself in a hole this deep.