i09 asks: Is JJ Abrams The New Joss Whedon?

[CowboyGuy]

Article Here

"With the year getting ready to draw to a close, one thing has become clear to anyone who's been paying attention: Despite television rating freefalls and a movie industry dependent on franchises for success, one man has managed to sail the choppy waters of genre entertainment with almost no mis-steps and still find success. Isn't it time that we finally gave JJ Abrams his long-awaited due?

I know that there's more than a small amount of apathy and hatred towards Abrams out there - Yes, I'm talking about you, haters - but that shouldn't stop the triple threat writer/producer/director of Felicity, Alias and Mission: Impossible III get what's coming to him. In an era where Joss Whedon is reduced to making ballet and webshorts in order to get fulfill his muse the way he wants, we've come up with some reasons to consider Abrams' place as the new Joss.

He Makes The Mainstream Understand.
Yes, he's not necessarily a trailblazer like Whedon - although his projects tend to do well when it comes to ARGs - but let's face it: His shows are more popular with both audiences and networks. Not for Abrams are there multiple pilot episodes due to network concern, or shows cancelled due to low ratings. What's more impressive is that this success has come without truly sacrificing the integrity of his work - Fringe may be somewhat insane (and inane), but it's very much true to its own weirdness; the same can definitely be said of the Abrams-produced Lost. Through aiming lower than Whedon, perhaps, he nonetheless manages to introduce mainstream America to some wonderfully unusual ideas.

He Made Simon Pegg Cry With Star Trek.
No, really. Abrams explains:

**I showed Simon Pegg [footage] when we were at Comic-Con. I showed him this little trailer thing and it was my favorite thing ever. He literally started weeping. It was ridiculous. He was sitting there, I mean he must have been plastered. Because he was looking at my iPhone [crying].**

Maybe it's because I find it easy to forget Run, Fatboy, Run, but I tend to consider Pegg someone with reasonably good taste; if he started crying when he saw footage of a movie that he'd worked on himself, that's got to be a very good sign for one of the most anticipated movies of 2009.

(Or, admittedly, a truly, truly bad one. But somehow I don't think it was meant like that.)

He Plays Well With Others.
Whether it's Cloverfield's team of Drew Goddard and Matt Reeves, Lost's Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse (or the impressive writers' room for the show) or his Fringe collaborators Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinker, Abrams has a proven legacy of putting aside his ego and assembling strong teams of creators able to carry out his creative vision - or improve on it, as needs be (Hi, Lost writers!).

Who Else Has Had A Better 2008?
Put any anticipation of Star Trek out of your mind - or, for that matter, worry about the moved release date for the movie from this Christmas to next summer - and look at the trinity of 2008 releases bearing Abrams' stamp: Cloverfield, Lost and Fringe. Who else has had as strong a year in terms of quantity, success and quality?

The role of being the largest mover and shaker isn't a lifetime position, of course; Joss Whedon's length as fanboy figurehead has probably been lengthier than many would've expected, perhaps because of the lack of appropriate replacement. Abrams may not deserve the role past the release of next year's Gene Rodenberry lovefest, but between now and then? We should all just finally embrace the truth, and throw away our shame: JJ Abrams Is Our Master Now."

Pretty interesting article, and while it does make some valid points...I feel the urge to ask, "Who ever said that we want to have a "new" anybody?!" Hehe.

[Yam Sham]

I don't really like the use of the word "reduced". To me, that implies that Whedon has been forced to distribute his work online out of desperation, when that's clearly not the case.

As far as the main idea of the article goes, I think they're two very distinct entities with a lot to offer genre TV, and that desperately trying to compare them can only detract from their individual accomplishment.

[faithnspike]

I am not a fan of Abrams, but most importantly NO ONE is the next Joss Whedon. I lover everything he has done. People like Joss who write things their way, despite what anyone else wants or thinks will sell are not like anyone else.

[Emmie]

This just...bothers me. "Reduced to" is how this writer describes a creative experiment to create a higher quality webseries, essentially helping to pioneer a new brand of entertainment online. Apparently innovation actually means you've been "reduced".

I actually like JJ Abrams and his projects - Alias, Lost, Fringe, even Felicity back in the day - but this whole comparison just seems geared to be insulting to Joss Whedon and to hitch a ride on his coattails of his highly creative reputation and successes. Why does JJ have to be the new Joss? Can't he just be JJ Abrams? Frankly, the man has his own famous reputation.

So when exactly did Joss give up his seat at the Hollywood table that Abrams needs to replace him?

I'm waiting for Dollhouse to come out in January. Then I'd like this writer to eat his keyboard (since I doubt he wrote this on paper at some point).

[BennyTheKey]

I hate it when people say, "This person's the new", gets on my nerves, they are two very different people, I havn't even heard of this JJ person!, so goes to show how famous he actually is, and Im not to keen on his shows anyway, they all sem to begging to even be as half as good as one of Joss projects!

[Emmie]

I've been trying to wrap my head around the phrase "the new Joss". What is the writer shooting for here? Is this referring to Joss' heyday when he was Exec Producing BUFFY, ANGEL and FIREFLY in 02-03?

I suspect that Joss' absence from television since ANGEL was cancelled is where this idea of 'Joss has left his seat at the Hollywood table, would anyone else like to sit down?' comes from. This all seems moot considering that Dollhouse is about to premiere in 2 1/2 months (woohoo!).

I actually went back and re-read the article, moving beyond the insulting "reduced" line and examining the points in favor of JJ Abrams. All points being:

- He makes the mainsream understand.
- He made Simon Pegg cry.
- He plays well with others.
- Who else has had a better 2008?

Yet none of these reasons are why I'm such a huge fan of Joss Whedon (except for making Simon Pegg cry - Joss knows how to creatively name-call in multiple languages, so I hear). I don't follow his works because he's able to start a great concept than pass it along to greatly talented writers - I follow Joss because he commits himself devoutly to his creations and manages to gather incredibly talented writers and actors around him to bring that vision to life. And of those talented men and women he brings to his writer's room, Joss stands at the head of the pack for me in terms of sheer brilliance.

I *know* how talented and committed Joss is to his work. I'm not exactly sure how involved JJ Abrams is nor what creative successes I can attribute to him or to the other creative forces he surrounds himself with. Maybe JJ's greatest talent is surrounding himself with people who are more talented than him, surely a great quality to have for an Executive Producer. Whatever the case may be, I'm still not die-hare sure about where Abrams falls on the meter of sheer genius. So no, JJ is not my new master - but I like him well enough.

(***brought this post over from Whedonesque, pretty much sums up how I feel about the article)

[cheryl]

In a word, no. Nobody will ever be Joss Whedon.

[Tyler Austin "tiewashere"]

I love both of them.

But I think J.J. gets a little too complicated with things he does and thinks being smart means making billions of mysteries in whatever he does and not answering them until 5 seasons later. It gets annoying.