GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

FIREFLY NECROPSY (#2 of 4) - WHAT WENT WRONG?

POSTED BY: XED
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 16:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8010
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:17 AM

XED


FIREFLY NECROSPY (PART 2) - WHAT WENT WRONG?

REASON #2: Series television can't support genuine tragedy in a weekly series.

Reason #1, Fox's inexplicable and insane decision to shelve the 2-hour pilot, hobbled and ultiamtely killed the show. By dumping a load of charactrs on us with whom viewers were unacquainted and baffled, it forced Whedon's writing team to play catch-up from the git-go. Worse yet, the pretty clearly had topatch exposition onto some of the episodes, bogging things down and clogging up the narrative flow.
That was Fox's fault.
However, the second reason why Firefly died must be laid squarely at Joss Whedon's door.
In series television with a continuing cast of characters, you can't do tragedy. Not every week.
It's too ambitious. It just won't work. It asks too much of a mass audience.
I mean, think about it for a moment -- imagine, if you will, "Oesipus Rex -- The Series." In the 2-hour pilot, Oedpisu discovers he married his mother and killed his father and he rips out his eyes and heads off to wander homelss as a blind beggar.
In episode #1...
Wait a minute.
There can't be any episode 1.
The whole thing doesn't work.
Tragedy is a one-shot deal. Things go bad, but there's a catharsis.
Seeing the Danish court flouder and fumble after Hamlet dies, however, just doesn't cut it.
"Hamlet - The Series." Tonight -- f weeks after Hamlet dies! Tune it to see what happens!
No.
Ain't gonna work.
This is the problem Joss Whedon incurred when he decided to make a series about "the people history stepped on."
'Twould make a great novel -- but a TV series?
Problem is, the people history stepped on soon become unbearably depressing. There's a reason,
ladies and germs, why "Gone With the End" ends with Scarlett vowing to rebuild her plantation after the nd of the Civil War.
The reason is that the rest of the story was just downhilll after that. You can see Scarlett O'Hara slowly subsiding into poverty, working oike a dog, her fancy dresses degenerating into rags, as she bit by bit sells off all her possessions to try and rebuild Tara. And maybe she succeeds -- but by the time she does, she's too old and has gone through too much hardship for us to really care.
Yes, folks, life is hard and things often don't work out. Setting a drama s ambitious as "Firefly" in such a real-world univers, as opposed to the antiseptic Republican country-club Telltubby-land of Star Trek, represents the show's strong point. But too much a good thing is no good. Salt helps flavor a meal, but that don't mean you want to eat a solid block fothe stuff for dinner.
Wtting an entire TV series int he realm of Things That Don't Work Out is a death wish, given the way mass audiences work.
Let me draw a parallel here with 2 other short-lived series -- those of you who go wayyyy back might recall "Hondo," a drama about a Confederate solider wandering around the south aftrer the Civil War. Incredibly depressing 60s Western. It lasted one season and then died.
Or how about the TV show "EZ Street"?
Superb 2-hour pilot film.
But, like "Hondo" and "Firefly," a show about people history has stepped on -- with
no genuine prospect of the worm ever turning.
"Ez Street" died fast.
Tragedy, people can take -- it's uplifting. But a non-stop flamenco dance by history
done on our cast of favorite characters, week after week...?
No way.
People will tune out. And who can blame 'em?
Blake's 7 has been cited as a counter-example, but it really isn't. Recall that
Blake and his merry crew did succeed in breaking up the evil empire at the
end of episode 3 by wrecking Star One. So Blake and his crew always had a
shot. They had a chance. There always remained hope.
What hope, pray tell, remains that Mal's side will wil lthe civil war?
Zero.
None.
The bad guys won and now Mal and everyone else has to live in their ugly
universe.
Also, bear in mind, please, that Blake's 7 did NOT suffer from the limitations
fo comemrical TV. Written for BBC Channel 4, Blake's 7 lasted probably 'cause
Channel 4 got gummint funding. If Blake's 7 had had to compete with
Survivor...fuhgeddaboudit, as they say in the Bronx.
As superb as the best writing of "Firefly" was, the show itself was almost
unbearably dark at times. All too often, in fact. The view of human nature
espoused in "Firefly" comes straight out of Hobbes' "Leviathan."
Let's take a couple of examples to see just how unrealistically harsh "Firefly"'s
scripts really were.
In "The Train Job," the supervaillain Adlai Niska gets away with it. He hangs
his own nephew's corpse from a hook and walks away at the end of the ep
scot-free.
In "Bushwhacked," the major rpemise of the episode is that if someone is
tortured and brutalized badly enough, s/he turns into a torturer and a monster.
But is that true?
Wasn't Ghandi brutalized? Wasn't Martin Luther King brutalized? Weren't
countless SNIC protestors svaged by dogs and firehosed and beaten
savagely with rubber hoses wrapped with barbed wire in 1963? Wasn't Nelson
Mandela sadistically brutalized for 20 years of hard labor imporsionemnt?
Yet none of those people turned into evil psychos, as the crewmember in
"Bushwhacked" is supposed to have done.
The premise behind "Bushwhacked" is such a brutally dark view of human
nature ("If you come face to face with the darkness you have to become
the darkness") that it's unbearable.
The darkness continues with "Jaynesville." The planet (okay, moon) full of slaves
remain slaves at episode's end. Jayne standsup and shouts "There ain't
no people like that, just people like me" as he points at his statue. Once again,
the darkest possible view of human nature.
Then we get "Out Of Gas," in which the crew answering Mal's distress signal
promptly shoots him and leaves him for dead. Once again, a unvierse in which
no human being seems capable of ordinary decency. Is that realistic?
...Well, I could go on. But you get the idea.
Sadly, this incredibly pessimistic view of life, the ujniverse and humanity seems
woven into the very thread of "Firefly." We see it right at the start, in the 2-hour
pilot. Everyone betrays everyone else, Jayne admits he'll sell Mal out (nice
foreshadowing of "Ariel" -- once agajn, LOST WITHOUT THE PILOT!), the doctor
even threatens to let Kaylee die (and we thought Michael Tam was the only
decent guy on board!)...it's non-stop brutality and betrayal all the way.
No matter how superb the writing, the show couldn't survive that kind of
drastically dark dystopian future...not if it had to depend on a mass audience
for its survival.
Me, I can stomach such a show. Probably the folks on this discussion group
can too. I'd guess they're a cut above the folks who tune into the Jerry Springer
show.
But, alas, the audience for the Jerry Spring show is the one to which Joss's
epic tragedy must appeal.
So that one's Joss Whedon's fault, and the fault of his writing staff. Without
at least some glimmer of hope (as in "Ariel" and very briefly right at the end
of "Out Of Gas"), it's unreasonable to ask a mass audience to tune into this
despair-fest week after week.
Sad to say, Roddenberry got it right -- optimism sells, at least to mass
audiences in series TV. Love it or hate it, Trek has survived for 35 years
because it offers that glimmer of hope. "Firefly" offered us a dark dystopian
view not only of a horrific future, but of human nature that proved so depressing
it pretty well killed the show's prospects right at the start.
The moral?
Anti-Treks don't work. At least, not if they're totally anti. Gotta have a glimmer
of hope, kiddies, or mass TV audiences will tune out.
NEXT POST - a slow start with some very spotty scripts early on. And the Ariel arc develops too slowly, more's the pity.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:39 AM

HARDWARE


It's amazing what a shallow understanding you have of bushwhacked. Did you watch the episode or just read a recap?

The survivor of the ambushed ship wasn't tortured. He wasn't harmed in any way. He was forced to watch his friends and family brutalized, tortured, raped, skinned and eaten. Things like that can break your mind, if not your spirit, which was the point of the exercise in the frist place. This is how the reavers reproduce.

Your example of Ghandi and other notable figures out of history doesn't equate. Those figures are notable simply because they rose above the expectation of what could be tolerated. If you cast about your average city you are going to find damn few people who could possibly rise to Ghandi's level of moral and ethical purity.

Plus, this is a work of fiction. That character is a redshirt, what happens to him doesn't matter. He exists solely to provide a reason for the Alliance officer to let Mal and company go their merry way.

Get a grip.

Now, if you think the show was going to be about depressed losers living in the victor's universe, you're deluded. True, such a show would have been depressing. However, the variable you aren't accounting for is River. The point of this show is Mal fighting the civil war on his own. By keeping the Tams alive and free from Alliance control Mal is fighting and winning his civil war.

Now, in your next premature autopsy you're probably going to draw a line of comparison to Outlaw Star, at which point I will begin ignoring everything you have to say as sour grapes.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:27 AM

ROBERTSPARLING


first of all tragedy works on TV, or at least pseudo-tragedy. Once and Again, the show that wasn't happy unless it left its audience bawling was usually nothing but tear jerking this, my-daughter's-a-lesbian that, and while it had funny eps, it was depressing after depressing after depressing bits of crap. And let us not forget shows like Six Feet Under. That show is nothing but tragic circumstance, from the father dying in episode one, to Nate getting cancer, to David, the closetted homosexual ALWAYS getting the short-end of the relationship stick. And let us not forget drug addict Claire.

and that show has garnere multiple awards and nominations. Tragedy works. I personally don't think Firefly was ever "tragic" in the Oedipal sense. The universe they live in is bleak. Fine. The world isn't always pretty either. The lack a tragedy lies in the characters like Mal who still strive to make it better for themselves. The man fought a war to make it better, to make it free, and he still fights that war, but the Alliance/Independents War is now one of morality. The Alliance controls most of the system worlds, but they don't control Serenity, or Mal, or anyone else on that ship. They are deciding their own destinies, wherever that may take them, just like the Doc did in Highjacking his sister.

This whole damn series is about hope and about striving to obtain freedom under any circumstance. Like Mal says, if the Aliiance keeps expanding, Serenity can just fly farther.

If you didn't understand that, watch the eps again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:39 AM

SERGEANTX


XED,

I started reading your post but about a half way through I realized that despite your verbose, authoritative stance, you're really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Sorry I don't have the time nor the inclination for a point by point rebuttal, but the bottom line is you didn't get it, or didn't like it.. I just can't care.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:44 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey XED,

I am baffled. You, XED, are the one here with the despairing view of human nature. How else could you interpret a show that hinges on the decency of people in the face of depravity and injustic as hopelessly dystopian? Let's dumb it down a bit: it's a show about the underdog. Remember him? The long-respected populist anti-hero? I watch the show for Mal's suprising heroism, for Kaylee's "you just have to have faith in people," for Inara's compassion, for Zoe's steely loyalty, Wash's love of life, for Simon's raw courage, for River's promise, for Book's hard-won wisdom, for Jayne's empathy that he just can't seem to shake (gorramit!).

You call it dystopian when Niska gets away. Hello, y'ever hear of Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussain? So far Niska's gotten away, but what about next time? And you gotta know there'll be a next time. Because the hard fights are worth fighting, XED. Do you think we're all masochists, tuning in every week just to have our faith in humanity stepped on one more time?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:34 AM

XED


Once again Robert Sparling resorts to name-calling and abuse as a substitute for reasoned debate and insightful discussion.
Time to lower the boom on, Senator Joseph McCarthy. Let's rebut your pervasively uninformed comments point by point:
You launch into a baseless personal attack when you sneer" It's amazing what a shallow understanding you have of bushwhacked. Did you watch the episode or just read a recap?"
Show proof I didn't watch the episode or stand revealed as a liar and character assassin, sir.
Strong claims demand strong proof. Show us proof of your insulting claim that I didn't watch the episode. Otherwise we must conclude you are indulging the usual name-calling typical of people who have no arguments and no facts and no logic upon which to base their prejudices.
Robert Sparling lurches on, in the manner of a drunk suffering from Korsakov's Syndrome, when he avers, "The survivor of the ambushed ship wasn't tortured. He wasn't harmed in any way. He was forced to watch his friends and family brutalized, tortured, raped, skinned and eaten."
You have just contradicted yourself, sir.
Clearly you have no idea of the broad meaning of the word "torture." The worst kind of torture is psychological. And that's precisely what the survivor endured at the hands of the reavers.
Clearly, you just don't know what you're talking about when you aver the surviving wasn't tortured.
Robert Sparling goes on to claim: "Things like that can break your mind, if not your spirit, which was the point of the exercise in the frist place. This is how the reavers reproduce."
Provide proof.
Where is the hard evidence that "things like that can break your mind"?
Also, where is the hard evidence that the reavers reproduce by forcing victims to watch their families being tortured?
Again, show us proof or stand revealed and somone pervasively ignorant of what you discuss.
"Your example of Ghandi and other notable figures out of history doesn't equate. Those figures are notable simply because they rose above the expectation of what could be tolerated. If you cast about your average city you are going to find damn few people who could possibly rise to Ghandi's level of moral and ethical purity."
Now this is a good point by Robert Sparling. However, permit me to point out that tons of folks endured torture (physical or psychological) in places like Andersonville, Dachau, and elsewhere, without becoming reavers.
In fact, history seems to show that such emotionally traumatic events tend to produce people notable for their humane decency, does it not? Is not hte main syndrome of the concentration camp survivor victims' guilt? These people don't turn into reavers even though they watched their families tortured and murdered. These people came out of the experience with a sense of deep guilt for having survived -- just the opposite of the premise of "Bushwhacked."
The victims became suicidal, not homicidal.
Read your history, sir.
Autobiographies like Primo Levi's show us absolutely no evidence that "experiences like that can break your mind." On the contrary, such memoirs provide us with powerful testimony to the enduring nobility of the human spirit even under the worst circumstances.
"Plus, this is a work of fiction."
Once again Robert Sparling shows us who is clueless about this episode and about the series Firefly in general.
Have not many folks justly praised Firefly for its realism? How then can people who praise this series for it realism resort to the opposite claim when pressed -- viz., "it's just fiction."
Make up your mind, sir. Ought we not to care about what happens in firefly "because it's just fiction"?
Or ought we to care precisely because the characters are so well-written that they partake of "the inexhaustibility of the real," to use the mathematician's phrase?
You cannot have it both ways.
"That character is a redshirt, what happens to him doesn't matter. He exists solely to provide a reason for the Alliance officer to let Mal and company go their merry way."
Exactly -- and that's the problem with "Bushwhacked." Instead of getting a human 3-dimensional character, we get a redshirt straight out of Trek. Has not person after person remarked on how Firefly ascends to a higher level than Trek?
Once again, you can't have it both ways. Either Firefly excels for the depth of its characterizations...or it's just another example of scriptwriters cynically moving cardboard characters around like chess pieces to obtain a desired cliche plot outcome.
If the latter, then this episode fails to live up to Firefly's high standards.
"Get a grip."
Pish and tosh, sir. Sheer character assassination.
"Now, if you think the show was going to be about depressed losers living in the victor's universe, you're deluded."
Strong words --= provide strong proof your claim is true.
In fact, my statement is exactly accurate, is it not? (Except for the "depressed" part -- you clearly didn't bother to read my post, as we'd expect from the pervasively false nature of your uninformed claims.) I never claimed or stated that any of the characters in Firefly was or is "depressed." What I claimed is that their dystopian universe eventually becomes depressing.
However, the rest of your claim is in fact accurate as regards Firefly -- the characters are, quite literally, losers. They lost the good fight. They lost a just war. They are in fact losers (at least Zoe and Mal are). Michael Tam is a loser because he lsot everything in his bid to free his sister. River is a loser because she has literally lost her mind, as well as her freedom. Book we don't know enough about to say with certainty. But suffice to say we can posit Book probably lost his faith in the Alliance, and perhaps in God. Mal has lost his faith in the possibility of justice. Wash and Zoe, can't tell, they're not developed characters.
Every single one of Firefly's characters is a loser, including Inara. She appears to have lost the option to ply her trade in the Core systems, for reason suggested but not made clear in the 2-hr pilot.
So, as always, your post is categorically and point by point false. In fact the crew of Firefly *are* losers.
It goes without saying that they live in the victor's universe, since the Alliance won.
So we can see that each of your lcaims is, point by point, factually false so far.
Robert Sparling goes on claim "True, such a show would have been depressing. However, the variable you aren't accounting for is River."
Excellent point, sir! Bravo!
You miss the important issue that River doesn't reveal her powers until AFTER "Ariel." Until then, the show *is* depressing. This is probably what turned off a fair number of viewers.
Permit me to second your excellent insight here, however. (While you have no problem with verbally abusing me for no reason, I utterly refuse to stoop to your level. You make some excellent points, despite you penchant for character assassination -- an indulgence which does you no credit, and merely lowers what would otherwise be our excellent opinion of you.)
Firefly really takes off when River turns into a superhuman after "Ariel." At that point, the show turns around, and had it only continued for a few more episodes, I get the distinct feeling the episodes would've turned much more upbeat. So we actually agree on that point...your meaningless ad hominem verbal abuse aside.
"The point of this show is Mal fighting the civil war on his own. By keeping the Tams alive and free from Alliance control Mal is fighting and winning his civil war."
Provide hard evidence, sir. From the start of "Objects In Space," in which River gets each person's character distilled into a phrase by reading their minds, we deduce that Mal believes "nothing means anything." After all, that's what Mal says (psychically speaking, from River's POV). That ain't fightin' a civil war, kiddo. That's fighting major depression.
I have just given hard evidence of my claim. Where is the hard evidence for your claim?
"Now, in your next premature autopsy you're probably going to draw a line of comparison to Outlaw Star, at which point I will begin ignoring everything you have to say as sour grapes."
You are no River Tam, sir. I have not even seen Outlaw Star.
What was the phrase you employed...?
Oh.
Yes.
Get a grip.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:06 AM

SERGEANTX


Xed,

I don't know what your axe is, or why you think anyone wants to hear it on this board, but you're just making pompous, argumentative ass out of yourself.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:15 AM

ROBERTSPARLING


all the little rants and attacks you just "rebutted" (it has two t's) should be directed at Mechanic. I'm the post one or two down from his. You'll recognize it by the name attached to it that says "RobertSparling" and not "Mechanic". I know I haven't been kind to you in the other posts, but if you want to rant about me, do it about stuff I posted at least.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 11:20 AM

XORYN


Normally I don't respond to posts like this because generally it turns into a big name calling exercise in futility, however this time I will make an exception.

Xed,

I have to say I'm a bit confused by you. I have managed to get through the first and second posts of your "Firefly Necopsy" despite, in my opinion, them being very longwinded. Although you mention on several occasions about how much you liked the show and its characters, the overall tone and anger in the words you write towards them, or any person who has a different opinion then you is very overwelming. Here is a quick example:

Quote:
"It's amazing what a shallow understanding you have of bushwhacked. Did you watch the episode or just read a recap?"
Show proof I didn't watch the episode or stand revealed as a liar and character assassin, sir.
Strong claims demand strong proof. Show us proof of your insulting claim that I didn't watch the episode. Otherwise we must conclude you are indulging the usual name-calling typical of people who have no arguments and no facts and no logic upon which to base their prejudices.


The angry defensive tone here sets the mood for the entire post and derails any hope of a civilized discussion.There was no "claim" of anything. It was just an opinion of one person saying that they didn't agree with you followed by merely asking a question. "Did you or didn't watch the episode?" That's it, no character assassination, just a question. And since when do we need prove of anything to simply ask a question. I don't know you at all to determine if this hostility is intended in all of your writings or not,for this hostility can be sensed in the original posts as well. Perhaps you are too close to the work to notice it yourself, but make no mistake because for all of your obscure references and the odd writing style in which you deliver them, to me there is a very clear anger behind those words.

Ok, if you sat through that then I have a couple of other opinions as well (crowd moans):

Quote:
Where is the hard evidence that "things like that can break your mind"?
Also, where is the hard evidence that the reavers reproduce by forcing victims to watch their families being tortured?


Mal says it in Bushwacked:"They made him watch. He probably tried to turn away but they didn't let him. The only way to deal with such a thing, I suspect, is to become it.First he will try to make himself look like one..."

And everything Mal said happened, so since we didn't write the show or have any other information to go on we must regard that as the hard evidence available, or fact until told otherwise.


Quote:
"Plus, this is a work of fiction."
Once again Robert Sparling shows us who is clueless about this episode and about the series Firefly in general.
Have not many folks justly praised Firefly for its realism? How then can people who praise this series for it realism resort to the opposite claim when pressed -- viz., "it's just fiction."
Make up your mind, sir. Ought we not to care about what happens in firefly "because it's just fiction"?


But is it just fiction. Its not real. Its not even pretending to be real. Its 500 years in the future and the last I checked there were no routine interstellar trips available. The mere genre itself, Science Fiction, immediately sets in our heads that we are going to see things that are just fantasy, just musings from some persons head. These are not the things that are going to happen. Its just the work of an individual or group of individuals, thats it. In that context we have to allow a certain amount of leeway. If someone tells me 500 years in the future that this could happen then fine, I am no more an authority on it then they are. To me its a plausible reason why Reavers are created. Perhaps to an avid historian or professor of the human spirit and the drive of humanity it is unfounded. But that's not me so I'm fine with it, and since it would be an impossibility to make this show 100% real, we have to have a certain amount of blind faith if you will. That is kind of an entertainment category. Being a director myself, I know if I can entertain and hold someones attention and interest long enough I can "slip one by the goalie" sort of speak and no one will care or even notice. And to exhaust my point even further I am reminded of Steven Speilberg in an interview about the making of Jaws and the fact that there is no way a shark would ever be able to jump onto a boat like that. He said (paraphrasing) if he can capture and captivate you the viewer for the whole movie, then you will believe anything gives you at the end.

And I believe the makers of Firefly have captured and captivated us, and isn't that the point of the whole mess...



Also one final thing, Who is the "Michael Tam" you keep refering to?

Xoryn

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 11:28 AM

ALLRONIX




You may have a point there. Liberator always had a shot at doing damage to the Federation, and they almost always kept a step ahead of Servalan while thumbing their nose at her. They were nothing more than a pain in the butt to the Federation, but they were quite good at it.

To be honest, I see the potential in those characters to be in just the right place at the right time to cause real damage. The Wild West was full of outlaw-heroes and legends that survive long after the Frontier closed. A good many of those folks were ex-Confederates who lost their shirts at Gettysburg and the ilk, so they figured they had zilch to lose. (Jesse James was one of the prime examples of this)

Now, add some indications that the Alliance is nowhere near as strong as it looks. In the pilot, Zoë mentions the Reavers are "getting closer every year." The core worlds are depending on the colonies for goods and cheap labor, but lacks the armies to enforce anything like the sterile corporate fascism implied on the Core worlds. We also don't know if the fight for colonial independence caused some uncomfortable rumblings back home that is also taking resources to quell. Now, exploitation of colonies can quell internal discontent for a good ling time (Lenin had a decent quote to that effect, but I'm nowhere near my stash of books). Yet, depending on a slave economy is fatal in the long-term, as demonstrated by Rome - sooner or later, there will be too many slaves to effectively cow.

Now, the crew...The preacher is as "plain and simple" as a certain Cardassian tailor, the "Companion" has reasons she ain't telling for being on a creaky smuggling boat rather than a life of luxury as a "kept woman." Top that off with the fugitive doctor and that wild card baby sister of his. Now, if those folks can slip through the cracks, you gotta wonder what else has.

Malcolm may not be "chosen" like his elder sister Buffy, but that shouldn't mean his gang should be treated as lesser than the Scoobies. Joss created some powerful characters, heroes despite themselves, so why not go full-out with them? Heroes on the Frontier, outlaws to the Feds, but they never see themselves as anything other than the average smuggler. I happen to like the idea of ordinary blokes who find themselves stepping up to the place because no one else will. (This was one of the reasons I was such a big fan of the Lone Gunmen.) They already make the Feds good and nervous. If Mal saw an opportunity to really nail the Feds, and he thought there was a shot of getting away with it, he just might not turn it down.

Now, I'm not Joss, but I know how I'd do it. Spend the first season focusing on just how ordinary these guys are, but start the rumors flying. Have these folks going planet to planet, doing their job, crossing the Feds, but keep them in the dark about the aftereffects of those, paying no mind to the rumors. Sometime around February sweeps in Season 2, let them in on a little secret - some of those Browncoats and some of those planets never gave up - and they're actually making headways. Smugglers and privateers are needed more than ever, and Mal doesn't mind the work.

Then, have it catch up to them (ala "Jaynestown"). The Alliance laughs off the threat, but the people whisper the legend among themselves. There's a mysterious ship that's made itself known on the borders...and the crew is shocked to realize those rumors are about them! The Feds or some Alliance sympathizers bust them, and they make some kind of narrow escape. Yet, by the Season 2 ender, they realize that they can't be "just" ordinary smugglers. They are scared as hell by this prospect, but the ship needs fuel, crew needs to eat...and the Feds are going to nail them regardless.

Like it or not, they just got drafted into service as a boat of outlaw-heroes, and the universe just got a lot more chaotic. They've got nothing to lose by going for broke.


"And I blame this world for making a good man evil. It's this world that can drive a good man bad. And it's this world that turns a killer into a hero. Well, I blame this world for making a good man pay."

-Bon Jovi "Santa Fe" (Young Guns 2 soundtrack)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 11:30 AM

XED


Twice more, SergeantX indulges in baseless name-calling -- the last resort of the character assassin who has run out of arguments and facts:
"I started reading your post but about a half way through I realized that despite your verbose, authoritative stance, you're really don't know what the hell you're talking about."
Your baseless persxonal attack reveals itself as empty name-calling. Either provide hard evidence that I don't really know what I'm talking about, or stand revealed as just another on-line Senator Joseph McCarthy.
SergeantX continues his shameful character assassination with the ad hominem attack: "Sorry I don't have the time nor the inclination for a point by point rebuttal..."
Of course you're sorry, sir.
You're sorry because your ad hominem attack reveals that you have no facts and no logic and no arguments to counter my facts and my analyses. Well might you be sorry about being in such a pickle. It's a sorry situation for you to find yourself in, isn't it?
Sans anything but name-calling to back up your empty claims, you're just another person thrashing around in inarticulate rage. And that won't get you very far, will it?
And the beat(ing) goes on...
In his latest essay into shameful character assassination, SergeantX digs himself a deeper hole by sneering: "I don't know what your axe is, or why you think anyone wants to hear it on this board, but you're just making pompous, argumentative ass out of yourself."
Keep up your vacuous name-calling, sir. Continue avoid giving a reasoned response to the points I have made about Firefly. Persist in your effort to wriggle out of facing my arguments and my facts -- both critical and in praise of Firefly.
Keep it up, sir.
The longer you persist in your name-calling, the more clear it becomes to everyone that you have nothing with which to respond to my posts but empty venom.
Keep calling names instead of engaging in reasxoned debate -- you've called me an "ass," now see if you can dream up some more names to call me.
We will all know exactly what to make of your empty name-calling.
We all recognize exactly why you cannot come to grips with my arguments.
You cannot counter my arguments becuase you know I'm dead right about Firefly. And you can't stand it. That's why you engage in baseless name-calling. LIke a kindergarten child who bursts into tears at being told there is no Easter Bunny, you have no response but a hysterical tantrum. All you can do is bang your spoon on your high chair and scream "Bad man! You're a bad bad man! You're bad bad bad! Make the bad man go away! Away away away! Bad bad bad!"
Surely, sir, you must realize how utterly bankrupt and bereft your name-ca;ling amkes you appear in the eyes of everyone on this forum?
Here's some advice, SergeantX -- when you enter into a battle of wits, make sure you don't come unarmed. When you stoop to ad hominem insults, you disarm yourself, for in that case you offer no arguments and no facts to counter my arguments and my facts. In a debate, cogency and eloquence count. Facts matter. Arguments count. Vacuous name-calling doesn't cut it.
Put up or shut up, SergeantX.
Name-calling is contemptible, it's the last refuge of someone who knows his own arguments just don't have it takes to convince anyone.
Provide hard evidence and persuasive arguments to show that my analyses of Firefly are incorrect.
Offer logic to rebut mine. Offer arguments to counter mine. Offer facts to contadict my facts.
Otherwise, reasonable people will know exactly what conclude about your empty name-calling.
Notice, sir, that while you have repeatedly attacked me with ad hominem insults ("ass," "you just don't know what you're talking about," etc.) I have in no instance called you an "ass" or anything of the kind. I refuse to stoop to your level, SergeantX. You may prefer the gutter, I won't grovel in the gutter even to counter your vicious name-calling.
Do you think that the people who read this forum can't draw an appropriate conclusion from that?
Do you honestly think you're hoodwinking anyone with your endless ad hominem name-calling?
Everyone on this forum sees right through you, sir. I daresay they all recognize exactly what you're up to, and I think everyone can draw the appropriate conclusion about what kind of person you indulge in this kind of non-stop name-calling instead of answering my posts in a reasoned open debate.
You close with "I just don't care."
If so, why did you even bother to respond to my posts?





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:15 PM

XED


HKcavalier (who recognizes that sci-fi movie reference?) remarks "I am baffled. You, XED, are the one here with the despairing view of human nature. How else could you interpret a show that hinges on the decency of people in the face of depravity and injustic as hopelessly dystopian?"
Well, you know, that's a good point.
What you're really saying is that I'm viewing Firefly as a glass half empty, while you're viewing it as a glass half full.
There's a lot to commend your remarks. I tend to agree, in fact, that the rays of hope which shine through Firefly shine all the brighter for the show's darkness.
Point is, you may not have recognized that offering a show with such a mixture of dark as well as hopeful elements could well induce quite a lot of the audience to view such a complex show as a glass half empty.
Now, that represents a real danger as far as grabbing and holding an audience goes, doesn't it?
I think that without quite realizing it you may be close to agreeing with my assessment that a show as dark and complex as Firefly has real problems in grabbing a mass audience.
For while you might find the show a wonderful affirmation of humanity, the fact that I find it often unbearably depressing could well give us an inkling of how plenty of viewers will respond, could it not?
The point is, how do we know your response it typical? Even if the audeince splits 50-50 twixt my take on the show (dystopian) and your take (a dark series shot through with glorious rays of hope), that's enough to knock out half the potential audience, isn't it?
And that's not a real good idea for a brand-new untested series, is it?
HKCavalier goes on to comment:
"Let's dumb it down a bit: it's a show about the underdog. Remember him? The long-respected populist anti-hero? I watch the show for Mal's suprising heroism, for Kaylee's "you just have to have faith in people," for Inara's compassion, for Zoe's steely loyalty, Wash's love of life, for Simon's raw courage, for River's promise, for Book's hard-won wisdom, for Jayne's empathy that he just can't seem to shake (gorramit!)."
These are very good points. And I think you've hit on the show's strengths.
Problem is, Firefly's crew seems always to be just on the verge of losing everything, of getting killed, or getting "raped to death, our flesh eaten, and our skin sewn into their clothes. And if we're very, very lucky, they do it in that order."
I mean...there's dark...and then there's DARK. Wouldn't you say that bit of dialogue (from the 2-hr pilot) is severely hyper-intensively MEGA-DARK...?
So perhaps my reaction is not entirely out of whack..?
And in that case, wouldn't you expect perhaps as muchas half the potential audience to get turned off by Firefly?
Ask yourself -- is that really a good decision from the point of view of the Neilsens?
Your remaining poitns are less convincing:
"You call it dystopian when Niska gets away. Hello, y'ever hear of Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussain?"
The fact that evil folks often win in the real world doesn't cut any ice for fiction. As Mark Twain remarked, real situations and real endings cannot be jsutified in fiction, for they are far too unlikely.
To put it another way, just because evil sometimes triumphs in the real world is no reason to throw up our hands and give in to taking the easy cynical despairing way out in a work of fiction. ("Everything sucks and nothing matters." The last pathetic refuge of the jaded modernist.)
Fiction is not reality, sir. You cannot excuse a badly formed or unsastifying work fo fiction by pointing out that the events actually happened that way in reality. Fiction is about more than reality -- it's about creating a cosmic arc of meaning out of the chaos of everyday life. Tossing in haphazard (and depressing) events in a piece of fiction and justifying that laziness with the catch-all excuse "but that's the way it happened in reality" is a complete cop-out. Fiction seeks to make sense of the world. That's the difference twixt fiction and a newspaper. The newspaper is just a collection of random often depressing events. Fiction may prove depressing, but you get the sense (with good fiction anyway) that it all makes sense.
You remark "So far Niska's gotten away, but what about next time? And you gotta know there'll be a next time."
You're more optimistic than I am. But perhaps you're right. It's another glass half full/half empty situation, ain't it? And in that case might it not be understandable that half the audience for Firefly reacted the way I did?
As far as dystopian futures go, I'm from Missouri. I judge by facts, not wishful thinking.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
Or, to rephrase:
If it looks like cynical nihilism and it quacks like cynical nihilism...
HKCavalier goes on to ask "Do you think we're all masochists, tuning in every week just to have our faith in humanity stepped on one more time?"
Dunno. But judging by many of the responses on this forum to simple straightforward criticism of the show, I'm beginning to wonder.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:20 PM

SERGEANTX


LOL,

That wasn't baseless name calling.(I'll get to that momentarily) As for your pretense of reason and argument, I don't find your 'critique' worth a response. You could have summed up your entired self important litany with "It confused and depressed me." It would have saved the board a lot of drive space. Your opinions are your own and I respect that, but to pretend you are some kind of authority, fit to criticize those who are creating Firefly is fraudulant and inexcusable.

Now for the baseless name calling! You're a jerk, a pompous idiot, a sad little twerp trying to build up your ego by criticizing something you could never hope to equal. You live for arguing online because you're so damned afraid of confrontation in real life... and you do it so poorly. "Put up or shut up?" How about f*ck you? How about you quit trying to pretend your intelligent and go away?

Ok, since I know you won't and I realize me getting mad at you is just what you want, I won't be addressing your nonsense anymore. I'm just seething right now because idiots like you run F*X.

Sorry folks,.... I'll be nice now. :)



SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:51 PM

HKCAVALIER


Holy shamolians! It just won't stop. This guy is unbelievable. I hope he's having fun. I hope he just gets the hugest kick out of writing these interminable, self-rightious, exercises in humiliation. I hope he has lots of friends leaning over his shoulder waiting for the next little fishy to bite and that they're all sharing a huge laugh at our expense. I hope he has a nifty I-was-the-captain-of-the-forensic-league term for speeking of someone in the third person to his face. "Sir, your ex video hominem nunc hunc postulum estrus attack shows you to be the base character assassin that my learned brethren all knew you to be blah blah bladdy rad rad huck!"
Get your head out of the 19th Century's ass, XED, this is not the presidential debate of 1892!

XED, XED, XED! These guys you think you're puting in their places have been here for months. They've had plenty of very satisfying things to say about this show we all love. So if one of them glances over your post and says it's crap, that carries a little weight, 'cause we know these guys a little bit. Also, it gives voice to a feeling many of us share. You must know this, XED. I've noticed that you ignore the reasoned, less adversarial posts that I've read (and written) in response to your remarks. What's that all about? If you want to actually have an intelectually satisfying conversation with any of us on this board act like it! How 'bout this, DON'T WRITE SUCH LONG POSTS! Give us time to breath and think about one or two of the fifty points you want to make before going on. Test the waters a little, see if what you're talking about is something anyone else really wants to talk about. Practice some social skills, m'kay? Rude, longwinded bluster just makes people mad. I mean that in the nicest way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:56 PM

XED


More baseless name-calling from SergeantX:
"Now for the baseless name calling! You're a jerk, a pompous idiot, a sad little twerp trying to build up your ego by criticizing something you could never hope to equal."
You tell me, ladies and gentlemen -- does not SergeantX prove my points conclusively by stooping to such mindless insults?
I have pointed how and why thef irst couple of episodes of Firefly failed to cut the mustrad.
And what has SergeantX to say in response to my accurate crigficism of the first couple of episodes of Firefly?
"`Put up or shut up?' How about f*ck you?"
Now that's a convincing rebuttal, isn't it?
Who, sir reveals himself as a "jerk" by responding to my accurately detailed critque of Firefly's faults with "how about f*ck you"?
You tell me, ladies and gentlemen. Who reveals himself as a "ompous idiot"? SergeantX, with his immortal words "f*ck you"?
Or me, when I point out that "The Train JOb" was poorly paced, ground to a halt in the middle for no good reason, and got clogged up with exposition that shouldv'e been interleaved with action, while "Bushwhacked" boiled down to "waiting For Godot" mmets "Silence of the Lambs" in outer space (a recipe for death in a mass audience show)?
Against my analyses, SergeantX offers the incisive critique "f*ck you."
Further comment on my part is unnecessary.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:08 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey XED,

Just noticed that you did respond to my post. And I must say, you were a good deal more sensible in your response to me than you seemed with them other guys. Thank you. I feel sorry now about my previous flame, even though I think I got off some zingers. Flame wars can be fun but to me they're mostly frustrating.

Your Mark Twain quote misses the difference between a long term episodic story and a completed drama. Yeah, it would be disgusting if Firefly's final episode of the final season had Niska kill half the crew and Mal commited to a mental hospital. But this is season one (hopefully of many). I think of STARWARS and Darth Vader, a bad, bad guy who lasts for three movies. When he finally is vanquished it's glorious and deeply satisfying. Then there's Darth Maul whom we kill off in the very first movie. Cool costume, but not much of a villian finally.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:22 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey XED,

The glass half full/half empty comparison is to me the difference between faithfulness and faithlessness. A theme that runs throughout Firefly. Jayne says "there are only people like me" because that is what he believes, that is how he lets himself do the wretched things he's done. The 'verse, as expressed to us by the writers is bigger than Jayne. Yes, people make heros because they need them, and yes that can be foolish, but it doesn't mean that there are no really good men in the world. Just that Jayne is not one of them (although we all see the seeds of such a man of such a man within him, we all see how Jayne is just a few decissions away from being a half-way decent guy). Why do you think people love Jayne so much? Because he's doomed to a life of depravity and greed? Or because we see in this fantastically untrustworthy soul some hope. Isn't Ariel all about that last moment when we see through Malcolm Reynolds eyes Jayne's decency trying to surface?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:25 PM

XED


I agree absolutely with you about Jayne and about "Ariel." That luminous moment when Jayne finally make sthe deicison to let his decency shine through is a magnificent piece of drama.
In fact, we can infer that's probably why Mal lets Jayne live. Mal's presumablya godo judge of character.
Still and all, hard to believe that the bleakness I've noted in Firefly is entirely a product of my imagination -- or my putatively dire emotional state.
I mean, run down the plots here...
2-hr pilot: Mal gets betrayed by the guy he did the job for, then betrayed again when he tries to sell the product agian, then turns out he has a traitor on board, PLUS psychopathic cannibals from the rim of space try to "rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skin into their clothes."
Now, call me a little dark cloud, kiddies, but that don't sound like Mr. Rogers to me.
"The Train Job" -- A supervillains greets Mal & Zoe by showing 'em a corpse haning from the ceiling. Niska hires them to steal what turn out to be vital medicines. Then when Mal tries to do the right thing, Kroll promises "Take the money. Use it for a funeral. It's doesn't matter where you go. I'll hunt you down. And the last thing you see will be my knife."
Call me a pessimist, kiddo, but I think it's safe to say we are not in Teletubby-land here.
Then we get "Jaynestown." A planet of slavess find out that heeir hero, jayne, actually didn't intend to be a hero, and Jayne tells 'em all he isn't a hero...then leaves them as slaves.
Am I really such a pessimist?
Or do we sense a certain pattern here?
In "Our Mrs. Reynolds," Mal's blushing bride turns out tobe a murderous traitor working for psycho scavengers who want to kill everyone on board. CAn't talk about Shindig, my gorram cable company. In "Safe" it takes River and Simon a record short time get ;ipled on a heap 'o kindlin' about to get burnt alive. Oh, and by the way, the Alliance prove they're nice guys by turning away the mortally wounded SHepard Book..until they see his mysterious ID.
These are not happy campers.
"Out Of Gas" starts with Mall collapses gut-shot on the deck. It gets more brutal from there.
"Ariel" features Jayne betraying all his freinds for cash, then getting betrayed by the Alliance himself. After which the Alliance marshal and his cops are murdered in cold blood by psychos with blue gloves. Well, maybe I'm being negative here, but I'll go out on a limba nd say this is not a fun Disneyland ride through the Tiki Hut.
In "War Stories" we get a nice dose of torture to to spice things up, and of course River becomes a cold-blooded killer.
And "Objects In Space' showcases one of the more chillingly psychotic killers in recent memory, the bounty hunter Jubal Early.
Do you notice a pattern?
Or is it all just my misperception?
Torture, attempted rape, threatened rape, murder, stealing medicine from sick people, burning people alive as witches, getting betrayed by your newlywed wife who turns out tobe a murerous saboteur... And those are the *upbeat* parts.
Eeeyow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:16 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by xed:
Still and all, hard to believe that the bleakness I've noted in Firefly is entirely a product of my imagination -- or my putatively dire emotional state.


Okay, XED, right there. As I understand your earlier post, we were talking about a view of human nature. You were siting elements of Firefly's plots as evidence of what Joss & co. believed about people. "Being tortured makes you a torturer." You presented Jayne's "there's only people like me" as some kind of authorial measage. And that part I don't buy. Yeah, the story lines are spectacularly dark at times, but that's the Joss genre of choice. He's pretty regularly a horror writer on his shows. (Vampires for crying out loud!) Horror is not necessarily written by nihilists. Just look at Steven King, positively school-marmish when it come to the moral clarity of some of his books.

But okay, let's talk about the plot's being too dark for America. Okay. Maybe so. Buffy's pretty dark and seems to be doing fine, though. There are plenty of schlocky horror series out there. Maybe it's the combination of horror and genuinely adult concerns that America isn't ready for.

We may never know, 'cause nobody saw it. There's this urban legend circulating on this board that all these Nielson families turned on "The Train Job" and turned it off 'cause it just wasn't what they wanted to see. What makes anyone believe that the Nielson families even knew the show was on the air? As I've stated elsewhere NO ONE I know had even heard of it before I told them. Everyone that I've introduce the show to has LOVED it, and these are not sick people but nice Friends-watching normies. So the America I meet everyday seems ready for Firefly.

I'm sorry you got the idea that I thought Firefly was in the same boat as Mr. Rogers, Telatubbies, et al. I meant to say that I found Firefly to be a deeply, satisfyingly moral experience. And I would say that that kind of thing has universal appeal (c.f: Star Trek TOS). Captain Reynolds is called upon to make some amazing and harrowing moral judgements, some good, some, not so good, but I never lose the sense that Joss knows right from wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:02 PM

ALLRONIX



Well, I didn't sign up for sweetness and light. I also did not sign up for hopelessness.

Yet, there is a glimmer of hope - and those are in the characters. The Alliance is a bunch of fascist scum concerned with money and control. They have no problem seeing people as property or tools to be used and thrown away. (River, Mal's speech in the pilot, the slavers in "Shindig") The people that cross them/hire them (Niska, Badger, Patience) are concerned only with their own necks and coin.

But when it comes down to it - the crew of Serenity consider people more important than money, and Mal is the character that makes the best example of it. He crossed Niska (at his peril) when realizing what was on the train. He and Zoe could have killed Patience for trying to kill them, but they just calmly took what was asked and left the old lady to stew. He and Serenity come back for the Tams because they're "crew" and that was that. After that, Mal damn near spaces Jayne for trying to sell out the Tams (who are "crew"), and decks Atherton Wing for implying Inara is property.

Characters from Badger to Inara have brought this up constantly! Mal is still a man of honor, a freedom fighter trying to keep his own liberty and do what is right. He may profess to be a typlical smuggler, but he's just not able to be a total crook. Too damn honorable.

The rest of the crew shares this ethic. Zoe has the same honor code as Mal, and adds unmatched loyalty to it. I'm thinking Simon hadn't a clue what loyalty to anyone other than his sibling was until Serenity (Daddy Tam was certainly a bad example). Book's had a long and twisting road that's landed him here, and he finally seems to be at home there. Kaylee it too honest and has too much faith in people. Wash is so lighthearted it'd be easy tho call him a lightweight, but he's a decent fellow. Inara had her own reasons for coming aboard, but is likely starting to ask questions she wouldn't have thought of before. People care about her as a person on ship, and I think she's not used to it. Jayne is actually learning those kind of values - don't think anyone ever showed them to him before. Yet, as much as he tries to be a total rat, he can't seem to manage it either ("Jaynestown," "Ariel," "Serenity). Poor River...well, she knows she's among good people, away from the people who saw her as an object.

Miracles they can't do. Make the occasional stand for that is good and decent - hell yes! Zoe orders the crew to come back for Mal in the nick of time, despite the dangers. After being tortured, Wash volunteers to go back into hell for the captain. Simon gets up on the pyre with River because his baby sister is worth his life. The crew risk arrest and losing everything to get Book medical attention from the Alliance (who then don't treat him until he ponies up some high-class ID). Jayne, knowing he's dead meat, makes a last request not to be remembered as a traitor and it ends up saving his life. I think wrecking the statue was a freak-out reaction when he realized a "mudder" just got killed for him. Jayne also kept his silent vigil while Kaylee was in surgery.

This stands in shocking contrast with the "ethics" spouted on most of TV - screw your neighbor for cash, fool some bimbos into beliving a bloke has bucks and see if they'll break his heart when she finds he's working-class, duck the blame when you do something wrong, and then find a new way to get self-gratification.

In a universe where the "good guys" have lost, finish last, and the nastiest rat wins, Serenity's crew stands firm, and sometimes they win, even if it's small-scale moral victory. The town got their medicines. Atherton was exposed as a cruel coward and destroyed. The mudders have hope - something they didn't have before. Yeah, they'll pay for it, but they're not going to lower themselves to the level of those who only think in terms of cash.

And at episode's end, as they ride off into the sunset - still in a universe that doesn't get it...here they are, sharing a meal and laughing it off. Next planet, next job, and still family.



Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2002 11:09 PM

XED


A sort of a general reply to Cpatina, Allronix, and HKcavalier. You know, Firefly fans (with just a couple of exceptions) distinguish themselves as unusually thoughtful and insightful folks.
Someone on another thread remarked that Neal Stephenson's novels had come up several times on this forum, and that was unusual. Well, considering how literate most of the folks on this forum seem, I'm not surprised. There's been a great of very in-depth thought about Firefly (and sci-fi in general) by the folks here.
I would have to agree with much of what Captian and Allronix and KHcavalier have said.
Let me focus on some of the good things about Firefly -- paradoxically, the violence.
Unlike most other shows, the violence in Firefly comes across as shockingly real. Partly, that's due to the depth with which the major characters are drawn -- Kaylee's a real person, and when Jubal Early asks her "Have you ever been raped?" it's genuinely horrifying because it's like watching somebody threaten to rape your sister.
The other thing about Firefly's violence that comes across as real is that it's not "exciting" or "chic," as in, say, those slo-mo sequnces in "The Matrix" or in Peckinpah films like "The Wild Bunch."
The violence in Firefly is *never* pornographic or intended to be thrilling, AFAIK.
And that's a good thing. Firefly's violence is shocking and it comes out of nowhere, and often enough, takes place in the silence of space. The conclusion of "Our Mrs. Reynolds" hwere you see the two villains blown out the window into space in total silecne, comes across as flat and dead-out realistic. It's harsh and sobering. Not some disco extravanganza of bullets flying and background vases exploding with no one hurt, as in all too many movies and TV shows.
So I have to agree completely with all three of you, Captain nd Allronix and HKCavalier, that this is the positive side of violence in Firefly. It reminded me of the violence in "Saving Private Ryan." This is not fun stuff tossed in spice up the programming. No chic dance moves done in slo-mo. It's real people dying. Often enough the violence in Firefly put me in mind of that great line from Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" where he says to his younger partner "Killin' a man is a terrible thing. You take away all he has, and all he's ever gonna have."
So many TV shows and movies and even newscasts lack this sense of sobering reality today. Case in point: the 1991 Gulf War. Looked like a friggin' giant video game. Ooh. Pretty. Lots of nice lights in the sky.
We lost sight of the fact that human beings were dying.
Firefly slaps us in the face with the sobering reality of violence. That's a good thing.
And in many of Firefly's episodes, hope does burn through. Certainly at the end of "Airle," definitely at the end of "Jaynestown," albeit dimly. Most assuredly at the end of "Serentiy," the 2-hr pilot. And at the end of "Objects In Space" too.
You know, it could be that people who tuned into Firefly were expecting the stylized slo-mo dance-move "Matrix"-type violence where bullets explode everywhere and nobody but the bad guys gets hurts. A-Team-type phoney violence. Or one of those WWII phoney movies where you could tell nobody was gonna die because the camera dollied in for a lcose-up on their face. Joss Whedon knows better. He kills off major characters without warning. That keeps it real. So when viewers got the real thing in Firefly, instead of the usual phoney cops-n-robbers TV violence, maybe it stuck in some viewers' craws.
I have to say it's the superb writing that made even the suggestion of violence in "Objects In Space" so shocking. That episode did not actually feature any eplicit violence, nothing close to "War Stories" or the 2-hr pilot.
Yet "Objects In Space" came across as the most chilling of all the episodes simply because the magnificent scriptwriting made Jubal Early's threats so completely credible. You had zero doubt that when Early remarks to Kaylee "I could violate your body. And I could find all manner of unseemly use for it," it's genuinely appalling. 'Cause we know he means it. And chances are, the guy's done it before.
Perhaps the realistically sobering and harsh depiction of violence is what freaked some viewers out. That final shot in the Alliance officer's head from Mal is classic. No stylized fanfare, no heroics. Just mid-setence, then, boom, Done. Gone. Dead. That's the way it really happens. I've seen it on war documentary footage. Some marine runs forward then he just drops. Nothing noble, no slo-mo Peckinpah operatic crap. Just, boom -- done. Gone. A human ebing turns into 90 kilos of ground round in 1/100 of a second. That's what truly horrifying, the reality that one little divot of leads turns a living rbeathing hoping yearning person into inanimate alien meat.
There's just no question that most of my friends tuned out after "The Train Job." I'm not sure why. Firefly may have been just too...different.
Other huge strengths of Firefly (IMHO) included the most richly detailed background universe of any science fiction show I've seen. The only show that can compare in that regard is B5 in the 4th season. So Firefly accomplished what it B5 4 years to achieve -- and in just 10 episodes.
The other thing that impressed me was the way in which social norms invertin Firefly's universe. Whores inhabit the top of the social stratum (at least, high-class whores like Inara) while engineers like Kaylee reside near the bottom. A total lfip-flop from America today, and an interesting one.
Also, the idea that slavery will exist in the 26th century...that's something that takes you aback. Makes you think. Today, of course, slavery continues in the Sudan and in Mauritania, though we don't like to think about it. Will that really change 500 years from now?
Allronix really hit the nail on the head when s/he remarked that "This stands in shocking contrast with the `ethics' spouted on most of TV - screw your neighbor for cash, fool some bimbos into beliving a bloke has bucks and see if they'll break his heart when she finds he's working-class, duck the blame when you do something wrong, and then find a new way to get self-gratification."
Come to think of it, if you want a real specimen of American home-grown nihilism, check out the show (probably dead now) Robbery Homicide Division. It's liek one long mogue dissection. No real good guys or bad guys, nothing affirmed, nothing transfigured. Just people left alive at the end and people dead.
"For you there's no line, no good, no abd,just the action, the juice," Tom Sizemore says in the pilot of that show. "And more juice. And then more juice."
That kind of meaningless empty world is, sure enough, NOT what Firefly's about. I didn't mean to imply that it was. Maybe it's the romantic in me, but I just kept hoping (against hope) that all the right things would happen... That the Alliance would collapse, that Mal woudl regain his idealism, that Jayne would sacrifice himself in some way for the others, that Inara would reclaim her life in that high-class world she came from, that Simon and River would have a happy ending. Maybe naive of me, but I kept hoping agianst hope. Even though it seems so unlikely.
All three of you are completely correct that Firefly never fell into the trap of Hemingway-style "Hail nada/mother of nada/nada is with thee." (To quote his most infamous story.) Dark Firefly may have been, but never meaningless. Grim, yes, but not hopeless.
Firefly could be considered a grown-up version of Buffy. Reviewers have mentioned this. Firefly makes Buffy seem naively sophomoric at times. But there is a flip side to that coin. At other times (I'm thinking of the Buffy The Vampire Slayer episode where the snowfall saves Angel from killing himself by staying up for the dawn) Buffy proved oddly refershing. Sometimes naivete is just what the doctor ordered.
Let's hope Joss Whedon can somehow convince Fox to spring for a couple of Firefly TV-Movies, a la Alien Nation. Against hope, we still hope. The show's best legacy.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 22, 2002 7:58 AM

OUTLANDER


It is so obvious. The people who don't fully appreciate Firefly simply don't have a sense of humour. This is why they like the drama in episodes like "Out of Gas" and "War Stories but just don't understand the appeal of the rest of the show. Having a sense of humour is the key to truly appreciating these characters. Some people are under the misapprehension that the Drama is the strength of the show and the rest of the show should have been discarded, but they are wrong. What makes Firefly truly grate is the contrast between the drama and the humour. With out a sense of humour they will only like half the show and find the other half uninteresting. It's as simple as that. I love Firefly because it is funny and disturbing and I wouldn’t want it any other way.

A lack of sense of humour also applies to those who constantly say that the drama is depressing. These people more than any others need to understand the message of Firefly, which is to be able to find humour in a situation when that situations is at its darkest. Firefly is grate show if you understand the show as a whole. Try not to criticise part of the show when you don't understanding how that part relates to the show as a whole. It all comes back to the humour/drama contrast thing (just watch the show it is full of moments when the characters are in peril and they say something funny as result of that peril). If you don't understand what I am getting at then you won't truly understand Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 22, 2002 7:24 PM

ALLRONIX




Originally posted by xed:
A sort of a general reply to Cpatina, Allronix, and HKcavalier. You know, Firefly fans (with just a couple of exceptions) distinguish themselves as unusually thoughtful and insightful folks.

Hey, we're all just folks. Aside from fanfic, most of my reading is nonfiction...politics, history, religion...spice it with the odd L'Amour or McCaffery.

(Yes, I'm a fan of both, and the combination -Firefly's first selling point fro me)

Let me focus on some of the good things about Firefly -- paradoxically, the violence.

I appreciate that these folks had the balls to play it straight with the violence. You can't believe how gorram SICK I am with the Matrix-style acrobatics and slo-mo. Seems everyone's got in in their heads it's necessary.

This is why I appreciated "War Stories." It didn't blink, didn't demurely cut away, didn't do some "stylish" trick. It just sat there and let us see our heroes writhe in agony, and us with 'em.

It's not the Matrix where the characters behave like it's a giant video game and they have cheat codes. It's not some Tarantino flick where the bar explodes in a gunfight while Bee Gees plays in the background and the characters walk out talking about dry cleaners for their bloodstained suits.

Often enough the violence in Firefly put me in mind of that great line from Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" where he says to his younger partner "Killin' a man is a terrible thing. You take away all he has, and all he's ever gonna have."

It's a Western, and the best part about several post-1970 Westerns is that they aren't as clear cut and they tend to get fucking brutal. Take "The Man With No Name" series, Young Guns, Glory, Unforgiven, Tombstone...


So many TV shows and movies and even newscasts lack this sense of sobering reality today. Case in point: the 1991 Gulf War. Looked like a friggin' giant video game. Ooh. Pretty. Lots of nice lights in the sky.
We lost sight of the fact that human beings were dying.

Those of us who didn't were up a creek, too. I still remember being called "traitor," death threats, and my house getting vandalized over my protests of the Gulf War.

(Yes, folks...you are dealing with someone who does not support the current goings-on in the least. I have friends predicting I'll be arrested or killed in the next five years).


You know, it could be that people who tuned into Firefly were expecting the stylized slo-mo dance-move "Matrix"-type violence where bullets explode everywhere and nobody but the bad guys gets hurts. A-Team-type phoney violence. Or one of those WWII phoney movies where you could tell nobody was gonna die because the camera dollied in for a close-up on their face. Joss Whedon knows better.

That could be it. Look at "Fastlane." Look at Enterprise. Hell, even CSI and Law & Order glance over it - attitude of "They're dead, so what."

Other huge strengths of Firefly (IMHO) included the most richly detailed background universe of any science fiction show I've seen. The only show that can compare in that regard is B5 in the 4th season. So Firefly accomplished what it B5 4 years to achieve -- and in just 10 episodes.

BINGO! Unlike a lot of folks, I didn't think B5 was as great as everyone else said it was.

Also, the idea that slavery will exist in the 26th century...that's something that takes you aback. Makes you think. Today, of course, slavery continues in the Sudan and in Mauritania, though we don't like to think about it. Will that really change 500 years from now?

Something else that disturbs me. It would seem that among the very rich and the very poor, the status of women has gone back to the bad old days.

Working-class women like Zoë and Kaylee have more freedom, but look at Shindig with the upper-class women - placid arm ornaments, trophy wives...their only concern is to land a rich man, look good on his arm, and whelp his heirs. "Safe" added fuel to that speculation when Daddy Tam brushed off any notion of River's future...years before the Academy came into the picture. His SON was to be the family pride, his daughter didn't appear to matter.

I had a bad feeling that marriages in the upper class take the form of business arrangements or corporate mergers. In situations like that, a "geisha" like Inara would be a valuable service - a respite from commerce both domestic and social. In addition to providing sex, she is also a cultured and educated woman, probably trained in psychology, music, dance, history, literature...After all that, she's too valuable to "waste" on being a trophy wife. Becoming a rent-a-mistress may have been the only way she'd be able to see the galaxy, get an education, and have some autonomy.

Among the poor, it's a little more blunt. It's "barefoot and pregnant" all over again - back to doing unpaid domestic labor and working the fields while being breeding stock for the colony. Like the American West, women might not be as plentiful on the borders, so they become commodities again. Bought, sold, traded, bred...you get the idea.

Again, the crew of Serenity seems to be examples to the contrary.


Allronix really hit the nail on the head when s/he remarked that "This stands in shocking contrast with the `ethics' spouted on most of TV - screw your neighbor for cash, fool some bimbos into beliving a bloke has bucks and see if they'll break his heart when she finds he's working-class, duck the blame when you do something wrong, and then find a new way to get self-gratification."

As likely inferred from the bit of feminism above, I'm a "she."


That kind of meaningless empty world is, sure enough, NOT what Firefly's about. I didn't mean to imply that it was. Maybe it's the romantic in me, but I just kept hoping (against hope) that all the right things would happen... That the Alliance would collapse, that Mal would regain his idealism, that Jayne would sacrifice himself in some way for the others, that Inara would reclaim her life in that high-class world she came from, that Simon and River would have a happy ending. Maybe naive of me, but I kept hoping agianst hope. Even though it seems so unlikely.

We don't know - we may never know. However, the Alliance does show signs of collapsing. Armies are stretched thin, certainly there aren't enough to terrorize the citizens into silence like they appear to want. Reavers are making inroads. The Core is dependent on the Colonies for raw material and labor, but can't make it worth their while to be loyal the Alliance or share in the prosperity. (hell, there's doesn't seem to be the illusion of prosperity that makes American colonialism so effective). Corruption abounds, and we don't know if there are problems on the Core that we don't see.

The FIRST Independence revolt may not be the last.

OTOH, I am a leftist (not a liberal...I will actually fight back), an idealist, and believe that the last thing we need in this society is more jaded nihilism, fashionable irony, and defeatist apathy. As a good many GunFen will tell you, the fact that "our boys" were killed in "Jump the Shark" wasn't what pissed us off the most - what pissed us off was the opening monologue about how "good guys always lose," and the heavy-handed hopelessness that pervaded the ep - including a pessimism and fatalism in the Gunmen that was WAY out of character.

Most of us know the "good guys" in life lose. The hard-working and honest get trampled by the greedy and ruthless. It's all too fashionable not to care, to thrown up hands and declare "that's life," or callously write off the victim as a loser.

Well, bullshit on that. In this world, hope is a deadly weapon, and writers have the biggest arsenel. Television needs honest, common people. It needs people with a definite, if flawed, moral code. It needs to let the good guys win the odd victory.

There's a reason why, even with the violence, this is one of the few shows my elder sister will let her 12-year-old daughter watch.

-------------------------------------------------------
"The media comglomerates do not want fans who make demands, second-guess creative decisions, and assert opinion; they want regular viewers who
accept what they are given and buy what they are sold." - Henry Jenkins, "Textual Poachers"



Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2002 6:47 AM

SILVERADO


CAPTAIN wrote:

How in the world could two guys, on the brink of death be discussing the finer points of sleeping with someone's wife? They reminded me of all the coffee shop chats Jerry and George had over the years. This is MEANT to be funny, and shocking at the same time.

Yeah.
Right.
It was "funny", wasn't it?

God.
How do people even find this place when they don't understand the ruttin show???
It wasn't funny, Mr Captain.
It wasn't even meant to be funny.
Mal didn't want Wash to BREAK- so he made him angry!!!
Angry??!!
You understand?
Not Funny.
NOT funny.

Funny though is that Wash even explained it to you.
In the following scene.

God.
I'm out of words ...

Silverado.

_________________________________________________

"You had the law on you, criminals and savages... half the people on the ship have been shot or wounded including yourself, and you're harboring known fugitives."

"We're still flying."

"That's not much."

"It's enough."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2002 11:44 PM

OUTLANDER


Captain you are spot on. You have just illustrated the difference between those who love Firefly and those who don't. A person who loves Firefly would find that scene funny and those who don't wouldn't. It doesn’t mean that you have a funny sense humour, it just means that appreciate the humour in the scene.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2002 3:23 AM

KEF


First of all, I don't think the use of the word "tragedy" to describe this series is correct. "Tragedy" in drama means that the protagonist ultimately meets an unhappy or disastrous end. Whereas most Firefly episodes have had (what seemed to me at least) upbeat endings. Each week these characters have persevered over another potentially disastrous problem, or set of problems, and thus continue their voyage, in both their literal and figurative sense.

If you want to argue that the show is too dark, pessimistic and depressing to succeed with a mass audience in a weekly TV series, that's something else. Here's my counter-argument to that . . .

You cite two very obscure TV shows as examples that depressing drama doesn't work on TV. You say that a TV show that depicts tragedy, or a brutally dark view of human nature week after week won't work.

Have you ever watched C.S.I.? It's the number one drama on TV. Every week they show, in graphic detail, not only the results of man's inhumanity to man, but often the acts themselves via flashbacks. AND, sometimes, the people who committed the crimes also get away with it. The "heroes" of the show, the crime scene investigators, are not exactly an optimistic lot, and there is scant character development. In the two and a half years the show has been on, the audience has been given only rare insights into their personal lives, and what has been shown has usually been rather negative.

A lesser example is ER, after nearly 10 years still highly rated. Despite the fact that in every episode they depict good people meeting tragic ends, often through no fault of their own. Often a very depressing show to watch.

Perhaps most importantly, there is The X-Files. The most popular sci-fi show with a mass audience of the last 10 years. And the world depicted in that show was as dark, pessimistic and often depressing as any we‘ve mentioned. Anti-Trek shows can't succeed you say?

Personally I see parallels between Fox Mulder and Mal Reynolds. Between the former's "quest" to discover "the truth" in the face of a vast oppressive government conspiracy (his primary motivation in fact being to gain personal psychological release); and the latter's "quest" to somehow, someday achieve his personal freedom from an oppressive government, The Alliance.

On the other hand, in all the "conspiracy" episodes of the X-Files, Mulder very rarely ever managed to thwart The Conspiracy. He almost always walked away emptyhanded, no closer to exposing "the truth" than ever. The conspiracy bad guys often got away, and when they didn't, they were usually done in by their own people, in order to put Mulder further off their trail. Pretty bleak drama.

While on Firefly, Mal and the crew, in most episodes, manage to not only overcome (if only temporarily) their foes, but also usually to acquire the money or valuable cargo that they wanted.

Ultimately however it's a matter of perception:
Quote:
. . . the show itself was almost unbearably dark at times. All too often, in fact . . . a universe in which no human being seems capable of ordinary decency . . . without at least some glimmer of hope it's unreasonable to ask a mass audience to tune into this despair-fest week after week . . . "Firefly" offered us a dark dystopian view not only of a horrific future, but of human nature that proved so depressing it pretty well killed the show's prospects right at the start.
If this is what you see when you watch Firefly, well, then that's what you see. But it's not what I see when I watch Firefly. I see a show that skillfully mixes a wealth of elements - character drama, comedy, suspense, action, sci-fi, and a bit of sex and romance - in a very entertaining way.

One final point. Supposing for the sake of argument that you're correct - one still cannot say that Firefly "failed" because it was too dark, pessimistic and depressing for a mass audience. One cannot say this because the overwhelming majority of the mass audience has never seen Firefly. They didn't reject it. They simply never watched it in the first place. Why? Well that's a separate debate entirely. But it wasn't because it was too dark, because how would people know if they never saw it? From word of mouth? No, the word of mouth on this show is overwhelmingly positive. From Fox's promos? No, Fox's promo's (at least all the ones I read or saw) if anything made it sound, in a word, "wacky".
Quote:
NEXT POST - a slow start with some very spotty scripts early on. And the Ariel arc develops too slowly, more's the pity.
I also would take issue with this statement, but it’ll have to be another time.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2002 3:47 PM

REYVNDARKNIGHT


Tragedy doesn't work week in and week out?

Have ya heard of a show called "24"? Last season though the hero won the day and defeated the villans he suffered the worst personal defeat a man can suffer, the loss of his spouse. And the series did it in such a fashion, that I as a member of the audience felt his loss.

Though this series, Firefly, has drama and tragedy, it also has humor, friendship, and love. Firefly is probably the most all around complete show on television without the contrived humor of some comedy series and soapbox sermons of dramas.

The underlying theme of Firefly is "No matter what happens, maintain a stiff upper lip and keep on flying" which is a truism that is worthwhile to uphold.

All I have to say to a critique that "Firefly" is too negative is: Share the wealth. Pass out some of those rose colored glasses that you wear.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2002 4:25 PM

DIZZYEDGE


ok, this has nada to do with anything, but I just stumbled into this site, as a fan who is very disappointed that the show is cancled (why are all of the shows I like cancled???) I've been looking at some of the back posts, and I have to ask, how were you guys fans back in may 02, before air??? just wondering...diz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Wed, November 27, 2024 09:32 - 35 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, November 26, 2024 06:25 - 55 posts
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL