GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Anyone else disappointed?

POSTED BY: SAGRILARUS
UPDATED: Thursday, October 20, 2005 00:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 34348
PAGE 2 of 3

Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:56 AM

REVAER


I guess I live my life more simply than some, as I peruse this thread. When I ride a roller coaster, at the end, my satisfaction is based on the whole of the ride. I don't think, "Geez, that incline on the second hill completely did not mesh with the theme of the ride! This is the Anaconda, dangit! They coil, and don't rear up like a cobra! This ride is ruined."
Sometimes for the sake of argument, I get carried away when someone points out my flaws, but it's not the whole me. Sometimes I do things out of character, especially when stressed. Maybe fictional characters do too.
Peace to you all, and may Joss continue to create and make right what was wrong for the upset, and maintain the happiness for the content.

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:03 AM

STOWAWAY


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
What I said was not a conspiracy but an analysis of how the culture works.


Well actually it was conspiracy...you said...

Quote:
The Studios are like the Alliance. There is a policy across all studios against ideas and opinions in big films this is acheived by dumbing down character exposition


Not criticizing you in the least, but that was a pretty matter of fact statement about choice of action / intent (and an actual policy) on the part of 'all' studios rather than a more casual analysis of how the culture works (IMHO).

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I finally saw the movie- went with four people, three of whom know and like FF and one newbie- and I was the only one who was disappointed. I hope that's the approximate percetange because I really think Whedon deserves another shot at FF/Serenity, and the FF 'verse has a lot of stories to be told.

I was put off from the very beginning, with Mal acting as if Simon was NOT a part of the crew. Where is that famous "Mal loyalty"?? THAT was always constant if nothing else. And Simon personally rescuing his sister? I always imagined that "they" would spring her and that his part was to spirit her away. Although my brain was telling me that Joss needed to compress the story, my gut was telling me that these weren't the people I'd come to know from the series. After that, I had a hard time finding my footing and the movie only caught fire for me a couple of times.

Although I'm not as sure of the cause as HK (I don't think it's fan-driven movie) I pretty much agree with everything he says. And here's a couple of inconsistencies w/in the movie itself:

To think that everyone including the Operative will rise up... or at least wake up... from a one-time airing of damning evidence shows a political naivete that I don't expect from Joss. After all, look at how many intelligent fans on this board STILL think that Bush is doing a good job. They haven't woke up yet! Again, I know he had to compress the story into movie-length, but that sort of trivial resolution just doesn't match the weight of the issues that he raises.

Why would Reavers pack so tightly together in space? I know it makes it pellucidly clear for audience that "Here be Reavers" but you'd think that they'd leave a LITTLE parking room between ships. In fact, why would Reavers be such a big problem anyway.? Sure they're smelly and nasty, but they're also scavengers and can't possibly reproduce the technology that's keeping them alive... quite frankly, they would die out on their own in just a few years given the radiation that they expose themselves to.


As a MOVIE, Serenity prolly succeeded for the average audience... but then, we aren't the average audience.

Please don't think they give a shit.

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:25 AM

CLJOHNSTON108


I think everyone here has made valid points.
TV and Film are very different mediums, so Firefly & Serenity are separate entities for me.
We'll always have our Firefly DVDs (as well as Sci-Fi channel & downloadable episodes), so I don't feel that anything's been lost (Well, other than two beloved characters).

Serenity needed to grab an audience outside of us Whedonites, and I think it's been doing an amazing job of punching holes through that barrier!

Just look at what this guy posted on a board that I frequent...
http://orbit.m6.net/v2/read.asp?id=26990
Quote:
posted by jax6213jax6213
I've never even heard of the show firefly and I used to be a big science fiction fan.

Yesterday I was bored with work and the people there, so I left early and walked around downtown Seattle. I went into a movie theater without even bothering to see what kind of movie was playing. I bought the usual popcorn and drink and went in and sat down.

After what seemed like about a year of coming attractions, the movie started; It caught my interest right from the opening scene, and I was on the edge of my chair throughout whole movie.

Later after I got home, I googled Serenity and found out that it had been on television, and it had been a series, but after 14 episodes it got yanked off the air.

I got into my car and went to the mall and purchased Firefly, the complete series. I got home and watched all of them, and I just finished the last one this morning.

My 1st impressions of the series is that its kind of a cheesy, spagetti western with space and frontier planets as its back drop, but its a likeable kind of cheesy.

The characters are all likeable, and they grow on you fast. I also have to admit, the woman who plays the ships "high class prostitute" is so beautiful. I have a thing for women with long dark hair, dark eyes and elfin features.

Anyway, I liked all the actors in the show; I liked how they interacted with each other, and I really liked the guy who played the captain, plus that cute engineer chick.

The stories were all good and well balanced, matter of fact, the stories were very engaging despite the (obviously) low budget of the show, so I'm really confused as to why it was yanked off the air??!!!

Everytime a series comes along thats really great, it gets cancelled and replaced with stupid crap like Buffy the vampire Slayer.


This world is being fedex to hell in a handbasket


---------------

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for the good man to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 7:07 AM

HOWARD


On the Reavers as soon as I heard that cast members were eating lunch with extras dressed in scary REAVERS costume...my heart sank!!
The whole point of the REAVERS in FIREFLY was the fear and terror of the unknown. Macho Jayne freaked out at the mere mention of them. Again this is so common in movies today and another element of corporate consumerist dumbing down. Everything has to be physical and "in ya face" instead of the psychological terror that can be so much more dramatic and longer lasting.

I also agree very much that Joss is SO naive in politIcal terms.

The idea that truth out generates change among the masses is fool-hardy especially in a society like the USA or the Alliance where material goodies and financial debt keeps people towing the line. Yes it is true that truth revealed gives activists and resisters fresh fire and motivation and boosts morale. But not among the mass of people. Then there is the naive idea that a corporatist information or media complex that is tied to the regime (IE GENERAL ELECTRIC they build nukes for the Pentagon and own NBC) is going to distribute truth out of the goodness of its own heart or that a regime like the ALLIANCE is not going to have technology to stop info from a source getting to people's "Wave" receivers.
Joss like many people in Hollywood are so naive that they believe if you have evidence of a war crime and take it to the NY TIMES that they are sure to print it. History has taught us this is far from so. The NY TIMES was in possession of hard evidence of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people by the US military in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in the 60's and 70's but never printed 90% of it. The so-called Pentagon Papers were mere crumbs off the table.
The same is true today with torture by American soldiers and CIA agents of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and GITMO. Only a fraction of the story is out in the big media and they pretend it is a past tense as if it does not continue while it does continue.

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 8:49 AM

SAGRILARUS


Quote:
Just look at what this guy posted on a board that I frequent...


Note that he is reviewing the series, not the film.

It appears I've really stirred the pot a bit. The good news that I take from the whole thing is that the guy I brought with me, essentially new to Firefly, loved it. With any luck this will be the general impression. I am hoping that people that see the movie first and then go to the series will get the material in the right order and enjoy all of it.
I personally am just going to have to realize that catching lightning in a bottle twice is a pretty tough trick. Given how Joss left things, I think any sequel would be pretty contrived. Given the sales so far, I don't think that will be a problem. Either way I think Joss will do well, as the DVD sales for the series are bound to increase because of the movie.


One last question, and this is a big one -- hundreds if not thousands of dedicated, rabid fans such as us (including some of the people reading this) saw this thing in previews months ago. Why did not one of you speak up in any way about this? Based on the word on the street, this film was all that and a bag of chips. The reviews were just obscenely good. Did not one person in any of these showings question the very different characters that were presented? How did I get hit with such a curveball without warning?

Sag.

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:46 PM

GIANTEVILHEAD


I think that some of the disappointed fans are not taking into considering the fact that the length of time between the show and the movie is greater than the length of time between the beginning of the show and the end of the show. So basically the crew probably had more adventures/misadventures during the time between the show and the movie than during the show and I would say that it is highly unlikely for them not to change during that time. The characters in the movie are probably what they would have been like in season 2 or 3 of the show.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:34 PM

SAGRILARUS


Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
I think that some of the disappointed fans are not taking into considering the fact that the length of time between the show and the movie is greater than the length of time between the beginning of the show and the end of the show. So basically the crew probably had more adventures/misadventures during the time between the show and the movie than during the show and I would say that it is highly unlikely for them not to change during that time. The characters in the movie are probably what they would have been like in season 2 or 3 of the show.


[Sag shrugs and moves on. Time to find a new hobbie.]

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just a reiteration from another thread - I didn't like the movie as much as the series b/c I have a personal weakness for the unexplained. I thought the movie explained too much, resolved too much, for my taste.

I thought it was geared toward the non-fan. It had to get the back-story in, outline the characters, set the plot in motion and conclude itself in a short time. And as a movie, it had to be bigger and tighter than a TV series. There just isn't time for quirky, intimate, indefinite plot-lines and character development. I see those as the drawbacks of movies per se.

I thought it made the transition to 'movie' about as well as could be expected. Along those lines, it satisfied.




Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:33 PM

SCIFINUT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
On the Reavers as soon as I heard that cast members were eating lunch with extras dressed in scary REAVERS costume...my heart sank!!
The whole point of the REAVERS in FIREFLY was the fear and terror of the unknown. Macho Jayne freaked out at the mere mention of them. Again this is so common in movies today and another element of corporate consumerist dumbing down. Everything has to be physical and "in ya face" instead of the psychological terror that can be so much more dramatic and longer lasting.

I also agree very much that Joss is SO naive in politIcal terms.

The idea that truth out generates change among the masses is fool-hardy especially in a society like the USA or the Alliance where material goodies and financial debt keeps people towing the line. Yes it is true that truth revealed gives activists and resisters fresh fire and motivation and boosts morale. But not among the mass of people. Then there is the naive idea that a corporatist information or media complex that is tied to the regime (IE GENERAL ELECTRIC they build nukes for the Pentagon and own NBC) is going to distribute truth out of the goodness of its own heart or that a regime like the ALLIANCE is not going to have technology to stop info from a source getting to people's "Wave" receivers.
Joss like many people in Hollywood are so naive that they believe if you have evidence of a war crime and take it to the NY TIMES that they are sure to print it. History has taught us this is far from so. The NY TIMES was in possession of hard evidence of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people by the US military in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in the 60's and 70's but never printed 90% of it. The so-called Pentagon Papers were mere crumbs off the table.
The same is true today with torture by American soldiers and CIA agents of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and GITMO. Only a fraction of the story is out in the big media and they pretend it is a past tense as if it does not continue while it does continue.


I thought this forum was about Serenity/Firefly, not anti-American, anti-military propaganda?

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:39 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@Rue:
Hi Been awhile.

@Rue and SignyM:
I think you guys were interested in knowing about my honours project thing. Check my blog. Been busy


@GiantEvilHead:
"""
He ran twice, once from the Reavers at the beginning, and then from the Operative. What was he supposed to do? Try to save the town from the Reavers? Take on the entire Alliance by himself?
"""

Actually, there were numerous comments in the movie that stated that he was running constantly.


"""
Maybe it was because Mal knew that Simon was justified in punching him, not to mention the fact that River was there.
"""

Simon was most certainly not justified in punching Mal. They had a job and in which something unpredictable happened and they made it out.

Today while watching disk 3, I remember hearing Mal state that just once he would like for a plan to go smoothly. Hear that, just once.

So, River was in danger, ooooo, big surprise. They were basically doing a bank robbery. Tell me if I'm wrong, but that typically involves some sort of danger, right?


"""
There is a difference but not a huge one. The movie takes place months after the show, it is possible that some incidents took place during that time strained their relationship and since Mal has become grimmer during the months, he may have simply become unresponsive to Zoes passive questioning of his actions.
"""

And what are you basing this on? This is plain conjecture and you are now grasping at straws to hold onto this unsupported claim.

Also, Mal hasn't become grimmer, he has become a pissy coward. The character is a mere 1 dimensional shadow of its original glory. Shame on Joss.

And you're going to have to explain how it isn't a huge difference, because it is. It shows a distinct, significant shift in personality.


"""
The people at Haven were his friends, or at least Book was, and he does care about his friends. He did look quite concerned when Kaylee was shot in the shows pilot. Somehow I doubt that he was friends with the guy he dumped out of the plane 4 years ago.
"""

Again with the "Somehow I doubt that". Can we say conjecture.

Concern and willing to volenteer to die for something are two very different things.

And they were partners for, what was it, 6 months. How long was he on Serenity up to that point? Oh yah, we don't know. So, it is rather silly to start to say what Jayne is willing to do or not.

More like, he will do something if it'll look bad on him if he doesn't.

Remember when Wash and Mal got kidnapped by Niska? Jayne was dead set against it. But, since everyone else was going to do it, he went along with it. This (and other decisions he's made) is consistent with him wanting people to think that he wasn't a complete prick. Also, this was directly after Ariel, so he might have thought it pay back of sorts. ie Mal spared his life, so Jayne will help save his.


"""
Assuming that another incident didnt take place during the months between the show and the movie.
"""

And what proof do you have that something did happen?


"""
That was months before the movie, it is possible for a person to change, plus that was before Ariel.
"""

And consistent with Ariel. The money was good enough, it was an interesting day. Just like that man said.

Also, what in Jaynes personality suggests to you that capability to change that much in only a year or so. Because that is the time frame we're talking about. No-one changes that fast.


"""
Give an example of Jaynes stupid dialogue in the movie.
"""

Give me an example of Jaynes typical dialogue in the movie. ie Neither of us have memorized the dialogue of the move (I know I've seen it only once) so why go in this direction. It is rediculous to bring this up. Nice try though.


"""
Not knowing how to fight is not the same as being a bumbling fool. He kept it cool on Ariel and didnt make any mistakes; he even saved a mans life without screwing up the mission.
"""

But we aren't talking about his abilities as a doctor are we? We aren't talking about if he feels comfortable in a hospital are we?

Gee, Simon is comfortable in a hospital, the likes of where he worked for years of his life. Big suprise.

So, you're going to have to do better than bringing up the exception to the rule to prove your point.


"""
The show only lasted 14 episodes. We were basically shown about 10 hours of these peoples lives taken from a span of several weeks or months.
"""

Wrong. We know from dialogue from the show that it takes place over almost a year. At least it takes weeks to get from one place to another. Remember when they carried the cows. It was three weeks from world to world.


"""
Its true that theres no evidence that Inara learned anything from Mal but theyve only had what, about a total of 30 to 40 minutes, maybe an hour at most, of interaction throughout the entire show and I think that it is reasonable to assume that Inara learned at least a few dirty tricks from Mal or maybe Jayne during the year that she stayed with him even if Mal didnt want her to.
"""

Actually, it isn't resonable at all. Mal and Inara never really spent any time together. The only time they talked was when they were at the dinner table or he was telling her when they'd be landing.

Your assertion also contradicts what I've brought up from the series.

And she and Jayne most certainly didn't get along. In fact, every time they were together, there was a clear tension between them. Read that as, Inara loathed Jayne.


"""
Plus most important of all, we dont know what happened during the months after the show, we have to make our best guesses and I dont think that it is unreasonable for the changes in the characters to have taken place during that time.
"""

Again it is unreasonable. It was only 6 months. How much could've happened during that amount of time to change people that much. Hardly


"""
The crew probably has a lot of resentment towards River but
[snip]
"""

Sorry, but this is baseless. In fact, how comfortable the crew was with River in the first mission of the movie completely contradicts what you're saying now.


"""
It certainly would have been nice if Joss had made a series of comic books to chronicle Serenitys journey during the time between the series and the movie but it didnt happen so we have to use our imagination.
"""

Actually he did. I haven't read them and you don't even know of there existance, so, what does that say about you?



@Wren:
"""
It would be foolish of the guild to send their women out without some form of protection.
"""

I'm not saying that she hadn't had any form of self defense. But to say that it was anything significant is plain conjecture and contrary to what we know from the show.


"""
What are they suppose to do if one of their clients decides to beat them?
"""

Hold them off till there security gets there. Or how about, since they get to choose there own clients and there is a registry of there goings on, that the client knows that they'll be caught if they do anything. And do you really think that just anyone can get on the registry? Silly person.

Oh, and remember Inaras remark to Atherton Wing when he made the comment about beating her? Do you?


"""
so had no problem with Inara entering the fight. It's not as though she was a superwoman, the operative took her down in seconds.
"""

Do you not remember her avoiding combat all through the series? Seriously.


"""
It would equally make sense for them to be trained in archery (I would think the rich still hunt), how to use a gun and fencing. They have to be able to fit in any social situation.
"""

Again, there is a difference between knowing how to use/do something in theory and knowing how to use/do something practically. Or did you not read that part of my post?

Not to mention the fact that the people that would hire her, would not be so low as to invite her along for the hunt. That is for the men.


"""
In Firefly Mal was generally on equal ground with the person he was fighting, so she left him to it. However, in Shindig he was outclassed, so she stepped into help. It's the same situation with the operative.
"""

I'm serious here, what are you smoking?

It is most certainly not the same situation. She "helped" in Shindig by making arrangements for his escape. Failing that, she gave him some pointers on fencing. This is a far cry from entering the fray!


"""
There is a cut scene that shows a bit about academy life. The girls are shown learning how to 'pleasure' their client, taking archery lessons, and calligraphy lessons. Personally I think the scene should have been left in because it gives new people a better idea of who Inara is and what she does. The scene is described in the visual companion.
"""

See practicality remark above.



@MingHusChutney:
"""
Firefly blew me away. Its briliant in so many ways. I'm sure I will be watching and enjoying those DVDs for the rest of my life. This film had a lot to live up to. I don't think its fair to expect the same entity that the TV show was to transfer without change to the big screen.
"""

I don't think many will disagree with you here, and I'm certain not. But, there is a difference between not accepting change and not accepting what Joss is trying to feed us.

The movie and Firefly are two very seperate entities and I'd say are not even the same characters, definitly not the same world, etc. They are similar in many regards, but they aren't the same.

I would accept the retelling of Simon's rescue of River, I would accept many other things. But, this movie has too much change for it to be the same.

Especially considering my main complaint is the shitty dialogue. That is what drew me to all of Joss' works. The amazing writting/dialogue. The movie had none of it. All the characters were 1 dimensional versions of there former glorious selves. I morn the loss of my show to this hollow death.

Joss had the chance and failed utterly.

At least I still have my DVD's.


@Aramina:
"""
...most of her clients may have been 'gentlemen' but that's not to say they all were.
"""

All of her cleints would have to be gentalmen or they wouldn't be clients to any companions anymore, period. See above comment in my post.


"""
Plus, Inara knew she was in danger, there was no reason for her not to think that she would have been killed by the Operative, she was cleary terrified of her so had nothing to lose by doing her best to help Mal.
"""

Running has always been an option for her and one she always took.


@Stowaway:
People in the past, if they failed, they got fired. People now, fail upwards. and people who fail that far up, are a bunch of idiots who don't want to be shown that they are idiots. So, they make smarter people do dumb things so that they can understand it, because they don't understand that they are the stupid ones that shouldn't hold that position and we want something smarter.

That's my take on the whole thing anyway.

But, it has been said (by other posters) that Joss has said repeatedly that he didn't have any interference from the studio. So, what does that say about Joss? I really think that he dropped the ball on this one.


@Reaver:
True characters go "out of character" from time to time and I accept that. In fact, there are moments in the series that the characters do that and that makes them... more real. I like that.

But, when the characters are just not the characters, that is no small thing.

When people complain about small things that are riddled throught the movie, that is no small thing.

When there are consistantly, inconsistancies, that is no small thing.

That is what, at least I, am talking about.


@SignyM:
Agreed.


@CLJohnSon108:
I just think that this proves how much dumbed down the movie is compared to the series.


@Howard:
"""
Macho Jayne freaked out at the mere mention of them.
"""

Yet he didn't even protest when Mal was suggesting that they go out and knock on there front door.




----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:13 PM

GIANTEVILHEAD


SigmaNunki, you’re not getting my point, we have to make assumption. We only had 14 episodes, 10 hours out of a year of their lives (thanks for making my point more valid) and the movie takes place months after the show. The things that happened during the show were not everything that happened in their lives during that time and it doesn't show every facet of the characters' personalities. It is not unreasonable to assume that Inara learned a few dirty tricks from Mal, or even Jayne or Book. It’s true that she didn’t spend that time with those people during the show but multiply that by a couple hundred and you’ll get a rough estimate of how much she spent with them during the time she was on the ship. Plus Inara didn’t have to actually ask Mal for a lesson in dirty fighting, she could have learned then when she saw Mal use them or heard him teach someone else about them. I also don’t think that it’s unreasonable to assume that River caused a lot of trouble during the months between the show and movie and that the crew had a lot of resentment against River, resentment that they either repressed or channeled into other things but not towards River because they know it’s not her fault, it’s the same way that some parents repress or channel hidden resentment against their children towards each other.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:17 PM

HOWARD


A fellow contributor raised the issue of Joss being naive in his political notions. I was merely addressing this with depth and intelligence.

I find it reveals a sad truth about you my fellow FIREFLY fan if you think that speaking openly with depth and accuracy about historical and contempary events is to you "anti-American" a phrase that in itself is pure totalitarian.

Why is it that you are more offended by the messenger than by the actions of those who committed the crimes mentioned by the messenger?

As for your use of the phrase "anti-military" it makes me deduct that in the face of a fourteen year old Iraqi boy being tortured by American soldiers, you would side with the thugs in your military.

You are surely a good little Alliance poodle aren't you now?




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

Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:21 PM

CLJOHNSTON108


Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
Note that he is reviewing the series, not the film.
Note that he discovered the series through seeing the film.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:42 AM

SAGRILARUS


Quote:
Note that he discovered the series through seeing the film.


With any luck others will as well. In my opinion, people coming to the series from the film will be simply knocked out of their socks. The movie plays better with people who don't know the series.

I still have the question standing though -- how come nobody that saw the pre-viewings of the film brought up these issues?

Sag.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:02 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Short answer :

NO

Long answer :

I loved every minute of SERENITY It is simply the most entertaining and wonderfully scripted film to come along in decades. It advanced the characters just enough for the big screen, but kept them grounded sufficiently so that they all remained familiar with the characters we'd come to know and love.

Every frame that had a beam of light shining though it , and being projected up on the screen was utterly mesmerizing.

It was rich with narrative and brilliant with imagintation.Every flicker of celluloid was pure Joss Whedon and it was a thrill to sit through it. I will be waiting with eager anticipation, the DVD release so that I may be privy to the Directors comments.

Well done Joss.

Thanks
The Somnambulist



www.cirqus.com

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:49 AM

KHIMBAR


I was disappointed by the deus ex machina moments.

Other than that, no. I'm upset Wash and Book died, but it's not like they were real people (like the 20,000 in the earthquake).

It was a damn fine movie.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 4:07 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


khimbar wrote:

Quote:
I was disappointed by the deus ex machina moments.


Which ones in particular Khimbar?

I'm just curious

The
Somnambulist



www.cirqus.com

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 4:36 AM

KHIMBAR


The one that rankles most of all is the way the Operative 'Mortal Kombat' fatality special move fails on Mal because of 'shrapnel'.

I didn't like that. I wanted Mal to win because he was cleverer, or more willing to die for his cause, or just through sheer bloody minded determination. I can't remember which book it's in but Han Solo thinks something like 'Luke and Leia might have the Force, but I can outdo the pair of them when it comes to chicanery'. I wanted Mal to chicane, to win through his strengths and intelligence, not through dumb luck.

The 'River becomes Buffy' bit I can live with the more I think about it.


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

Monday, October 10, 2005 5:05 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


My friend and I actually laughed out loud at that point. I thought it was hilarious...

Thing is because Mal pretended he was paralysed he kinda won through chicanery anyhow. Because he knew what the assassin was doing (old assassin's trick I guess, of whom Mal would have had many an encounter with during the war perhaps)

But I know what you mean. However these conveniences are there you're right, I guess maybe I didn't mind them so much.

Actually now I'm wondering did he even have a scar there? You know the shot of when he's lying on his bunk, the camera is on his back did they illustrate a scar there at that point? Because if they did then that'll work better.....

...guess I'm going to have to watch it again :)

Cheers
the
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 5:19 AM

KHIMBAR


Quote:

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
My friend and I actually laughed out loud at that point. ]


Hell I laughed my ass off too. So did my gf. And I love the elbow to the face, made me think 'Mal knows Muay Thai!'. I'm not saying I sat there stoney faced and it ruined the movie, I'm just musing and a wonderin'.

It's only in the cold light of day I think I'd rather Mal had won by 'Malness' than by plot device.


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

Monday, October 10, 2005 5:53 AM

BLACKOUTNIGHTS


The movie certainly keeps people talking, doesn't it? Great flick for sure. I wasn't all that hot on it after my first viewing, enjoyed it but didn't realize all the subtleties in it. Check Zoe's expression when Mal doesn't let the guy on their um, landspeeder.

And I absolutely love the analogy of the ship falling apart at the beginning with the show's cancellation. And having to glue it back together at the end of the movie. Sheer genuis. See the movie a second time if you have the guts. There's more to it than you know.

"You're either in or you're out, and I'm playing to the in."—Greg Dulli. Get with the "in" and check out his new album Amber Headlights, on sale now.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 7:14 AM

URAJZED


I think many of the points made here in criticizing the movie are valid, and they stand in relief when other points are dimmed or overlooked: Serenity is a movie that has to reach a broad audience, it has to bring newbies up to speed, and it sometimes takes tweaking of character to get the entire thing made. There is always compromise in these sorts of deals. In comparison to the dreck Star Trek became, and even Star Wars which one man had complete editorial control over, Serenity is a mitigated success at worst.
Splitting hairs over whether a person might have really said this or that is just that, because no one really knows these characters. We saw them over ten plus hours, through a camera. Think about people you know in real life. There are people you think you know after a long time and they can surprise you. There is so much that the viewer has to do for him or herself.
I felt Mal didn't hit Simon back because it would only be a cheap shot: everyone knows Mal could do it if he needed to. It wasn't needed. Instead, he hit harder: he suggested Simon and River detach and move on, if I remember. But that's my feeling: it isn't canon. Others may agree or disagree, but none of us are copyright holders of the series Bible.
It reminds of some criticism I've been reading of the show House, by certain doctors and others in the know: the show is full of medical inaccuracies. But other doctors say they like watching the show, and turn off their inner doctor and just become a viewer watching the show, because it does have entertainment to offer.

Okay, so I will put a few of my quibbles:

More Jayne. On the "Jayne seems more stupid" thread, even in the series he's uneven: in Out of Gas in the flashback he's talking like a downright half-wit, ironic given that Mal seems to respect that he does have some smarts to him. But that's what I like about Jayne, he's an enigma: he might never have been to school, and in some ways he is not too bright, but circumstance forces him to think a little deeper on occasion.

We didn't need to see the Simon/Kaylee mush. Of course in the series it would have played out a lot longer. We only needed to see a glance and a few spare words, like in Out of Gas when Jayne says, "Well." to Mal and turns away to the shuttle without a bunch of throat-lumping. In a sequel I agree that Kaylee and Simon should not work out.

And I did think Mal held out a little too long against the Operative. It would have been more believable if he would have won by some wile earlier on, as in Shindig. However, what Mal had (others were criticizing that he didn't have the fighting prowess that the Operative did) was pure grit: he was no stranger to pain and apparently mortal wounds.

I watched the movie after only seeing the first 3 eps, so it was as a fledgling fan I went to see the movie, and not the Talmudic scholars that others have become. I felt there were a few sour notes, but I didn't feel betrayed. I had a good movie experience. At least they made a movie. And they did it in large part for the fans. Put my name in the thank you column.

Well, I've yet to see the last three episodes. Anyone jealous?


u


Insert quote by Jayne here.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:16 AM

LADYBLUE


I for one was also disappointed.

*************SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN***********

First, let me start by saying that I have been a fan of Firefly since the beginning. I watched it every Friday night on Fox and was pissed when Fox cancelled it. I wrote to Fox, and later to Sci-Fi and UPN to pick up our beloved Firefly. I bought the DVD set when it came out and also bought some for friends and family so that I could share this wonderful experience. I was ecstatic when I found out that Universal was making the Serenity movie. I brought my converted Firefly friends and family with me on opening night; and was prepared to see it as many times as I could. I say all of this so that maybe you will not take lightly what I am about to say next. I think that the movie was a huge disappointment – I do not say that glibly but rather with all the heartfelt angst I can muster. Here are my reasons for not liking it: I apologize ahead of time for the length of this posting but I needed to get it all out.

****LAST WARNING – SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN************




1) They killed Wash. Okay, okay, I have read all the message boards about how this made the film more real and how it upped the ante for everyone else. Well, let me just comment on that argument for a minute.

If Wash dying did make it more “real” then I could maybe buy that up to the point where River goes running, unarmed, into a pack of Reavers that had just about killed the rest of the crew (including her brother who was shot, by a Reaver, from quite a distance mind you). She not only obliterated all of them, but came away unscathed. Is this in line with reality? I cannot buy into reality at one point and then totally disregard it elsewhere. There are other reality problems I have but that would be the main one.

Also, the argument that Joss was going to kill him off after season 2 anyway does nothing for me.

Please do not tell me to get over losing Wash. That’s like telling Mal to get over losing the war.


2) Mal’s character going dark. Again, I have heard the arguments that after everything Mal went through in the movie that it changed his character to where we see this darkness in him. If I accept this argument then I have to find fault with it later in the film. Why doesn’t Mal kill the operative? I mean the man was responsible for killing women and children, two of his crew, and countless others…..and he leaves him alive? Mal killed for lesser reasons in Firefly. He kicked Niska’s henchman through the engine, he shot the Alliance mole in the head – all without thinking twice and no questions asked. I think that by Mal not killing the operative that it cheapened Wash and Books deaths even more. Of course, it was convenient that he was alive so that he could call off the alliance soldiers in the end; but Mal had no way of knowing that.

Oh, and I know that Joss had always wanted Mal’s character to be dark but Fox would not let him. That is fine, but you have to logically get me from A to B.

3) Zoe’s emotional response to Wash dying – or should I say lack of. I have read that she did not have time to grieve; that she had to go to warrior mode and kick some Reaver ass. I did see a little bit of a response in how she fought the Reavers with an “I don’t care if I live or die” attitude – but that wasn’t enough for me. I wanted to see a melt down or at least some grieving. This might have made my emotional response one of grief rather than one of just plain pissed off. And, you can’t tell me she is not capable of it. I have never seen more tender moments between married characters then I did with Wash & Zoe. For example, in “War Stories” after she pays Niska to get Wash back and they are in the shuttle, the vulnerability she displays in just her physical actions alone is amazing. By not showing Zoe grieving I just feel as though it invalidated all of those loving moments that they had on Firefly. Oh, and in the end by showing Zoe fixing the window panel that was broken when Wash was killed was a kick in the gut.

I have other issues with the film but these were my main ones. These are the reasons that I do not care to see the film again (saw it twice – the second time was only to see if I could find a loophole as to how Wash could live). Please do not misunderstand me, I do not discourage anyone else from seeing the movie as many times as they want. I am glad your hopes were met with the movie; mine were dashed.


Please no hate mail postings.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:53 AM

SAGRILARUS


Quote:
If Wash dying did make it more “real” then I could maybe buy that up to the point where River goes running, unarmed, into a pack of Reavers that had just about killed the rest of the crew (including her brother who was shot, by a Reaver, from quite a distance mind you).


This was the one part of the plot that I thought fell down a bit. River should not have survived, no way, no how. Bullets kill from a distance -- they are the bane of every karate movie ever made.

But if River is to survive, I would have had Kaylee run in to close the door and save the rest (would have worked nicely for her character), and River follow to save her. That would have made it more intense. Practically, with the Doc down, Kaylee down, Inara essentially a bystander, and Zoe and Jayne both running out of bullets, they were pretty much toast. But I suppose you can't kill everyone, and hey -- I've seen SO MUCH WORSE in other movies. So I'm comfortable with that part of it.

I'm more disappointed with the change in the character profiles. People are responding here that "it's been a few months, people change!" Well, it doesn't work that way in fiction. Writing 101 dwells on character development and motivation for good reason. Characters don't survive arbitrary changes. Readers (or viewers) need to be comfortable that they understand why something is happening in the text, or they start looking for BS crap in the background like a gun looking different between one scene and the next. To hold the viewer, they have to understand the character. They have to be able to put themselves in that character's place and understand the WHY and the BECAUSE of the situation. The characters in the film are just different. Different different different. Not the same people. Confused the hell out of me. Made it very hard to step into the scene.
Shame really. The movie starts off so well with that piece of the ship peeling off. Wash and Mal were their old selves. Just entertaining as hell. Then things start to unravel.

Sag.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 9:39 AM

LADYBLUE


Sag,

I know what you mean. Not only are Mal & Zoe out of character but so is the rest of the crew (except for maybe Wash). Sometimes, I think it would have been better to watch this movie without the prior knowledge of Firefly; then my expectations would not have been so high.

Regards,

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 9:43 AM

INIRE


I for one LOVED the movie. Even if it winds up being the only movie we get, it is a gift and a blessing.

and frankly, if it takes 'Author Ego' to move a story forward, I'll take that over fan-fear and stagnation ANY day of the year.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 10:05 AM

URAJZED


Quote:
Originally posted by LadyBlue:
1) They killed Wash. Okay, okay, I have read all the message boards about how this made the film more real and how it upped the ante for everyone else. Well, let me just comment on that argument for a minute.

If Wash dying did make it more “real” then I could maybe buy that up to the point where River goes running, unarmed, into a pack of Reavers that had just about killed the rest of the crew (including her brother who was shot, by a Reaver, from quite a distance mind you). She not only obliterated all of them, but came away unscathed. Is this in line with reality? I cannot buy into reality at one point and then totally disregard it elsewhere. There are other reality problems I have but that would be the main one.


I can understand the storytelling choices. Shepherd died to bring home the reality of the evil that the Alliance will go to achieve their aims. Wash died to accentuate the danger the reavers posed to the crew. The show and the movie constantly has the crew suffering quite serious wounds to show how dangerous the situation is. If we believe that the crew will make it anyway, there is no sense of sacrifice. They can no longer run and hide from the dangers of the civilization they stay at the edge of. The danger has to feel real. This is a conscious choice away from having a redshirt death.

Also, I never thought the Reavers were any kind of coordinated fighting force, just a mob with sharp edges. It was made pretty clear early on that River's prowess was nearly superhuman. Now, had she killed thousands in this manner it might be not as believable, but she held off a couple of dozen in a cramped space. So you wanted River to sustain damage - it was demonstrated early on that if the Reavers are in hand to hand range that you're toast. What would it have added to the story if we took time out to show a knife cutting her? The movie was running close to 2 hrs at this point, the story decision was made that she was not going to die, and maybe Joss wasn't thinking that River needed to get cut more to make Wash's death seem more real. Rather, she had to wait until her brother, Zoe, who else was cut up before she went into action.

Quote:


2) Mal’s character going dark. Again, I have heard the arguments that after everything Mal went through in the movie that it changed his character to where we see this darkness in him. If I accept this argument then I have to find fault with it later in the film. Why doesn’t Mal kill the operative? I mean the man was responsible for killing women and children, two of his crew, and countless others…..and he leaves him alive? Mal killed for lesser reasons in Firefly. He kicked Niska’s henchman through the engine, he shot the Alliance mole in the head – all without thinking twice and no questions asked. I think that by Mal not killing the operative that it cheapened Wash and Books deaths even more. Of course, it was convenient that he was alive so that he could call off the alliance soldiers in the end; but Mal had no way of knowing that.


The Operative represented the Alliance to Mal, but he wanted the Operative to witness what he was responsible for. The Operative claimed to be evil for a greater good, but I think Mal wanted the Operative to see an even deeper, senseless evil, because the Operative in his Manichaen way beleived that evil has a place and purpose. Mal knew the Operative's brand of evil, and he knew of the nihilistic nature of the Reavers. It was an argument, a duel on a mental plane as well.

Mal killed the Alliance Mole who was armed, threw Niska's man through the engine because he said he would never rest in trying to kill Mal. Mal has explicitly and implicity demonstrated throughout the series that he will not kill unless he believes his own life is in danger, or in the one case of the man in town beset by Reavers. The Operative's arms were broken, he was disabled.

Quote:


Oh, and I know that Joss had always wanted Mal’s character to be dark but Fox would not let him. That is fine, but you have to logically get me from A to B.



We saw in War Stories that there is a dark side to Mal that comes out under extreme duress. Seeing a friend and innocent civilians, women and children senselessly wiped out by the Alliance that he hates... I think it was time for flip Mal to stand down for a spell.

Quote:


3) Zoe’s emotional response to Wash dying – or should I say lack of. I have read that she did not have time to grieve; that she had to go to warrior mode and kick some Reaver ass. I did see a little bit of a response in how she fought the Reavers with an “I don’t care if I live or die” attitude – but that wasn’t enough for me. I wanted to see a melt down or at least some grieving. This might have made my emotional response one of grief rather than one of just plain pissed off. And, you can’t tell me she is not capable of it. I have never seen more tender moments between married characters then I did with Wash & Zoe. For example, in “War Stories” after she pays Niska to get Wash back and they are in the shuttle, the vulnerability she displays in just her physical actions alone is amazing. By not showing Zoe grieving I just feel as though it invalidated all of those loving moments that they had on Firefly. Oh, and in the end by showing Zoe fixing the window panel that was broken when Wash was killed was a kick in the gut.



It was a little cold, but not 180 out of character. She was a hardened war veteran, not a weepy cherry. I felt that when she showed up in the dress that she was showing her change of character, but that it wasn't going to be on her sleeve. It's like the whispered moment at the end of Lost in Translation: it's personal to the character, and not everything is going to be spelled out.

I had a thought about "War Stories" that there was probably a little bit of pragmatism to her choice: Mal would be more likely to stand up longer to Niska's torture so that she would have more time to effect a rescue.

Quote:


Please no hate mail postings.


These are just my opinions.
u

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 10:44 AM

PHOEBE


Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:


I still have the question standing though -- how come nobody that saw the pre-viewings of the film brought up these issues?

Sag.


Perhaps nobody who saw the pre-screenings of the film agreed with you. I saw it in London in January, and in Nottingham and Birmingham in August/September. The first time I saw it I was blown away and thought it was the best film I ever saw in my life. The second and third times I saw it, I thought it was even better. Each time I see it (a total of eight times now) I notice little things that I didn't before, and it seemed better.

And you should have noticed that over the course of the series, Mal had become a little more bitter. He expresses in the opening shot of the BDHs in Serenity that conditions are worse for the members of the crew now. When times are harder, people's personalities tend to change a little. Skew in a direction that is often negative.

Inara fighting, I don't know why we're making such a big deal of. She attempted a grand total of about three semi-clumsy blows. Inara was hardly portrayed as a deadly weapon (i.e. River, for whom a viable explanation was given), nor did she manage to land a blow on The Operative and was taken down in seconds, as someone mentioned above. I see nothing out of character in attempting to help Mal from getting killed, and attempting to probably save her own life and the lives of the crew in the process.

Additionally, Jewel stated that she LOVED the nethers line.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 10:53 AM

GGOTCH


I thought that Serenity substituted some of the charm of Firefly for action scenes.

But I strongly had expected that because of the nature of the world of "feature film".

With all that a studio/producer/screenwriter/director has to contend with, I believe Serenity did work. I enjoyed the film immensely, but will allow that it wasn't Firefly. We should, however, never have expected the TV show per se. The economics of the motion picture industry would never allow it. That is why it is so hard to present a throughly entertaining (up to original series/next generation standards) motion picture of Star Trek.

I do believe that Universal failed miserably, in promoting this film.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 10:59 AM

BREATHINGSTORY


Wow, I am surprised it took me so long to find this website. Hey everyone :)

I loved the movie. The only problems I had were that there was so much left open after the series ended (damn you FOX!) And that there were more questions I would have like answered, as far as Book's past. And at least there was a bit of closure!

As far as the whole Wash ordeal. It upset me alot. Not even so much that he killed off my character. Characters die, it happens and I understand that. When it comes down to it, had Serenity been a movie first before the Series of Firefly it obviously wouldn't have been AS dramatic. But for fans of the show, who had invested weeks (or years for those of you who may have recorded each episode off your tv.. and watched them 5,000 times over) into these characters, and to have such an abruptness to the death, it felt more like a bad horror movie whose only purpose in even having an ensemble is to pick them off.

I will continue to be a fan of this show, obviously, because I do believe in Joss, and I do believe that Serenity has SO much potential to become the "Next Big Sci Fi Adventure" as I read somewhere.

SO overall was I disapointed? Not at all. I think its a great movie. Did some things really suck. Absolutely. But I guess thats why it IS such a great movie. Obviously if youre fired up about it, it got the job done. I know I was emotional, It was funny, the action rocked, and Now I'm even more interested to see other installments, be a movie, continuation of the series, whatever.



We gotta go to the crappy town where I'm a hero. - Wash

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 12:09 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@GiantEvilHead:
Ok, I read the first 2 sentences of your post and stopped. You, aren't getting the point.

You can make all the assumptions that you want. But, if they completely contradict prior knowledge, established norms, for the character. Then they are acting out of character. Period.

Your assumptions are and contrary to known facts.

Just go back and look at how many times you've used the terms, "I assume", "I think", etc. Look at how many times I've brought up actual events that happened. Actual known peronality norms. Actual behaviour.

I am basing what I think on prior knowledge and you are basing yours on fabrications.

Continue in this way and you're not going to convince me of anything.

I highly recommend (again) that you re-watch the series. Then and only then, will you realize the error of your ways. Because, it is clear, you have forgotten what is in the series.

Accept it, deal with it, move on.


P.S. If you aren't going to actually bring up actual events that happened in the Firefly 'verse then don't bother replying to this post. I have not interest in invaidating your baseless conjectures anymore, nor do I have the time.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 12:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BTW- I don't think I was disappointed as much as thrown off-balance. I knew enought not to expect Firefly, but Serenity was off my personal radar. I'll prolly have to watch again to view the movie on its own merits, not in comparison to FF.

Please don't think they give a shit.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 4:05 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Signy, good to hear from you.

I have this image in my head of all of us who were disappointed in the BDM quarantined in some cyber-spatial infirmary. I see you walk through the door and I'm both happy to see you and sad that "it" has claimed yet another in our ranks.

Glad you brought up the issue of political naïveté. I kept thinking that Mr. Universe's real name would be Noam Chomsky. The whole "can't stop the signal" plot is like something out of 80's cyber-punk. And for most people, the catastrophe itself would never be a problem, it was an experiment gone awry is all; the only thing most good Alliance citizens might have a problem with is the cover up, but affluent citizens everywhere tend to relish their ignorance when it comes to their government's dirty secrets. I can easily see the general public feeling sorry for the "poor scientists" and the "poor government" that had to deal with the aftermath of a disaster "no one could have seen coming."

"If I was the Parliament, I'd cover it up too, who wants to know about such a tragedy when the damage is done?"

"But the reavers kill thousands of people on the outer rim every year."

"There's a lot more than reavers out there can kill a man, kid. It's a tough life on the rim."

Or to paraphrase ScifiNut's reply to Howard on this thread, "That's just anti-Alliance propaganda!" And Howard was talking about the pentagon papers where the genocide was intentional, not just an unforseen side-effect of an onstensibly harmless drug.

In short: no scandal, no political upheaval.

T'other thing about the River plot that bugged me right off the bat was how slipshod the Alliance psi-ops department would have to be not to keep their psychic subjects away from anyone with sensitive info. How lame was that? Made me wonder for a second if Joss was telling us that River's psychic power was a fluke or something (the only possible way the Alliance wouldn't have kept her quarantined). Another unanswered question: was she psychic to begin with and the Alliance was enhancing her gift, or were they "making" her psychic? And whether they were enhancing it or inducing it, why would they do such a thing? What exactly are the applications of psychic sensitivity to being an assassin? On the face of it, seems a secret government would want to render their assassins less sensitive, not more. Seems it would create more problems than it solves for a secret government agency unless they had proven methods of mind control. So many plot holes, gonna have to close the road!

So, River Tam's psychic power amounts to nothing more than being the wrong girl in the wrong place at the wrong time. I agree with Signy, seemed the series was building to something slightly more significant. The Operative killed hundreds, maybe thousands of people just to shut up a witness--a witness to a scandal that would have had less impact on the Alliance than East Timor has had on the USA. Grrr. Arrgh.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To think that everyone including the Operative will rise up... or at least wake up... from a one-time airing of damning evidence shows a political naivete that I don't expect from Joss. After all, look at how many intelligent fans on this board STILL think that Bush is doing a good job. They haven't woke up yet! Again, I know he had to compress the story into movie-length, but that sort of trivial resolution just doesn't match the weight of the issues that he raises.



HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 4:57 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Thing is because Mal pretended he was paralysed he kinda won through chicanery anyhow.


Notice that he knew the effect a hit on that cluster was supposed to have; there's a lot of Eastern culture in the 'Verse, and odd are this particular tactic has become, if not widely know, at least familiar to someone with combat experience.

On the main point of this thread: No, I was not disappointed. To my mind, and allowing for several months of poor luck and worse paydays, everyone's characterization was dead on.

Specific points:

Simon wasn't an incompetent. Check out "Ariel" if you doubt; his plan is smooth and well thought out, and he sells it with panache. What he is in the series is a fish out of water. Simon Templar in Mayberry. By the BDM's timeframe, he's gotten a bit more seasoned to the frontier -- and good enough to clock Mal with a sucker punch.

Kaylee's vibrator line was perfectly in character, IIMHO, and brought down the house all four times I've seen the film.

Jayne's willingness to go in harms way despite the risk and lack of profit: this is the part of Jayne that tried to make itself known when the mudder boy died for him, the part that helped storm Niska's Skyplex for Mal's sake. (It's well forshadowed in the Comic story, too, in his reaction to a similar scene of random, large-scale death.) Quite simply, it takes a lot to make Jayne take the moral high ground--but Minerva qualified.



"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 6:49 PM

KESTREL


"Disappointed" isn't the word... "disgusted" is. I originally posted this over on Browncoats in a thread called, "To Joss the Firefly Slayer"

I'll start on a positive note... this movie got two things right:

- Inara is back aboard, where she belongs.
- The Miranda / Reaver / River backstory was excellent, though not without flaws (I'll get to that).

Unfortunately, in every other way this movie got it completely wrong. Let's start by working backward, from the least to the greatest of offences:


THE MUSIC

The opening theme... yeah, not bad... I can definitely live with it. It had a FIREFLY-ish feel to it. Unfortunately, that's where it ended. Now, I'm NOT a fan of country music, but the odd country-western/asian blending we had in FIREFLY *REALLY* worked for me. There was just nothing special about the SERENITY soundtrack. Like the visuals, it was cold, flat, generic and unimpressive.


REWRITING HISTORY

What can I say? The character of Simon was simply not the character from FIREFLY. Too bold, too brash, too aggressive. Worse, the account of River's escape directly contradicted what we saw in the series pilot. Revisionist history is a horrible way to tell the story you want to tell... it may seem to be only events and happenings but when it is so integral to our understanding of, not one, but two characters, it's a fatal mistake.


SERENITY

Serenity herself... there are things I like and dislike. I'm glad the ship didn't change radically. Kaylee's stenciled flowers in the kitchen were there, the mish-mash of chairs and the worn table were there. The problem was that while the Serenity of FIREFLY had warm brown, yellow and rust tones, the Serenity of SERENITY had cold blues and greys. One thing I *DID* like was the rebuilding of the bridge -- the bridge of FIREFLY always seemed a little TOO beaten up to be functional. The bridge in SERENITY was clearly functional, but again... in cold blues and greys... I know this is a small thing but it changed the whole feel of the ship from one of being a comfortable and welcoming coccoon to being a cold and sterile container. This touches on the whole sci-fi/western element. The cold sci-fi element was present in spades but the warm western element was gone...


RIVER THE REAVER SLAYER

This was one of the truly low points of the movie... why do American TV and movies insist on producing pulpy shows and movies where a 90lb waif of a girl can easily defeat wave after wave of 200lb males intent of savagely killing her? Let's be honest, this was a cow-tow to the BUFFY fans with the Reavers in the part of Vampires and River in the part of Buffy. This is such an overplayed and ludicrous idea that it cheapens the end product. Even if this had not been in the movie, there's still a serious flaw in making River into an ASSASSIN !?!?! What were you thinking? Anyone with a steady hand can squeeze a trigger and kill someone. Someone with River's intellect and ability to read minds would be WASTED in the role of an assassin... she'd be SO much more useful in a diplomatic environment where she could simply walk around a room reading minds and reporting information back to her handlers.


KILLING MAJOR CHARACTERS

First of all, I am *NOT* averse to killing characters. In some situations it works very well. Some of the most memorable shows I've seen have done it at some point or another.

When your show is story-driven, killing characters has the effect of furthering the story you want to tell. The characters are a function of the story. FIREFLY, though, was NOT story-driven... it was CHARACTER-driven. When you kill characters in a character-driven show, you change the dynamic, disrupting the balance you sought to achieve in the first place. The ensemble of characters in FIREFLY had some of the greatest on-screen chemistry ever filmed. Killing Book and Wash has destroyed a significant portion of that chemistry. So much so, in fact, that it can not be recovered and the show itself ceases to be.

I've seen people argue that the character deaths made the remainder of the movie more suspenseful because no one knew who might die next... that excuse doesn't hold water, simply by virtue of the ridiculous odds the remainder of the crew went up against, with everyone seriously injured and facing certain death (until River the Reaver Slayer took over) and yet THEY SURVIVED. Even if the argument could be made, surely those people who think the deaths were necessary would have got the message from Book's death alone? Killing Wash just cheapened Book's death and contributed nothing in return.

No one over the age of about 8 needs to have death explained to them; we know it can happen. We come to FIREFLY to spend time with the characters we love, not to see them die needlessly for 30 seconds of on-screen drama.


THE CAST & CHARACTERS

But the worst sin, the greatest failing of all... the cast/character chemistry was completely ABSENT. Perhaps too much time has passed or perhaps some other influence that was present for FIREFLY wasn't available for SERENITY, but looking at each of the actors playing their parts, you'd swear they were playing new characters who were completely unfamiliar to them. The acting was wooden, stilted, forced and completely lacked emotion; the actors were there but the characters weren't... the lines didn't flow easily and the mannerisms and quirks were gone. Even Morena Baccharin who GLOWED as Inara in FIREFLY was just a pretty piece of tinsel in SERENITY.

Considering that every character was so different from those we came to love in FIREFLY, this is perhaps not so surprising. There were brief flashes of the old characters but they were few and far between and lasted but a moment. The casual, warm familiarity of and between the characters was gone, replaced with a cold sterility rivalling that of Serenity herself. Book and Wash *** DIED *** but not a tear was shed... not even by ZOE! Where's the sense of family love and loyalty that permeated FIREFLY?

Mal put Crow through his engine for not taking the train-job money back to Niska but in SERENITY he's so hell-bent on getting to Miranda that he threatens to kill anyone on his own crew who tries to stop him and then lets The Operative live knowing full-well that he's DIRECTLY responsible for Book's death (supposedly the event which has pushed Mal to the edge in the first place). These ideas just don't mesh. This failing riddles the movie and none of the characters are exempt... a prime example is Kaylee's reaction to Zoe being *injured* in OUT OF GAS, and Book being *injured* in SAFE... then look at her reaction to Book AND Wash *dying* in Serenity... nothing.

... and what do we get in the last 5 minutes of the film, but a rushed repair job and a couple of quick moments that seem to be intended as emotional pieces but are so fleeting that they have no time to develop.

This is just speculation, but in watching the film, I get the impression that an attempt was made to bring in the Whedon faithful from other shows, such as Buffy and Angel to fluff up the fanbase that would see this movie, in an attempt to ensure a sequel. Unfortunately, while you may have appeased the fans of your other works, you sorely missed the mark for many of us who are simply FIREFLY fans. How is it possible that you hit the mark EVERY TIME for 14 episodes in 2002 and yet miss the mark so terribly this time around? You let us down andyou took our sky from us.

Well I've spent all that I'll spend on SERENITY. For me, and many others, this movie doesn't exist; it isn't a FIREFLY movie and we won't accept it as such. We love FIREFLY too much to let something that falls this far below par be part of that story. Surely, this movie will have it's fans, but, speaking for myself, I've seen the movie once... I won't be seeing it again, and I won't ever own the DVD. Nor am I likely to return to see a sequel (if one is made) - I am convinced that what happened in 2002 was special and won't ever be recreated, certainly not as a motion picture.

Thanks for FIREFLY, but shame on you for SERENITY.

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 7:34 PM

TERAPH


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To think that everyone including the Operative will rise up... or at least wake up... from a one-time airing of damning evidence shows a political naivete that I don't expect from Joss. After all, look at how many intelligent fans on this board STILL think that Bush is doing a good job. They haven't woke up yet! Again, I know he had to compress the story into movie-length, but that sort of trivial resolution just doesn't match the weight of the issues that he raises.


I don't think there was anything politically naive from Joss. That airing is gonna run way more than once. Every man and woman who wants a seat on Parliment but needs to weaken their opponent will make sure it does. There will be protests, hearings, scapegoats, news reports, political infighting, and then everyone will slowly forget. Nothing in the movie suggests otherwise. Even the Operative says that Parliment is weak right now, but that they may come at them later. That's how it works. People lose power from scandals, and they they either fall away or rebuild.

It would have been nice, however, to have seen these lines that were in the script but not in the movie:

(from the last scene with the Operative and Mal)

OPERATIVE
Do you know the uproar you've caused? Protests, riots -- cries for the recall or Parliment.

MAL
We've seen the broadwaves.

OPERATIVE
You must be pleased.

MAL
'Verse wakes up for a spell. Won't be long 'fore she rolls right over and falls back asleep. T'aint my worry.


Wish that had been there, 'cause that's exactly how it works. There is outrage, politicians do their spin (maybe a couple lose their jobs), and then everyone rolls over and falls back asleep.

Of course, 30 million died, so it'll be a bigger scandal than some, but it'll run its course...

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 7:36 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@Kestrel:
Bang on!

And as Rue wrote, there was no "quirky, intimate, indefinite plot-lines and character development."

That was what Firefly was. It was all about the characters. And Joss took that away.

I weep for what we have lost.

But, at least we still have the DVD set.

EDIT: Why aren't people questioning that the Operative is still alive at the end of the movie? He went through the entire thing speaking about falling on ones sword when one screws up, etc. But, at the end of the movie, he has failed to do so himself.

Even if you consider him not being allied with the Alliance anymore, it's still his code. Why wouldn't he fall on it for just having failed to see the truth for so long?

Grrr.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:07 PM

TERAPH


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why aren't people questioning that the Operative is still alive at the end of the movie? He went through the entire thing speaking about falling on ones sword when one screws up, etc. But, at the end of the movie, he has failed to do so himself.


I have two competing theories on this.

The first is that he intends to kill himself once he sees off Serenity. When he tells Mal "you won't, there is nothing left to see" in reference to the possibility of Mal seeing him again, my first impression was that he was going to kill himself since he had nothing left. (The only reason to see them off first is because they were wronged by the thing the Operative once believed in so deeply. Helping them is an act of contrition.)

The second theory is that now that he's turned away from the Alliance, he doesn't see failing them as a something worth dying over. His belief in falling on the sword is not for any screw up, but for failing the institution to which he had unwavering faith. He no longer has the level of devotion to the Alliance that would warrant that sacrifice. In this case, "nothing left to see" is a way of saying "the man you met no longer exists" and may not be the precurser to a suicide. He may be leaving to find a new path.

I tend to lean toward the second theory because of the other dialogue in that scene. Mal suggests the Alliance may try to kill the Operative and the Operative seems to accept it as a possibility, which wouldn't be a concern to a man planning to kill himself.

(Lines from the script that didn't make the screen also have the Operative asking Mal how he carried on after losing everything in the battle of Serenity -- which suggests to me a man looking for a new path.)

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

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:44 PM

RODASH


Kestrel: Right on!

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:18 AM

LADYBLUE


Way to say it Kestrel!!

A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:32 AM

SAGRILARUS


Looks like you're getting the last word, Kestrel. And I think you summed it up nicely. Not short, but nice. Worth the read.

Sag.

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:26 AM

THANATUS


Here, here Kestrel! Trust me, you and others have put voice to the frustrations of legions of Firefly (not Serenity!) fans!

Than

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:26 AM

LOZORDS


Quote:
Originally posted by Hothersale:
Have you seen it more than once? Personally, I found the ARROW'D so upsetting that it was hard to really enjoy the movie the first time round. I enjoyed it MUCH more on subsequent viewings. If you haven't already, I suggest watching it again to see if it's the same for you.

________________________

Live life with Blue Sun!


Cheers for spoiling the movie, asshat.

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:32 AM

SEP7IMUS


Hello. I'm new here. I'm one of those longtime Firefly fans (well, at least a year) who has gotten more involved given the advent of the movie and my hopes for it.

I wasn't all that disappointed. I felt like there were some medium-specific changes (some things work better on movies than on TV and vice versa) and some simplification for people unfamiliar with the Firefly saga before the movie, but overall it felt like a BDEpisode of Firefly.

In particular, I wanted to address the idea that Mal is more of a coward now than in the show. I REALLY don't see that being the case. He was always running away on the show. IT's kidn of what he does:

In "Heart of Gold" his first idea is for them all to run.
In "Shindig" he says "I never back down from a fight" to which Innara replies, "You do it all the time!"
And, overall, his basic mode is evade the Alliance, keep moving, run from place to place.

I don't think this makes him a coward, but he doesn't get into conflict when he doesn't have to.

(It's interesting to compare Mal's attitude about avoiding conflict to Jayne's. For Mal, the things that force him to fight are matters of doing what's right. For Jayne, it's personal gain (though that gets called into question at times when he seems a little more noble). Neither of them, though, fight for the sake of fighting, or against overwhelming odds, unless they have to,)

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:44 AM

DREAMTROVE


I liked it. I think there were weakpoints, flaws even, but overall it didn't suck. I was caught by surprise when Wash and Book died, but neither bothered me. I figure the show is about Simon and River more than it is about Mal and Zoe, and outside of that Jayne and Kaylee are the only characters I care about particularly, so an awful lot of characters are pretty much expendable to the story. I suspect death of Simon or River would through the storyline into chaos, as possibly would the death of Mal. The death of everyone else wouldn't kill it, and I knew some characters were going to die and was just glad it wasn't Kaylee or Jayne.

Overall the film wasn't completely clean, some things definitely fail to add up the way the trolls on IMDb say, but that is often true in the show, and no other sci fi show has ever really been free of this problem. It's worth seeing.

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:00 AM

HOTHERSALE


Sorry. A week after the NA debut, I forget that people elsewhere may not have seen it yet. Anyway, I've edited my post. I suggest you do too, lest you be guilty of the same sin.

________________________

Live life with Blue Sun!

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:39 AM

SIGMANUNKI


@Lozords:
And what did you expect from a thread titled "Anyone else disappointed?" Seriously, if you wanted to avoid spoilers then you should really avoid threads titled like these as they will tend to discuss the movie by definition. In fact, you might want to avoid such forums altogether until you see the movie to negate the possibility of being spoiled. Many have, myself included. So, unless you're will to do that, I'd expect to be spoiled. So, don't bitch at us because you haven't be careful.


@Teraph:
I thought of the second one you brought up but thought that it wasn't possible due to a philosophy like this being independent of whom one works for.

I don't know about the second one. Interesting idea, but...

I also don't remember the line being exactly that. Maybe when it comes out on DVD I'll get to hear it again. Because if it is the quote you say, it does change things. Can anyone else confirm? (No offense, just the human mind is a tricky thing and the more people say it is something the more confident I'll be in that it is indeed true.)

I'm just having trouble with the whole thing as I know too much about Oriental history/culture/etc. It's my burden, I know that. Just having trouble with it.

Do you have a link to the script?


@Sep7IMus:
Mal has run away when the odds are not in his favour before. But from the dialogue, etc from the movie, I got the feel that it was running for reasons of a coward and not for reasons like before.

Just like any reference from the show, you must provide proper context is there. And from what I've seen, your examples don't hold up to that.


Mal, I think is more along the lines of fighing for profit and if it is for good as well, the super. But, if push comes to shove, then he'll do it for the right thing. Friends are different though. He'll fight for a friend to the death if need be.

Jayne, does it for profit clear and simple. It has always been his guiding light. There are times in the show when he did things not for profit, but there has been other circumstances that provide adequate motivation for this to happen.

ie When Jayne goes to save Mal from Niska. First off, this is right after he almost got sucked out into space because of screwing Mal and knows that he exists at that point by the grace of Mal and no other. Plus I think that he will attempt to avoid such non-profit endeavors (remember him calling what they were doing "suicide" while Zoe and Wash were preparing?) but will go along if it will make him look bad. He seems to care about what the others think of him to some degree.


@RocketJock:
Simon was out of character. Remember when he was supposed to play a rich guy going to buy mud (rather akin to him growing up as a rich kid, right?), but completely messing it up?

I would gather that he was more calm in Ariel because he was educated and trained to be calm in a hospital for many years of his life and he was one of the best. You don't act weak and such when you had the experience of being king of the hill for years.

I agree that Kaylee's vibrator line of in character. Perhaps a little more vulgar than she would've done it, but in character none-the-less.


Your analysis of Jayne is flawed in that it doesn't take into context the situation that motivated him to do those things. Everything has context, lets stay there. Not to mention that Jayne would never go on a mission that was almost guaranteed to kill him just to get some knowledge. Just isn't Jayne.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:37 PM

SEP7IMUS


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
@Sep7IMus:
Mal has run away when the odds are not in his favour before. But from the dialogue, etc from the movie, I got the feel that it was running for reasons of a coward and not for reasons like before.

Just like any reference from the show, you must provide proper context is there. And from what I've seen, your examples don't hold up to that.

Why not, exactly? I don't think I see the distinction you're making. I figured we all knew the context. How does it change the fact that he ran (with, I think, good reason)?
Quote:

Mal, I think is more along the lines of fighing for profit and if it is for good as well, the super. But, if push comes to shove, then he'll do it for the right thing. Friends are different though. He'll fight for a friend to the death if need be.

Okay, I agree with that characterization of Mal. How are his actions in the movie any different? I don't remember him running when there was a profit to be made, when fighting would be for the right thing, or when fighting would be for friends/crew. Does he run in any of those instances in the movie? If so, that would seem out of character to me.
Quote:

Jayne, does it for profit clear and simple. It has always been his guiding light. There are times in the show when he did things not for profit, but there has been other circumstances that provide adequate motivation for this to happen.

ie When Jayne goes to save Mal from Niska. First off, this is right after he almost got sucked out into space because of screwing Mal and knows that he exists at that point by the grace of Mal and no other. Plus I think that he will attempt to avoid such non-profit endeavors (remember him calling what they were doing "suicide" while Zoe and Wash were preparing?) but will go along if it will make him look bad. He seems to care about what the others think of him to some degree.

Yeah, I agree with this, too. Though, I might be a little more sympathetic to Jayne than you are, and I might attribute a little more of his eventual helping out in nonprofit fights to some hidden goodness in him rather than just on a desire to look good (though I do think that's there, too).

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:53 PM

SAGRILARUS


In the future, when referring to characters and their traits, can we please refer to them as from the movie or the series, like "Series Mal" or "Movie Jayne." Due to the vast changes in the characters, this distinction will be necessary to understand where someone is coming from.

Hey -- it's my thread. I just couldn't resist saying that.

Sag.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Fan-Made ‘Green Lantern’ Trailer Receives Nathan Fillion’s Endorsement
Fri, December 20, 2024 18:31 - 9 posts
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Fri, December 20, 2024 17:58 - 5 posts
Why Firefly deserved to die
Wed, December 18, 2024 16:34 - 99 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:58 - 56 posts
What if... Firefly had been British?
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts
Shiny New Year 2025 — Philadelphia, PA
Sun, December 15, 2024 15:25 - 2 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Fri, December 13, 2024 20:35 - 36 posts
James Earl Jones, commanding actor who voiced Darth Vader, dies at 93
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:17 - 6 posts
What's wrong with Star Trek Voyager, and Enterprise?
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:14 - 30 posts
WE WAITED 18 YEARS FOR A REBOOT AND DISNEY IS GOING TO DO IT...AND THEN STERILIZE COMPANIONS???!
Tue, December 10, 2024 14:25 - 95 posts
Host the 2025 Browncoat Ball! - Request for Proposals
Mon, December 2, 2024 00:22 - 4 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
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL