Interesting review of Serenity from DVDFILE... by chrisisall

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Interesting review of Serenity from DVDFILE...

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, January 20, 2006 05:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1865
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, January 16, 2006 11:04 AM

No biggie, just a view from outside; the reviewer had never seen Firefly before seeing Serenity, and DVDFILE usually hits the mark with their assessments.
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5249&
Itemid=3

Chrisisall

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 11:15 AM

IVY

Thanks Chrisisall,

That was very interesting to read. My husband is a technofile, so he will love this review.

Only a few comments:

1) Didn't the shaky camera thing START with Firefly/Serenity and get used in BSG? He makes it sound like Joss stole the idea.

2) It really bothers me when I see "The Serenity"...how 'bout all of you? I know it's silly and small...but it's WRONG!

Ivy

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 11:36 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Ivy:
Didn't the shaky camera thing START with Firefly/Serenity and get used in BSG? He makes it sound like Joss stole the idea.

Well...the shaky camera thing started in WWII news footage, and got used in TV to simulate 'reality' (most notably perhaps in NYPD Blue), so actually it's a technique that has been around for a while.
But yeah, Firefly did it BEFORE BSG.

Film historian-like Chrisisall

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 12:08 PM

NDRAGE85

that was a pretty descent review from someone who has never seen the show. i enjoyed it and i'm glad the reviewer did too. There were a few things about the review that i thought were off, but nothing big. mainly what you guys discussed, the BSG thing, calling it "The Serenity", and i didn't like that he referred to Kaylee as the "the horny ship's engineer." first of all, it should be, "the ship's horny engineer." lol, i guess i'm not real personal with the dear ship Serenity, but i wouldn't figure her for having the sexual tendency of being "horny". i think there are better adjectives to describe Kaylee. yes, she does have 'urges' like most females do, but more importantly she's the sweet girl who gives the crew a loving family feel. even if you haven't seen the series, she comes off more like a sweetie rather then a nympho in the movie. nothing big, those were just my thoughts. still enjoyed the review.

ps - i really liked the reviewer's attention to detail in things like the picture quality and sound.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 12:24 PM

IVY

Excellent point Chrisisall!! I agree that the shaky thing actually DID start with reality and somehow has morphed into projecting reality on "fake" shows. Regardless, I love the effect.

ndrage85 - Sadly, I think to someone who never "met" Kaylee in Firefly, she does come across as sex-starved more than sweet in the movie. I just get the feeling someone thought horny would sell more than girl-next-door, to the general masses. (Which I believe is untrue, but I think that's what we ended up with).

Ivy

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:17 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Ok, I know I'm being nitpicky, but did the guy watch the movie?

Nuclear war? When, where? What happened to, "Could no longer support our numbers"?

"the governing body found itself at war with a rebellious element that is somewhat reluctant to be controlled"

Governing body? What governing body? The voice over stated the Alliance was "formed" and had to fight for control. That means, by definition of the words in the English language, that it was not the governing body until after the war.

(Also someone refusing previously non-existent outside control rebellious, but that kind of goes on with the implication there was a preexisting governing body.)

Maybe I'm a purist, but I hate it when a person makes it clear they had no intention of delivering an honest review from the first moment they started watching. One sentence into the movie and we know this guy isn't paying attention, a couple of paragraphs into the movie and we know it wasn't a fluke. We know whoever this is doesn’t care about telling readers the truth.

-

Reminds me of when I first gave up on movie reviewers (I have since regained and lost faith several times) it was a review of The Matrix, which I had already seen, and I noticed that every single "fact" about the plot of the movie was wrong and some things were the exact opposite of the truth.

-

It's just annoying, if the person can't be troubled to sit through one line of the film without caring so little as to blatantly contradict it in support of his own imagined version why should I read the article?

I'll read it when my annoyance wears off if you guys would like but ... how can, "Could no longer support our numbers, we were so many," become, "Was made uninhabitable by nuclear war"? The two don't even sound the same.

I mean if I want to be a movie reviewer should I watch the movie Modern Times and say it takes place right after the Vietnam War? Of course if I wanted to be more like this guy I should make it less accurate, but I have trouble finding a way to do that.

-

Out of curiosity did the guy who didn't pay attention to the movie like or dislike it?

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:24 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Ivy:
Excellent point Chrisisall!! I agree that the shaky thing actually DID start with reality and somehow has morphed into projecting reality on "fake" shows. Regardless, I love the effect.

The current incarnation of the effect was started in Firefly, as you said.

In fact Battlestar Galactica's use of it is based on Firefly, the people looked at it and said, "That is what I want."

I'm not sure whether they chose their effects people to get the effect, or they chose the effect after the effects people showed their previous work, but the effects and effects teams of the two shows are intimately connected.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:25 PM

SAMEERTIA

At least he LIKED it.
Sure, he missed some of the details. And he doesn't know our Kaylee like we do, or understand that "it's just Serenity." but then
after all, he LIKED it! And he says so.
Far better than some of the nasty, negative comments we've heard from other reviewers.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:50 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SameErtia:
At least he LIKED it.

I just wish he'd paid more attention.

Everything before the sentence, "This becomes clear as we watch River Tam (Summer Glau), a teenage girl with lethal skills, being forcibly conditioned in a secret training center," reads as if he had never watched it.

While it isn't remotely a lot of the movie, it is important stuff and it also makes up almost a full third of the review.

I always felt that a reviewer had a responsibility to be accurate, so if he didn't pay attention to the exposition, a lot of people don't, he should have gone back and watched it again rather than make stuff up.

To my knowledge no one says, "I want to find out what someone who didn't pay attention and is inaccurate thinks of this movie," and then reads a review to satiate that urge. When the reviewer delivers opinion that is one fine, expected and right. But when the reviewer claims fact the reader has a right to be told the truth. If that means the reviewer has to pay more attention than some would (Like, say, listening to the intro) that's the price.

-

Still, I am happy the guy liked it.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:03 PM

CHRISISALL

I was just impressed with the fact that a (seemingly) non-sci-fi fan with no knowledge of the backstory could be so positive about it. Dvdfile carries some weight in the DVD community, and all positive reviews count toward a possible sequel...

Aside: did y'all notice the two guys whose hands you could not see staring at monitors during River's escape in Serenity? I bet they were wearing blue latex gloves...

Chrisisall, somewhat of a cynic

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:38 PM

NOSADSEVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I'll read it when my annoyance wears off if you guys would like but ... how can, "Could no longer support our numbers, we were so many," become, "Was made uninhabitable by nuclear war"? The two don't even sound the same.

I'm guessing that he's a visual learner - he interpreted the flashes of the ships blasting off as nuclear bombs going off, and the narration just didn't stick. In other words, he watched the movie, he just didn't listen to it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:41 PM

CHRISISALL

It is so full with the words and such...

Chrisisall

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 3:47 PM

BARCLAY

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Ok, I know I'm being nitpicky, but did the guy watch the movie?

Nuclear war? When, where? What happened to, "Could no longer support our numbers"?

"the governing body found itself at war with a rebellious element that is somewhat reluctant to be controlled"

Governing body? What governing body? The voice over stated the Alliance was "formed" and had to fight for control. That means, by definition of the words in the English language, that it was not the governing body until after the war.

Maybe I'm a purist, but I hate it when a person makes it clear they had no intention of delivering an honest review from the first moment they started watching.

Cut up your comments a bit so I could reply more concisely.

Let's say you watch the movie once. The point, then, is not to derive as much cannoncal information as possible to debate on message boards (or put in your review), it's to give your readers enough of a basis of the premise and what the movie's about in order to make a determination themselves if they want to see it.

"Nuclear war" and "overpopulation" are close enough for the purposes here. End result: People have got to go. That's the key point. There's 9 minutes of exposition there describing the world, the main characters, and the basic plot. Then there's the 4 minute steady cam shot through Serenity that does the same thing. We're talking, essentially, 15 minutes of pure backstory here. And you expect him to get every single detail right on the first viewing. How much did you catch the second time that you didn't the first?

You quote: "the governing body found itself at war with a rebellious element that is somewhat reluctant to be controlled"

The Alliance, in the present Firefly-verse, is the governing body. See references to parliment later in the film. They found themselves at war with people who disagreed with them. Sounds to me like a rebellious element, and they were certainly reluctant to eb controlled. Again, you're criticizing him for not having information that's really only present in the series.

I think if you read the rest of the review, you'll find it pretty honest. And what you had problems with, also pretty honest, considering he's a non-fan seeing it for the first time. It's a positive review, after all.

"You are on the Global Frequency."
http://www.frequencysite.com
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:30 PM

DONCOAT

My thoughts on your thoughts on his thoughts:

"Horny ship's engineer" works fine if you consider "Ship's Engineer" to be a job title.

He did miss the detail that Mal didn't help rescue Simon and River, and that they'd been aboard for eight months (or was Mal confused about how long it actually was?)

He did, however, notice that Zoe and Wash were married, something that not everyone picked up on (if unfamiliar with Firefly).

"The Serenity" does grate, but it's an easy slip for someone who hasn't heard Inara correct that error.

Funny, I never got the impression that Mal broke the Operative's back -- dislocated shoulders, or maybe broken arms, but not the back.

I don't get the feeling that the reviewer intended to imply that Serenity copped the hand-held CGI idea from BSG. Reads to me as though he's giving a point of reference for those familar with that show.

All in all, I agree with those who say this was a positive review by someone who'd never been exposed to our 'verse -- and that's a good thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.

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

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:10 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Barclay:
Let's say you watch the movie once. The point, then, is not to derive as much cannoncal information as possible to debate on message boards (or put in your review), it's to give your readers enough of a basis of the premise and what the movie's about in order to make a determination themselves if they want to see it.

And you don't think it disrespects the readers to have the first third of that premise be totally untrue?

Quote:
And you expect him to get every single detail right on the first viewing.

Actually, no.

But I do think that when a reviewer says that people left Ireland in the 1840s because of a devastating war, instead of lack of food, that person isn't a reliable source. I don't care if it was only mentioned in a sentence of exposition at the start of a movie about a young man descended from Irish immigrants and his struggles in the American Civil War, if the reviewer doesn't have a clue about what was going on he should respect the readers enough to shut up (or go again to find out) instead of lie.

I also don't think some should say Alexander the Great defeated a rebel army at the Granicus River. If the person is a movie reviewer and the movie is set six years later (by then Alexander does rule Persia) and it is explicitly stated that Alexander didn't rule Persia AT THE TIME of the battle I certainly don't think the person should say it.

I don't think they should do that because in addition to being untrue it creates an expectation of the movie that is not followed. The American South in the Civil War that Firefly is modeled on was not a rebellious element but a full fledged, though almost entirely unrecognized, nation. To my knowledge no rebellious element has ever had an outcome anything like what we see in Firefly or post Civil War history in the US.

Defeated rebellious elements are not the same, if someone actually pays attention to the review they'll get the impression the Browncoats were either what would have happened if Hippies from Kent State finally said, "Enough is enough," got guns, and tried to organize, fringe militia groups in Wyoming declared independance, or what the Kurds are like now.

That is a broad range, a very broad range in fact, but do any of them seem right to you? The movie shows people who were crushed, to be crushed you have to be whole first, to lose your home you need to have one.

Quote:
The Alliance, in the present Firefly-verse, is the governing body. See references to parliment later in the film. They found themselves at war with people who disagreed with them. Sounds to me like a rebellious element, and they were certainly reluctant to eb controlled.

Hence my Alexander and Persia example, the movie clearly states at the start that the Alliance never governed the planets that refused its control until after the war. So if the Browncoats were rebels that means that Darius was a rebel, and India, before it was taken over by Britain, was not a nation but a rebellion (god knows what it is now, perhaps Britain is the rebellious faction now), ancient Israel was a rebellious faction until such time as the Romans conquered it, and so on.

Basically any conquered nation would need to be considered in rebellion for its entire history up until it was conquered. That means that any nation that does conquer another has been the legitimate ruler forever. Incredible way of thinking. The only nation that isn't in rebellion is one that will never be taken over, and since we can't see the future we can't ensure that no nation will be, so we might as well say that there are no legitimate governments on the planet.

Quote:
Again, you're criticizing him for not having information that's really only present in the series.

Am I? I'm trying to think of when in the series it said that the earth got used up. I mean on the DVDs in the show itself is it ever stated anywhere near as explicitly as in the movie?

Also, it says in the series that the Alliance tried to rule the outer planets but is the series as explicit about the fact that they never ruled them and never had the illusion of ruling them as the movie?

Quote:
I think if you read the rest of the review, you'll find it pretty honest.

Let’s say he didn’t make a single mistake in the rest of the review, which from what I’ve scanned (but not read in depth), is not true. If that is the case the sentence:

One plus one is three, three plus three is six, six plus six is twelve.

is equally honest. Do you want someone who says that to be a math teacher?

I’m not the only one who thinks this stuff is important HE thought the opening exposition that he got completely wrong was important enough to make up a full third of the review.

Quote:
It's a positive review, after all.

I know, but I'm not such a shallow ass that I’ll say, "Its ok to disrespect your readers so long as I like what you're telling them." You don't think he was being disrespectful, I do. I'm not going to drop my standards just because someone gives a message I like. The guy decided that he was right for the job of a reviewer, that means he has a responsibility to actually review the movie. Not some alternate version that exists entirely in his head.

-

If he made exactly the same mistakes but gave a negative review instead would you still support him? I'm guessing you would because I don't think you're shallow either. So here's what I don't get: why even bring up whether the review was positive or negative?

-

Just to repeat, in case someone missed it:

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Still, I am happy the guy liked it.

The thing is that that doesn't mean I'm happy he made an inaccurate review.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE