Bad Firefly Review at Amazon! by rklenseth

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Bad Firefly Review at Amazon!

POSTED BY: RKLENSETH
UPDATED: Thursday, November 4, 2004 08:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 20349
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, March 19, 2004 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Those who don't vote..don't deserve to complain or commend the status of our country.

You know, people say this all of the time, and to me it is all about silencing those who do not wish to support the status quo. I happen to vote (so apparently, I am qualified or deserving to discuss this), but it is a struggle for me each time. Not a struggle to decide between the lesser of two evils (i.e. one of the republicrats pre-ordained to win), but whether to vote at all. Why? Because by voting I am legitimizing the systems in place that determine who gets on the ballot. I don't have the same standing to complain about the duly elected government or politician because by my very participation in the system I have demonstrated my confidence in that system.

Obviously, I don't have confidence in that system. Who are the DNC and the RNC? Who do they answer to? Not me! But they work together to prevent those who do care about what I think from threatening their power - refusing to acknowledge them as legitimate candidates, refusing from participating in debates with them, etc. They install prohibitive ballot access laws to make it extremely costly in both money and manpower to get on the ballot. Even Nader was not on the ballot in all 50 states.

In the end, I vote. I write in, or vote for the "3rd" party candidate who busted his/her butt to get on the ballot. I compromise my beliefs a little, lest my decision to abstain be construed as apathy. But I always feel a little dirty!

A common piece of parenting advice: When you need to get a toddler dressed in the morning, don't ask him what shirt he wants to wear, ask him if he wants to wear the red shirt or the blue shirt. This allows him to feel like he has control of the situation, but you still have ultimate control over what he is wearing.

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

Friday, March 19, 2004 12:33 PM

BUTTERFLY043

How backward is that Firefly review? It just doesn't make sense.

But I've read a few reviews like that and it occurs to me that you have to be terribly politically correct today in order to please most people. People like this reviewer have no idea how to seperate fantasy from reality for a start. And I really don't think Firefly is violent, certainly not gratuitously so.

When the movie comes out hopefully it will turn people on to the appeal of the show.

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

Saturday, March 20, 2004 11:35 AM

LTNOWIS

Quote:
Saddam financed the SOB's who took out the Trade Center, I think he got off easy.

Actually, he didn't. Osama bin Laden hated Hussein. See, Hussein was a secular ruler, who let women not wear headscarves and be WMD researchers, contrary to bin Laden's fundamentalist beliefs. Prior to the war, Bush and his implied he was connected, and said their was some evidence. And then of course there was the great song "Have You Forgotten." Eventually, even Bush admitted there was no connection between Saddam and Al-quada.

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

Saturday, March 20, 2004 5:48 PM

RADAR75

ANYWAYS Stepping away from the P word for a second, I think people are too quick to compare Firefly and the Civil War. Firefly's war "Was to unite all the planet's under one rule", IE conquest. The Civil was was about maintaining what already was. People obviously get the conection from "The Train Job", which is sad, cause you can kinda tell Joss didn't want to write that, but he had to lowest common denominator (Regular FOX veiwers) to get his show on the air.

Anyways, people should jsut take some time to think about it.

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

Saturday, March 20, 2004 6:55 PM

PEACE

Deleted my post...not on topic....

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

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

Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:09 AM

BRITCHICK

Whilst I don't agree with the woman's view, she *IS* entitled to her own opinion.

Freedom of speech is about defending peoples right to say what they believe, without necessarily agreeing with what they say.

Looking at what she has written - and that she talks about a lot of violence, which actually is not the case in many episodes - its my belief that she has watched only one episode and has evaluated the whole series based on that one episode.

Making a big deal of her comments - and resorting to name calling of her and her town - actually reflects very badly on us. Makes us seem like spoilt children who stamp their feet and get nasty when they don't get their own way (imho) :)

Like fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Why not donate?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Sunday, March 21, 2004 5:01 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Quote:
Originally posted by britchick:
Whilst I don't agree with the woman's view, she *IS* entitled to her own opinion.

No one's gonna argue with that, but the question has to be why did she bother to take the time to write a negative review? Why should she have cared what other people like and want to see?

There are quite a few films and tv shows that I don't care for, but the last thing I would do would be to go on amazon or imdb and try to tell someone else they are stupid (or politically incorrect) for liking them.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

Sunday, March 21, 2004 5:51 AM

ECMORGAN69

Right On! It would most definitely take the wind out of the sails of the two major parties. It would be nice to see a political campaign cost less than "Titanic" again

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

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

Monday, March 22, 2004 5:09 AM

CONNORFLYNN

"You know, people say this all of the time, and to me it is all about silencing those who do not wish to support the status quo."

The only people being silenced are the ones who choose to be silenced. If you don't vote..you don't speak. I don't see any thugs, at our polling areas, standing there with a baseball bat to silence you if you don't choose to vote Republican or Democrat. There are a number of options when voting.

My point, regarding opinions about our government from people who refuse to vote or take part in the election process, is that the Current(I doubt it will change very soon) electoral process is the ONLY way we as citizens get a say regarding who our elected officials are. Followed by lobbying and letter writing campaigns. How can you be taken seriously when you complain or commend if you don't take part? I find it saddening that there are people in our country who take a defeatist attitude towards the process in general. If you don't like it..move to change it. Change doesn't come from people sitting back in silence. Nor does change come from a defeatist mentality. Those who feel that they have no choice..haven't looked at all their options. Write-ins being one of them.

My 2cps

PS.. I agree.. the whole campaign process is way too long. After week 4 you know what the candidates are going to say before they say it.

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

Monday, March 22, 2004 2:13 PM

SPLIBERTARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
"You know, people say this all of the time, and to me it is all about silencing those who do not wish to support the status quo."

The only people being silenced are the ones who choose to be silenced. If you don't vote..you don't speak. I don't see any thugs, at our polling areas, standing there with a baseball bat to silence you if you don't choose to vote Republican or Democrat. There are a number of options when voting.

Voting is voting, speech is speech.

In your original post you stated:
Those who don't vote..don't deserve to complain or commend the status of our country.

That is the silencing I am talking about. Formally known as an abstention, the decision to not vote is just as valid as the decision to vote. Either way, it does not forfeit one's right to have opinions and express those opinions about the status of our country.

Quote:

My point, regarding opinions about our government from people who refuse to vote or take part in the election process, is that the Current(I doubt it will change very soon) electoral process...

The "current electoral process" is constantly changing. The campaign finance reform act that recently passed (often referred to as the Incumbent Protection Act) has changed the process by restricting our 1st Amendment rights within 60 days of an election. There are constant challenges to burdensome ballot access laws that succeed - for instance, in Virginia, a person circulating a presidential candidate ballot petition is no longer required to live in the same or adjacent county as the signer. Also in Virginia, a court ruling now requires that "3rd party" candidates who have achieved ballot status get labeled with the letter that corresponds with their party ("g" for Greens; "l" for Libertarians, etc.) instead of with an "i" (lumping all as independents).

Quote:
...is the ONLY way we as citizens get a say regarding who our elected officials are. Followed by lobbying and letter writing campaigns.

Clearly voting is not the "only" way we get a say if it is followed by lobbying and letter writing, and let's not forget money. I would agree that it is an important way, perhaps even a primary way, but abstaining can also be used as a way of expressing one's beliefs.

Quote:
How can you be taken seriously when you complain or commend if you don't take part?

Seeing as how we have established that voting is one of many ways one can take part, I hope it is clearer how I can expect non-voters to be taken seriously.

::::::::::::
The Constitution may not be perfect...
but it's better than what we've got now.
::::::::::::

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:54 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Hehehe.. Okies..

We can get into defining who and when why someone gets a say. It's along the same lines as and I'll quote a famous US president "That all depends on what the definition of "IS" is."

If you don't vote..you DON'T get a say as to who gets elected period. It doesn't matter how many letters you write or how much money you throw at some political cause, You still don't get a say in who is elected. This of course applies to every portion of government. If you don't vote, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that you also don't A) provide monetary support to any political group. B) You don't write letters to your politicians C) You don't do Write-ins, after all..if your not voting, you're not there to do a write-in.

Quote:
The "current electoral process" is constantly changing. The campaign finance reform act that recently passed (often referred to as the Incumbent Protection Act) has changed the process by restricting our 1st Amendment rights within 60 days of an election. There are constant challenges to burdensome ballot access laws that succeed - for instance, in Virginia, a person circulating a presidential candidate ballot petition is no longer required to live in the same or adjacent county as the signer.

The Electoral Process hasn't changed. The process leading up to the electoral process has had reforms. IMHO campaign finance reforms have been a long time coming. BTW that lgislation was passed in 2002..not recently at all really. As a whole..the integral running of the Electoral process remains unchanged. I don't recall and I may have missed it in my reading, where do soft money donations appear or rather where are they defined under the 1st ammendment of free speech?

Quote:
Also in Virginia, a court ruling now requires that "3rd party" candidates who have achieved ballot status get labeled with the letter that corresponds with their party ("g" for Greens; "l" for Libertarians, etc.) instead of with an "i" (lumping all as independents.

ROFLMAO.. your point being? If you aren't backed by a specific party..you are then an Independent (thus the definition of an independent. If you are an enviromental activist you fall under the Green Party etc..etc.. It is a way for folks who don't necessarily know who or what platform the candidate stands upon when they enetr the polling booth, to easily ascertain a general idea of where that politician stands.

Also..how does this affect the Electoral process?

Quote:
Those who don't vote..don't deserve to complain or commend the status of our country.

That is the silencing I am talking about. Formally known as an abstention, the decision to not vote is just as valid as the decision to vote. Either way, it does not forfeit one's right to have opinions and express those opinions about the status of our country.

Alright alright , I'll clarify.. Those who don't vote won't be listened to by anyone, except maybe by those who join them in their abstention whine fest. It's kind of like those people strapping themselves to a building that is set to be bombed..then crying foul when they get blown up.

Personally , I find those who are "Conscientious objectors" or "Rage against the Man" or "Anti-establishment" laughable. I also cannot take them seriously. I refuse to take them seriously. Those who complain about the system, but don't do something to change it, are merely prolonging their own discontent. The decision not to vote, again..IMHO is truly a banal and lazy way of approaching politics. Personally, if you don't vote or take part, you don't have a rhetorical right in my eyes to bitch about the status of the country, after all what did you do to change it? Opinions are like...well I'm sure you know the rest.. hehe. Opinions never got anyone anywhere. Except maybe grumpy hehe.

PS..sorry to have hijacked this thread.

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:05 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lunatikat:
Dear Browncoat1,
Couldn't remember if I ever said thanks. THANK YOU VER' MUCH!

lunatikat - at home with the stars (cuz flaming gas bags ARE my peeps)

No problem Lunatikat, that's what we Browncoats are for.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:19 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Quote:
Originally posted by britchick:
Whilst I don't agree with the woman's view, she *IS* entitled to her own opinion.

No arguing that point BritChick because you are 100% right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong, informed or uninformed.

Quote:
Freedom of speech is about defending peoples right to say what they believe, without necessarily agreeing with what they say.

Agreed. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest rights we have as a people. Of course that same right allows people to disagree w/ whatever someone might say, in a manner and wording of their own choosing.

Quote:
Looking at what she has written - and that she talks about a lot of violence, which actually is not the case in many episodes - its my belief that she has watched only one episode and has evaluated the whole series based on that one episode.

I agree w/ your assessment that the reviewer has only seen one episode and written her review based on what little she saw of the show.

I find it irresponsible for a person to take the time and go to the effort to write a review, then the person should take the time to watch the entire set and then make an informed and unbiased review based off of the quality of the show, not from political leanings one way or the other.

This person obviously watched the one episode she did going into it w/ a slanted view and the preconceived notion that the show would not be a good one. It is hard to write a helpful review for a series if you are already convinced it is not worth watching.

Quote:
Making a big deal of her comments - and resorting to name calling of her and her town - actually reflects very badly on us. Makes us seem like spoilt children who stamp their feet and get nasty when they don't get their own way (imho) :)

I agree. Name calling, and making fun of her town do not make us appear to hold the higher moral ground, but people are passionate about this show. Passionate people tend to let slip the reins of reason when something they care for is attacked. Yes, attacked. That is what this review is in light, and attack on the quality of the show, and the people behind it.

I do not say that passion excuses name calling, but it gives an understanding into the behavior. Personally I would like to see her comments picked apart intelligently and comments on her character or hometown left to the imagination.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:44 AM

CONNORFLYNN

There is the ability to rate the review as well hehe. If enough of us say it wasn't helpful at all..it will disappear into nothingness.

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:14 AM

ASIA

Everybody's got the right of free speech, but this is pushing it.

Edited, because I'm just to slow to keep up with the comments.
"She who cries a lot"

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:46 PM

SPLIBERTARIAN

Attn: ALL INNOCENTS

PLEASE DISREGARD THE FOLLOWING HIJACKED THREAD

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Hehehe.. Okies..

We can get into defining who and when why someone gets a say. It's along the same lines as and I'll quote a famous US president "That all depends on what the definition of "IS" is."

If you don't vote..you DON'T get a say as to who gets elected period. It doesn't matter how many letters you write or how much money you throw at some political cause, You still don't get a say in who is elected.

Perhaps, but even if you do vote you don't get that much say, especially since you have such little control over who the viable choices are in the first place.

Quote:
This of course applies to every portion of government. If you don't vote, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that you also don't A) provide monetary support to any political group. B) You don't write letters to your politicians C) You don't do Write-ins, after all..if your not voting, you're not there to do a write-in.

I imagine that the majority of folks who don't vote also don't do A, B, or C. I am trying to point out, however, that there are plenty who do (A and B, at least). As for write-ins, the candidate you are writing in has to be pre-registered in order for your write-in vote to be counted, so all of those folks voting for Donald Duck every year may as well have not shown up anyhow.

Quote:

Quote:
The "current electoral process" is constantly changing. The campaign finance reform act that recently passed (often referred to as the Incumbent Protection Act) has changed the process by restricting our 1st Amendment rights within 60 days of an election. There are constant challenges to burdensome ballot access laws that succeed - for instance, in Virginia, a person circulating a presidential candidate ballot petition is no longer required to live in the same or adjacent county as the signer.

The Electoral Process hasn't changed. The process leading up to the electoral process has had reforms.

Ok, definition of "is' and all... When I refer to the electoral process, I mean it to include all aspects of said process, including things like primaries and ballot access petitioning.

Quote:
IMHO campaign finance reforms have been a long time coming. BTW that lgislation was passed in 2002..not recently at all really.

Pretty recent legislatively speaking - there hasn't even been a presidential election since its passage.

Quote:
As a whole..the integral running of the Electoral process remains unchanged. I don't recall and I may have missed it in my reading, where do soft money donations appear or rather where are they defined under the 1st ammendment of free speech?

Under that legislation it is illegal for me to pool my resources with other like minded individuals to air a commercial on relevant issues within 60 days of an election. That is, if nothing else, a restriction of my political speech - I can say whatever I want, so long as it is not via the most influential media outlet available.

Quote:

Quote:
Also in Virginia, a court ruling now requires that "3rd party" candidates who have achieved ballot status get labeled with the letter that corresponds with their party ("g" for Greens; "l" for Libertarians, etc.) instead of with an "i" (lumping all as independents.

ROFLMAO.. your point being? If you aren't backed by a specific party..you are then an Independent (thus the definition of an independent. If you are an enviromental activist you fall under the Green Party etc..etc.. It is a way for folks who don't necessarily know who or what platform the candidate stands upon when they enetr the polling booth, to easily ascertain a general idea of where that politician stands.

This was one of three examples I put forth to demonstrate how the electoral process (i.e. the many processes involved in the election of government officials) is constantly changing - independent of whether or not these changes are positive. This particular example, and the one preceding it, were hard won positive changes that even people who do not vote put time in to accomplish. You explain the logic of labeling candidates on the ballot with their party affiliations, but up until recently, "3rd" party candidates were denied that ability. What is significant is that this change was not accomplished at the ballot box.

Quote:
Also..how does this affect the Electoral process?

I think your asking how the labeling issue affects the electoral process? By adding another barrier to "3rd" party affiliated candidates. Republicans were labeled as Republicans, Democrats as Democrats, Independents as Independents, Greens as Independents, Libertarians as Independents, Communists as Independents. The bias there is obvious. While I would prefer there be no labels (thus requiring voters to know at least the name of their chosen candidate), to label some accurately and mislabel others puts those mislabeled at a disadvantage.

Quote:

Quote:
Those who don't vote..don't deserve to complain or commend the status of our country.

That is the silencing I am talking about. Formally known as an abstention, the decision to not vote is just as valid as the decision to vote. Either way, it does not forfeit one's right to have opinions and express those opinions about the status of our country.

Alright alright , I'll clarify.. Those who don't vote won't be listened to by anyone, except maybe by those who join them in their abstention whine fest. It's kind of like those people strapping themselves to a building that is set to be bombed..then crying foul when they get blown up.

Personally , I find those who are "Conscientious objectors" or "Rage against the Man" or "Anti-establishment" laughable. I also cannot take them seriously. I refuse to take them seriously. Those who complain about the system, but don't do something to change it, are merely prolonging their own discontent. The decision not to vote, again..IMHO is truly a banal and lazy way of approaching politics. Personally, if you don't vote or take part, you don't have a rhetorical right in my eyes to bitch about the status of the country, after all what did you do to change it? Opinions are like...well I'm sure you know the rest.. hehe. Opinions never got anyone anywhere. Except maybe grumpy hehe.

I totally respect your feelings and decisions about whose opinions you wish to entertain. My main concern is that you not base those decisions on the false assumption that all non-voters are lazy, apathetic whiners. There are those who do not vote who are politically active, who do work hard to change the system, and who might have something to say that is worth hearing.

I'm not arguing that people should not vote; as I stated in my first post, I do vote. I am simply trying to explain what I see as a wholly justifiable reason for not voting - i.e. the conviction that many of the processes involved are biased and unfair. If one does not agree with the terms of an agreement, it is perfectly reasonable for one to not enter into that agreement, as that would require acceptance of those terms. That is not laziness, defeatism or apathy, it is integrity.

Quote:
PS..sorry to have hijacked this thread.

Yeah, my apologies too...

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:31 PM

THEFOP

Inspired, I went to amazon.ca and checked out the reviews for myself (incidentally, you can get firefly DVDs for something like 49 bucks Canadian there. ) I found this one

"the good, the bad, and the ugly, March 13, 2004
Reviewer: A customer from MN USA
I caught only one episode of this show when it aired and didn't bother with it again (frankly, the prostitute character was what turned me off the first time around). Desperate for a scifi show, I thought I'd give it another chance and bought the series DVDs. What I got was a little bit of good (great writing and characters), the bad (the western riff is really tired. Hasn't anyone figured that out yet?), and the offensively ugly (the prostitute who spends time with both the guys and the gals-- yuck). To put this bluntly, there are precious few scifi shows out there, and I can't get into this one because I can't watch it with my kids. You screwed up on this one people, which was a shame. If you had cleaned up the act a bit, you might have had a better, and longer running, show. Fox did the merciful thing when they shot this pony in the head. "

This person pisses me off. He/she doesn't want to watch firefly with his/her kids, which I can respect. It's kind a violent show, a little scary at times, maybe not the thing for the young ones. But she (for the sake of ease, I've decided it's a woman) doesn't list that as a reason. Instead, she complains about one of the characters being a prostitute (which also may not be the thing for kids, if you're wanting to shelter them) who has bisexual tendencies. Seems to be the bisexual tendencies that get to her.

One of the great things about firefly, I thought WAS that Inara "spends time with the girls". Nobody on the show seems to have a problem with it, and THAT bespeaks something that I would like to see: a world without homophobia. And now we have this closedminded homophobe bashing what is frankly one of the greatest things I've ever watched because of it!!!!!

_________
once the snow got so deep you almost couldn't hear margaret atwood

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:02 PM

RKLENSETH

Actually that woman updated her review and said she thought the show was excellent but that she was turned off by the sleazy prositute character and that she was only used to overshadow the really bad cliches in the show.

But most parents won't see a movie unless they can see it with their kids these days. That is why most of the top ten blockbusters are PG or G rated kid's movies. The rest are great PG-13 movies and then there is Titantic at #1 which is a mystery to me since I thought it wasn't all that good. Notes there isn't one rated R movie in the top 10 blockbusters.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

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

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:06 PM

THEFOP

that the case? Then I mostly retract, although I'm still pissed that she doesn't like Inara

once the snow got so deep you almost couldn't hear margaret atwood

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

Friday, April 2, 2004 3:27 PM

CONANTHEBARBIE

Quote:
Originally posted by thefop:
"the good, the bad, and the ugly, March 13, 2004
Reviewer: A customer from MN USA
I caught only one episode of this show when it aired and didn't bother with it again (frankly, the prostitute character was what turned me off the first time around). Desperate for a scifi show, I thought I'd give it another chance and bought the series DVDs. What I got was a little bit of good (great writing and characters), the bad (the western riff is really tired. Hasn't anyone figured that out yet?), and the offensively ugly (the prostitute who spends time with both the guys and the gals-- yuck). To put this bluntly, there are precious few scifi shows out there, and I can't get into this one because I can't watch it with my kids. You screwed up on this one people, which was a shame. If you had cleaned up the act a bit, you might have had a better, and longer running, show. Fox did the merciful thing when they shot this pony in the head. "

Okay, this review I can't fault. She has an opinion that is somewhat objective - whether we agree with her or not.

Seeing reviews like hers make me fairly certain that we must start a cult. People with young children need a support network. We could provide her with that and brainwash her into watching Firefly at the same time! (did I get carried away?)

-------------------------------------
"Play nice with the other kids...unless one of the other kids wanna fight; then you have to kick the other kids' butt."
-Mushu in "Mulan"

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

Friday, April 2, 2004 4:59 PM

ANKHAGOGO

Quote:
Originally posted by ConanTheBarbie:
Quote:
Reviewer: A customer from MN USA
I caught only one episode of this show when it aired and didn't bother with it again (frankly, the prostitute character was what turned me off the first time around). Desperate for a scifi show, I thought I'd give it another chance and bought the series DVDs. What I got was a little bit of good (great writing and characters), the bad (the western riff is really tired. Hasn't anyone figured that out yet?

I find it hysterically funny that she considers the "western riff really tired", when the sci-fi riff is just as old as the western one. Jules Verne, anyone?

Quote:
To put this bluntly, there are precious few scifi shows out there, and I can't get into this one because I can't watch it with my kids.

Here again I'll state my opinion that Firefly is not primarily a sci-fi show, but a western one. I could get into my whole issues with parents who tailor their lives around what is kid-appropriate and desert their own interests, but, as she's got perfectly valid on-topic reasons for not liking the show, I'll spare you.

"So...would his job be available?"

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

Friday, April 2, 2004 5:19 PM

ANKHAGOGO

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
To see her uninformed opinion on Mal is laughable. She obviously did not grasp the character concept or the inner struggle of Mal. She obviously went into this biased and simply put down her limited view on the net.

Weirdly, I understand the "he's a bad guy who thinks he's a good guy" as a complaint.

Lots and lots of people do not like characters in their entertainment to be grey. They want it black and white, and occasionally, as a change, white and black.
Core characters on Whedon shows aren't black and white. Oh,sure, you got your definite bad guys -- Niska,The Mayor, Wolfram & Hart, but Whedon likes to spend most of his time playing with the various shades of grey. It's what I love about all three shows, but large numbers of people don't want to have to decide whether a character is "really" good or not. They want to be told "that's a bad guy, and
that's a good guy." Whedon ain't gonna tell you -- in fact, he's gonna gleefully lead you all over the 'verse hoping to confuse what you think you've figured out.

I understand on an intellectual level that some people don't like that, I just don't understand the why of it. It's so much more fun to dissect a character's possible psyche.

"So...would his job be available?"

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

Friday, April 2, 2004 5:32 PM

DRACOS

Ahh, shove her in the engine nacelle... Its really kind of sad when you're so wrapped up in your veiw of the world that you cant just stop with not enjoying something but have to force your opinion down others throats as well.

I've always been a big fan of veiwing books and film objectively and leaving each person to find their own meaning in it which is why it's always bothered me when people use online reveiws to flount their political and social ideals, if you didnt like it say so and move along, its not an excuse to cry facist.

"Ooh, look at me! I have opinions!"

-Dracos

Dont ask me silly questions.
I wont play silly games.
--------------------------------------------------
Somebody tries to kill you you go ahead and try to kill them right on back!

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

Friday, April 2, 2004 7:48 PM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Quote:
Oh,sure, you got your definite bad guys -- Niska, The Mayor, Wolfram & Hart, but Whedon likes to spend most of his time playing with the various shades of grey.

I think you're right on except that both the Mayor and W&H weren't completely bad (although they certainly viewed themselves that way), and I don't doubt we would've seen something that bears at least a vague resemblance to decency in Niska if we'd seen him again. The Mayor sincerely cared about Faith like a daughter, and various employees of W&H have actually acted selflessly on occasion (Lindsey being the most obvious one.)

So, yeah, very very very dark gray, but not entirely black. And that's what makes me love Joss's shows: the good guys aren't entirely good, and, even keeping in mind that it's easier to be bad, the bad guys aren't entirely bad.

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

Friday, April 2, 2004 8:27 PM

RKLENSETH

There is a new bad Firefly review. Someone bitching about that Firefly was anti-religion and that it never had a chance because of that. He hated the fact that Mal and some others (namely River and the whole Bible scene likely) kept degrading religion. I thought that was pretty much counter balanced with Shepard Book. Plus, I can see why Mal and some of others wouldn't like religion all that much or not care because of what happened to them or what lives they lead so it makes sense to me.

Plus with a bad review about it being anti-religious, Conservative propaganda, and sleazy porn I think this proves the point about the greyness above. That is what is so great about Firefly is that there are so many things going on at once that it is almost impossible to view it from just one viewpoint. Plus, this leads to viewing it over and over again and always finding something new about it.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

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

Saturday, April 3, 2004 2:18 AM

OUTLANDER

Is it just me or are all the negative review of Firefly at Amazon.com done by Crazy People?

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

Saturday, April 3, 2004 7:17 AM

JOHNCLARK

Quote:
Originally posted by outlander:
Is it just me or are all the negative review of Firefly at Amazon.com done by Crazy People?

No, it's not just you ;)

The Amazon UK reviewers seem to like it a lot (Good taste I guess)

Experience has taught me that interest begets expectation, and expectation begets disappointment, so the key to avoiding disappointment is to avoid interest. A=B=C=A, or whatever

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

Saturday, April 3, 2004 9:29 PM

ZORIAH

I guess I'm weird but I always saw Mal as a good man who thinks he's a bad man. I was lucky enough to see Serenity first and I totally loved his character, his loss of faith and disillusionment at being abandoned on the battlefield, his determination to defy the Alliance in myriad little ways. His dour mean streak which is turned upside down whenever Kaylee smiles at him. His fierce protectiveness of his people.

Mal has many layers and for me is a fascinating and sympathetic character.

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

Sunday, April 4, 2004 6:15 AM

EMBERS

Wow, this person really didn't understand the show if this is what she thought she saw! In fact I'm thinking she reviewed the dust jacket without actually watching even the pilot episode! Because clearly the Brown Coats were fighting against a corporate/military Alliance which is NOT democracy at work...

Oh the confusion and disinformation in her review is just insane. And luckily the vast majority of people who actually watch the show 'get it'

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

Sunday, April 4, 2004 8:03 AM

ANKHAGOGO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Quote:
I think you're right on except that both the Mayor and W&H weren't completely bad (although they certainly viewed themselves that way), and I don't doubt we would've seen something that bears at least a vague resemblance to decency in Niska if we'd seen him again. The Mayor sincerely cared about Faith like a daughter, and various employees of W&H have actually acted selflessly on occasion (Lindsey being the most obvious one.)

He may not have been 100 proof pure EVIL (more like 97%, 98%) but the Mayor was a definite,easily identifiable bad guy, no matter how he cared for Faith.
And Lindsey was more the exception to the W&H "we're evil and proud of it" rule. I always liked Lindsey because he seemed so conflicted, but honestly, deep down I never believed he would leave the dark side. But he did definitely have his moments of decency. You know, until he came back into town all tattooed up.

"So...would his job be available?"

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

Monday, November 1, 2004 7:48 PM

ELIZD

Howdy, I am the author of this evil

Amazon review! I found this thread while googling my name and got a serious kick out of your replies. I'm dumb as a post because I didn't warm to your favorite show, hmmm? I must have only watched one episode? Actually my boyfriend has the DVD set and I watched at least half the episodes with him. Some of the posts pointed out specific episodes which were indeed among those that rubbed me the wrong way.

Indeed I am a liberal, though one reared by Texas conservatives and transplanted to Wisconsin only recently. Some people speculated or outright asserted that I must have loopy political views. No, I don't think so, I see the teachings of Jesus as radically liberal (recall the word's connotations of generosity, freedom and tolerance), but most of us will agree they aren't loopy. It was worth writing the review to have stimulated your political discussion. Calling Firefly "right wing" was vague and while I knew what I was driving at it seems not to have "read" to those who didn't include right-leaning libertarians in that category--the kind of people who value civil liberties and individualism, are suspicious of government and especially the United Nations, love their guns, and believe deeply in caring for family but typically feel a weaker commitment to their community and social justice. This was what I saw in Mal and the Firefly gang, and to me Whedon was associating that particular style of modern politics (common in the South) with the Confederate mentality. I don't think there's any arguing about the Confederate holdout theme in the Firefly premise, which I got from credible sources, for instance here: http://www.scifidimensions.com/Sep02/firefly.htm

Much of my negative reaction to the show was a disagreement with these implicit politics (which probably jump out in much higher relief for me than for most), though you could also argue that the show explores these political/social attitudes in an interesting and sometimes critical way. Incidentally I don't mean to say at all that I deplore or shun people in real life with this political style, I try to respect them and of course they can be good people. But I have a different perspective and a partly different set of ideals. Another part of my negative reaction is, as I mentioned, to the violence--I'm a nonviolent person and to me it can be disturbing to see it as a sort of amoral dramatic dimension.

Do you still want to say rude things about me? Knock yerselves out! I may or may not remember to come back to check for replies.

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

Monday, November 1, 2004 10:08 PM

IZCHAN

Well ... I have been trying to get people to watch firefly, and you know what? Not everyone like it.

Some don't because they don't understand it. Some because they don't agree with it. And thats mighty fine. everyone have their own opinions. Same like the war in Iraq. Too many people with too many answers to questions that was never asked.

And at the end of the day, the only one that matters is the one who wins at the end. :) ... that is what the world is now. And our GDH does the same thing. When he is in a rush, he solves his problems the fastest more effective way he knows, he takes the obstacle away. Which is what he did in the pilot episode by shooting the agent. He did the same thing nisca's man by kicking the guy into the engine. Its his way. And he gets things done.

And the lady that wrote that review just had her own opinion. If she dislike it, then she is welocme to dislike as much as she wants. She is also welcomed to tell others that she did not like it. That is what we all want isn't it? The freedom to express ourselves? That's the reason why there is war in Iraq rite?

Of course I did not like the words in which she used to express herself, but it is her rite. You can say that it is our rite to express our feelings too, and you will be correct. But let me ask you this, would this change anything at all? Would our "grievances" make her change her view? Will it bring firefly back? I can only sadly say no. And frankly, I would not have it any other way.

One of the major attraction to firefly (to me) is that it is not yet finish. And it will never trully be. That gives it more room to grow and then any other show, because it has yet to be written in stone. We can let our imaginations fill it up and what a beutiful world that will be.

If joss were to start writing novels on firely, I believe that he would be surprise on how much support he will be getting.

There are much better things to do than to argue about one persons view on firefly, why make them so important? Put ur efforts on the important things. Donuts for instance are important. :)

We let people form their own opinions on things. And faith will do the rest. Have faith in firefly, she might not look like much but she will take us to our dream.

Go watch Object in Space. It would calm you down.

:) ... keep flying.

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

Monday, November 1, 2004 10:10 PM

SASJA

Hey ElizD, and welcome to fireflyfans! It's not every day we have the opportunity to discuss with a true and polite disliker of our favorite show - it's a pleasure. I do hope you'll come back to check out the responses which I doubt will be unpleasant. Anyway, onto the topic. When I read your review at amazon, I indeed thought you had catched only a small sampling of the show which must have given you a wrong impression, as I think the undertones are very liberal.

Joss Whedon is, as we all know here, very liberal himself - check out his support Kerry campaign: [url] http://www.highstakes2004.com/ and especially his personal comment on the importance of elections: [url] http://whedonesque.com/?comments=5133#38839. From his artistic productions, themes like female empowerment, tolerance and gay love may also give away that this man is not right wing. So it would be strange if the implicit politics in one of his series were.

I don't think the premiss "freedom fighters against evil empire" is enough to classify the show either way. And while I enjoy a good action movie, I'm against guns - ban them from reality, but not from a good movie! While I see and acknowledge your point about Mal having similarities to some people I disagree very strongly with when it comes to politics, remember that this is sort of a period drama. It's back from the time of the Westerns when the world was expanding. Back from when it made a whole lot more sense to carry a gun. If you look closely, I think you'll see that Mal (and the show) indeed cares a lot about social justice (for instance The Trainjob).

Ok, so I've tried to make my point that in fact Firefly does not have right wing leanings - feel free to point out evidence to the contrary and let's get a good discussion going while we wait for the election results

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

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 2:05 PM

EBONEZER

... then you think to yourself 'its just TV! We should really just relax!'

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

Four out of five dentists reccomend calling Ebo a girl.

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

Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:32 AM

DESROKO

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:

And might I point out that the Confederates during the American Civil War were considered Liberal while the North was considered very Conservative.

This is a very interesting thread, but unfortunately I don't hae time to write an in-depth post. I do have time to point out that this person is completely off his nut. The Confederates were deeply committed conservatives while most of the Republicans and a good chunk of gthe Democrats during this period were liberal. Abe Lincoln himself was a bit of a social democrat.

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

Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:33 AM

DESROKO

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:

And might I point out that the Confederates during the American Civil War were considered Liberal while the North was considered very Conservative.

This is a very interesting thread, but unfortunately I don't have time to write an in-depth post. I do have time to point out that this person is completely off his nut. The Confederates were deeply committed conservatives while most of the Republicans and a good chunk of the northern Democrats during this period were liberal. Abe Lincoln himself was a bit of a social democrat.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE