The premise, Joss's genre playground, and the problem. (slight movie spoiler!)) by Ghoulman

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The premise, Joss's genre playground, and the problem. (slight movie spoiler!))

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 06:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7468
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, August 7, 2004 7:28 AM

I found it interesting that there is talk the Western setting/premise to Firefly will be "downplayed" in the upcomming movie; Serenity.

From BtVS to Angel and now to Firefly, Joss and his team of creators are continueing thier latest spin on genre. The settings and characters from BtVS to Firefly are pretty much continuations. One might even say they are the same show but with different trappings and different characters containing the same motivations. These differences being superficial.

Now, we all love what Joss and Co. do with these genre trappings. They make great TV. Great stories and characters we love to follow. But...

... you can only do this for so long before the characters and even the setting becomes too self referential and self involved to interest anyone but the most devoted fans. Certainly we've seen this happen to every other TV show, usually because they have gone on so long that the show simply has run out of anything to say or do but collapse under it's own premise.

Angel had this problem big time. Certainly it's telling that Joss realized he couldn't "pare down" his story trappings with Angel and brought in more characters just as in later BtVS shows. Firefly, right out of the door, is PACKED with character detail, genre complexity of setting, and so on. Firefly is a culmination of everything Joss has done in the past.

This is where the problem starts to show itself. Where does this end? Where does Joss go once he has completey told these stories, all over again, with Firefly?

Well, he didn't get the chance (FOX... where WE deside what people will like!).

But now with Serenity coming out I detect that even Joss and his incredibly talented cadre have begun to see the limits of these genre trappings and, as I suggest, are in real realization (and trepidation) of becoming so referential and inward that they really need to "walk through the fire" as it were.

I wonder if any writerly types out there who wonder just where the Joss 'style' (or even formula) reaches a 'critical mass' of self delusion? Just where does the shark jump?

If Joss (and Firefly) is to really continue Joss needs to, and I think he is, let it go. Firefly (and genre in general) needs to find that exciting new voice and direction. Speculating what that should be is up for grabs!

Having said that, may I say that compared to the zombie like cultural eating frenzy of genre stories in Sci-Fi and fantasty today it's a JOY to see dead on characters and clever writing from Joss and his merry band. But the second I detect a rehashed Star Trek plot I'm outta here!

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

Sunday, August 8, 2004 11:34 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

These differences being superficial.

B:TVS was a show about teenagers and the problems they faced. The fact that the later seasons of that dealt with the themes of Angel (about being in your 20s and not knowing about direction) has more to do with the passage of time than the fact the differences were superficial.

Aside from the fact that they are all ensemble shows, there are significant differences for all three shows.

Firefly was about making, not finding your place in the universe, to put it at its simplest.

The natural tendency for television is the ensemble cast - X-Files began as a two-header but swiftly added two or three recurring characters. Yes, Joss has a style which would be recognisable, but not necessarily derivative.

I've noticed with JMS that he has explored the same themes in several different areas of the genre - A Late Delivery From Avalon was repeated in a Jeremiah episode, but the fact that the characters and universe were different lead to a different response and outcome. For fans of both the shows, you might get drawn into the okeydoke of thinking you know what's coming, but for new fans, they judge the episode as stand alone.

"I threw up on your bed"

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

Sunday, August 8, 2004 12:16 PM

OUTSIDER

I remember reading something once (though I cannot for the life of me remember where) that said something along the lines of "Joss Whedon has one [creative] voice, and all his characters speak with it." Now, personally I didn't (and don't) agree with that statement. However, I can see why people might think that.

One need only listen to the dialogue for a few moments before being able to identify it as a 'Joss Whedon show'. Through Buffy, Angel, and Firefly, there is a recognisable quality to his work. I would imagine that everyone who visits this site does so because they appreciate that style. The nature of the stories might change, but certain themes and identifying marks carry through. This only really becomes a problem if Joss starts to significantly repeat his ideas. Buffy and Angel got away with that because one was a direct spin-off of the other. But if, for example, Joss tried his hand at another SF show, and those same identifying qualities were present again, there might very well be a case for arguing some kind of creative blockage. That's one of the reasons why I'm not keen to see Joss return to the Buffyverse - it's been done.

Someone suggested maybe giving Firefly a new voice. But if Firefly were to gain a new voice, would it still be Firefly? Joss IS Firefly. His voice is so dominant, that without it the show (or movie) would end up looking like poor fan fiction, where someone was desperately trying to imitate Joss' style.

Someone else mentioned Joe Straczynski. Take his work as an example - Babylon 5 worked, but the spin-off Crusade didn't work at all because it seemed to be covering similar ground. When he tried again with Legend of the Rangers, it failed again. But when JMS works on something radically different, such as Amazing Spider-Man for Marvel or his own comic series Midnight Nation (which EVERYONE should read, by the way), though some of the themes might be similar, they are presented in new ways and thus end up almost completely different.

So will Joss run afoul of the same pitfalls? Again, personally, I doubt it. If he tries to to repeat the formula that's worked for him in the past, then it might eventually turn his audience off. But I've always suspected the man is too creative for that. Serenity will (hopefully) expose Joss to a wider audience, and give him the opportunity to tell stories in radically different worlds than he's used previously.

That's why, as excited as I am about Serenity - and I'm DAMN excited - I'm possibly even more excited about what Joss might do AFTER that.

Hope I didn't prattle on too long, there.

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

"Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."

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

Sunday, August 8, 2004 3:15 PM

TETHYS

The differences are actually more than superficial, though I can see you've put some thought into the post. The main being, of course, the fact that BtVS is about high-school age people having to deal with everyday life and extraordinary circumstances at the same time. Firefly is set in a very adult setting with very adult characters dealing with very different issues (FROM THE START) than in Buffy.

Sure, allusions can be made between Mal and Angel, but Angel was a vampire that committed great sins and lost faith in himself. Mal was a veteran soldier that lost faith in the 'verse but NOT in himself. BIG difference there in and of itself, let alone the vast difference in the characters.
Any allusions that can be made comparing the characters and the plotline of the show can be alleviated the same way. Sunnyvale is a long ways off from the likes of Ariel, Hera, and the Black.

And the big thing is: two entirely different shows. If no other proof exists than this, here it is: though I LOVE vampire shows and movies, I have never been that much a fan of BtVS (sorry), but Firefly is my favorite show of all time.

"You replaced Firefly with *barf* Fastlane?!"
Zoe:"Take me Sir. Take me hard" - War Stories

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

Sunday, August 8, 2004 4:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

In the very basic, not trying to compare to it in any real way but just as an example, are we talking a lack of believable, workable extensions like was seen in The Matrix ? Where, no matter how much FX is invovled,or how many new characters are thrown in, the story line its self simply dead ends to a unsavory / unsatisfying end ?

How's that differ from say..the Alien series, The Terminator,X-Files or ANY sci- fi story line ?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Sunday, August 8, 2004 5:11 PM

SIKKUKUT

I'm trying to think of a long-standing sci-fi or fantasy universe in any medium that hasn't ultimately collapsed into something that is primarily about itself. What I mean by this is that stories in that universe reach a point where the only reason you care about them is if you already care about that universe, rather than because they are good stories.

Star Wars has, unquestionably. Ugh. The Matrix did to some extent, although I liked 2 & 3 better than most people did (and that's an argument we can have another time). Star Trek has done that on and off over the years, and seems to be in an "on" cycle just now. Most super-hero comics are poster children for this phenomenon. I'm not a fan of really long fantasy series, but from what I've heard, most of them eventually succumb. I never, ever want to read anything where someone tells me, "Well, the first six books were good, but after that he just got greedy." (That was re: Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time).

George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is brilliant and unpredictable, but some of my friends are skeptical that even it will avoid this pitfall as it gets longer.

So, is this the eventual fate of all long-form sci-fi and fantasy, an inevitable result of extended narrative within a universe other than our own? Can it ever be avoided? I'm honestly not sure. Perhaps Neil Gaiman's Sandman is a counter-example?

On the specific topic at hand, I think Firefly's got a lot of life in it before it hits that point-- more life than the average sci-fi premise. I honestly can't speak as to Joss, since this is the first thing of his that I've genuinely gotten into, but if Firefly is any indication, then he is a man of uncommon wit and creativity, and I expect great things of him.

____________________________
"You're mean. Firefly's making me reconsider my lifelong devotion to Star Trek." --My mother

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

Sunday, August 8, 2004 5:39 PM

BANRIGH

Joss Whedon seems like he likes to challenge himself. Wasn't that the origins of the episode Hush? Everybody was commenting on how great his dialogue for the series was so what did he do?

And in the commentaries he always comments on how he doesn't like to lapse into the standard way of directing an episode.

So, I have faith.

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

Sunday, August 8, 2004 5:39 PM

CGREALMS

"What I mean by this is that stories in that universe reach a point where the only reason you care about them is if you already care about that universe, rather than because they are good stories."

I would argue that the distinction is immaterial to those who are the primary audience. Hell, I love Star Wars. Part of what I love about it is the level it delves into it's own history. But then at the end of the day, you've still got an epic storyline of innocence, temptation, darkness, and redemption.

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

Monday, August 9, 2004 10:39 AM

GHOULMAN

I think these are all great comments.

There seems to be a little confusion about the difference between the inherent failings of genre and just going on for so long the "plot repeating" causes a shark to jump.

Myself, I'm 'deconstructing' with laser sharpness the inherent failings which, given this is the 3rd genre show from Joss, the dangers become rather obvious. You know, when I saw the ads for this show I hated it. Oh yea; the hooker with a heart of gold, the anti-hero, (people disagreed about the Joss' characters being 'similair'. Undersatand that it's about finding characters from ALL genre similar... not just Joss'. Genre usually has the least character variation and sticks to iconic personalities. Joss tries to play with this but he is still trapped imho) etc... seen it. Seen this dehumanizing propoganda a thousand times! Of course, I realize that most people aren't NEARLY as bitter and demanding as I.

Dig this - All genre is rehashing. Wether you're talking about Film Noir or Science Fiction the stories universally fall into a repetitive norm (perfectly natural of course).

It is the Artist who transends this failing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Banrigh:
Joss Whedon seems like he likes to challenge himself. Wasn't that the origins of the episode Hush? Everybody was commenting on how great his dialogue for the series was so what did he do?

And in the commentaries he always comments on how he doesn't like to lapse into the standard way of directing an episode.

So, I have faith.

And faith is what keeps me going with Joss.

I know he will surprise me sooner or later. HUSH is a terrific example of Joss having the ability to transend the failings and formula of genre story telling. But remember, as clever as HUSH was it was still trapped in a genre plot... and so of course, 'the bad guys were killed' (if this were ENT the bad guys would blow up... same diff). Now, is genre doomed to be so simplistic?

Please note - I could give a tribbles butt about SG-1, B5, or ENT. All of these shows fail miserably in just this fashion (or worse). Certainly I could pick other shows as examples but I'll stick to the Sci-Fi TV.

Take SG-1 - merely rehashed Star Trek plots from 40 years ago. The very same crap with far less savy. It just makes my head spin when fanboys scream with laughter how cheezy the old Star Trek is while praising SG-1 in the same breath. Inconceivable.

The thing is, the Sci-Fi the young are watching today is created by, well, guys of my generation. What were guys of my generation inspired by? Yup, the old Star Trek. What is SG-1, B5, and ENT? Yup, Star Trek plots over and over again. A very simple formula that is the standard for Sci-Fi TV shows today. They are all the same. Certainly I could say the newer Star Treks were proof of a formula being strip mined to death.

What zombies tptb think the viewers are. They do. Really. And they are right. Glad Joss doesn't care but still fights the good fight (love that crazy fool!)

I come to Joss for a little something different. And it was shows like THE BODY and HUSH that made me think this drop dead stupid Buffy the Vampire Slayer crap might be worth a look see.

It's ironic. Sci-Fi and fantasy should be the perfect opportunity for writers to take things into new realms and tell stories of biting vision and grand drama... but no - rehashed Trek from my childhood!

There is another great thread around where people are discussing the similarities between the characters. Xander is Wash. Mal is Buffy. Etc. Look for it as it seems to be a nice book-end to this thread. Happy reading and never, ever, rehash!

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

Monday, August 9, 2004 11:32 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider:
Someone else mentioned Joe Straczynski. Take his work as an example - Babylon 5 worked, but the spin-off Crusade didn't work at all because it seemed to be covering similar ground. When he tried again with Legend of the Rangers, it failed again.

See my recent post for one other reason why Crusade failed (hint, it rhymes with shoots and its something you can wear) - haven't seen Legends of the Rangers because for some reason it vanished before crossing the Atlantic so can't comment, but I think Crusade was shot down too say it was covering similar ground - it was designed to appear familiar at the start at least.

Quote:

But when JMS works on something radically different, such as or his own comic series Midnight Nation (which EVERYONE should read, by the way)

Seconded - everyone should read Midnight Nation twice no less. Supreme Power is also going to some really interesting places.

"I threw up on your bed"

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

Monday, August 9, 2004 2:07 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
haven't seen Legends of the Rangers because for some reason it vanished before crossing the Atlantic

Forget the Atlantic, it died before leaving the country.

Gorram Canadian TV.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

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

Monday, August 9, 2004 2:13 PM

PIRATEJENNY

in a movie there is really only so much you can do the time is limited.. just take the x files movie for example...I really think the whole reason Joss is doing the movie version of FireFly is to drum up intrest in the T.V series so that he can bring it back...lets hope it works..only if he gets to do it as a series again lets hope it never aires on Fox

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

Monday, August 9, 2004 5:19 PM

CAM

I think good shows (or fiction...whatever) get boring when the creators really beat the premise into the ground and leave nothing for the imagination to latch on to.

Look at Star Wars: the first three movies are really cool. The main plot gets resolved, but we're left with a galaxy of unanswered questions to ponder and think about. Characters like Tarkin (who is this guy that's not afraid of Vader?), Wedge (who is this guy that's such a hotshot pilot he survives all three movies?) and Owen Lars (who is this guy that knew the truth about Luke?) are only as interesting as the questions associated with them. Stuff like how Han and Lando go way back, or Obi Wan's training of Vader let's the viewer explore aspects of the idea not covered in the film, which is what makes an SF movie worth watching for me.

Compare this with the new Star Wars films (and the deluge of books, games, etc.), which are so focussed on explaining the how and the why of the first three that they don't offer any new imaginational territory of their own.

This is why I hope Firefly has a good run, and then packs it in before it gets bad. I would *hate* to see lines of toys and comics and spin-off books. It would suck to know, in exact detail, Mal's childhood, or exactly how many planets are in the 'verse, or why Jayne is afraid of Reavers. And how much cooler is Book when all we know is that something's up with him.

Uh, yeah. I hope that addresses the point of this thread in some way.

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

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:31 AM

GHOULMAN

^^ ah, certainly. Good point.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
in a movie there is really only so much you can do the time is limited.. just take the x files movie for example...I really think the whole reason Joss is doing the movie version of FireFly is to drum up intrest in the T.V series so that he can bring it back...lets hope it works..only if he gets to do it as a series again lets hope it never aires on Fox

Yes, movies are different than TV presentation and there is a great danger of Serenity being just another made for Film *chuckle* summer silly. But I've faith in Joss... as I said.

Aside from people talking about a particular show falling into self reference (to the point of parody) I'm really forwarding a giant "jump the shark" for Sci-Fi in general.

As I said, many genres fall into repetitive self reference. Currently, I see Joss' creations as being an antidote to ... er, "genre fatique".

... and I'm suggesting Serenity might contain a refinment of the Firefly premise in this regard.

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

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:04 AM

EMERALDEAD

I tend to agree about genre trappings- and it is why so few people break out of their genres. The ones who ARE cross-overs get degraded for not being "purist" and somehow untrue to the genre's intended design- SF people are most known for this sort of rabid loyalty.

Part of why I loved about FF is that I didn't find the characters at ALL stereotypical or stuck into their own genres. They are predictable in their own ways- but not predictable in ways which genre standards would make them.

I, for one, don't think Inara has anything close to a heart of gold. I think she's mostly a scared little girl who has learned to control almost everything she can in order to keep herself safe but still has no sense of true security. She's got talents and I think within herself she's a good person, but she's anything but "standard genre fare."

And I would say the same goes for all the other characters.

And I would point out that, UNLIKE the blithe oblivion found in Angel or BTVS, (ie "Hey are you ok? You've been acting very strange and not at all happy" "Oh yeah, I'm just {insert lame obvious excuse}." "Ok, that's good, no problems here either.") in FF no one puts up with anyones crap or pretends there isn't an issue when there is. Their lives cannot be lived with such luxury.

Perhaps the difference is that, while FF DOES do battle with some pretty strange things and futuristic situations, they almost always are mostly battling themselves or other people. BTVS and Angel had weird supernatural things to avoid the actual "people" issues.

It's great story-telling all around and one could write pages and pages dissecting and contrasting how Joss' style both flows the same and is totally fresh across all of his shows.

The movie? I hope they don't water down the western elements but I DO hope they punch up some of the "yes we're really in the future" signifiers. Otherwise, the story will carry itself along just fine. The movie should do fabulously the first weekend if marketing goes well. FF and SF fans will flock a few times over to see it. The trying point will be if it survives to the following weeks and can truly capture an audience.

Exactly, but I think my precise words were 'don't'

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

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:56 AM

OUTSIDER

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
What is SG-1, B5, and ENT? Yup, Star Trek plots over and over again. A very simple formula that is the standard for Sci-Fi TV shows today. They are all the same. Certainly I could say the newer Star Treks were proof of a formula being strip mined to death.

I don't mean to sound snippy, but... what the hell are you smoking?! 'Cause I want some.

Babylon 5 is just recycled Star Trek? Sorry, but I can't agree with that at all. Babylon 5 is twenty times the show Star Trek ever was. It has its cheesy moments, I won't deny it, but it has more character development, more guts to change the status quo, and more intricate plots than Trek ever attempted - well, with the possible exception of Deep Space Nine. Gene Roddenberry's baby may have spawned a lot of pretenders over the years, but I really can't believe anyone would consider Babylon 5 one of them.

Hell, if Babylon 5 ripped off anything it was Lord of the Rings.

I think any perceived failings of the SF genre only exist because Gene Roddenberry struck on a successful formula back in the Sixties. The irony, of course, is that at the time it wasn't successful at all - that only came later. When he created Star Trek: The Next Generation twenty years later, it may have been just an extension/improvement on that formula, but it still pushed SF a little bit closer to the mainstream. It was The X-Files that jumped straight into the mainstream, by fusing SF with the anthology series, the cop show, and the horror movie. They struck gold for a while, but milked it for too long and ended up a shell of what it was at the beginning. But The X-Files was seen as new and different (by some) and it spawned a lot of imitators because of that, much like Trek.

The interesting thing here, is that The X-Files was seen as original because it mixed its genres. By today, with TV and movies in abundance, originality - TRUE originality - is in short supply. Any one genre has its formulas, and after a while they become predictable and, ultimately, counterproductive to good storytelling. This isn't a fault of sci-fi exclusivley, it's a flaw with every genre.

In television (and movies) there is rarely a truly original SF concept. Even things like the The Matrix (seen by many as a breakthrough masterpiece of new ideas) borrowed extensively form other places. What made it work was the way in which the different pieces were woven together to SEEM fresh.

Even Firefly, near-perfect though it clearly is, isn't a brand new concept. Hell, people have pointed out before how the crew of mercenaries in Alien: Resurrection could almost be seen to be an early blueprint for the idea that would eventually become the crew of Serenity. But the two are barely comparable - why? Because Joss Whedon's work (and life) in the intervening years has affected his writing. Not only that, but crew of Serenity and the 'verse they inhabit is almost totally different. Because of that, the chances of covering the same ground is almost nil. But just wait and see how many ignorant movie critics compare Joss' work on Alien: Resurrection to Serenity.

What makes a show different is the personalities involved, both on-screen and behind the camera. If Joss Whedon wrote Star Trek it would be unrecognisable. Ditto if Joe Straczynski wrote Firefly. But if these people spent too long in ANY one genre, the dangers of creative blockaging are obviously increased. One person can only say so many things under the same topic before they repeat themselves.

And for those wondering about Joe Straczynski's Babylon 5 spin-off TV movie, Legend of the Ranger, it did cross the atlantic, because I live in Wales. It is currently showing on the SKYMovies channels, of all places. Keep an eye out for it.

-----------------------
"Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."

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

Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:52 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ Outsider, you're not getting me. What I'm talking about is a deconstructional view of the structure (or more simplistically: the formula) of genre and it's limits while at the same time wondering where Joss can go with these, shall we continue to say 'trappings', now that he has used them all up! I apologize for my lack of academic language if that's what's confusing.

When I talk about say; character differences, or lack of them, it is only after stripping away little details that the characters from Buffy to Firefly become the same thing. That's the nature of deconstructing... and hey, might not mean a thing to ya. And why should it?

Having said that, those shows (B5, SG-1) aren't much worth the film they were done on. Sure, there is some Sci-Fi fun and hey, nothing wrong with that. ENT is just utter crap however.

Quote:
Originally posted by EmeraldEAD:
I tend to agree about genre trappings- and it is why so few people break out of their genres. The ones who ARE cross-overs get degraded for not being "purist" and somehow untrue to the genre's intended design- SF people are most known for this sort of rabid loyalty.

Part of why I loved about FF is that I didn't find the characters at ALL stereotypical or stuck into their own genres. They are predictable in their own ways- but not predictable in ways which genre standards would make them.

SNIP!

Nicely put. I'm in the same boat as you are and enjoying the view into Joss' genre stylings. Hey, it's why I love the guy.

Still, ever try to get someone interested in a show with these tired old trappings? Sure, dig in and it's Joss fun, intelegent, great characters who NEVER betray thier character, etc. All good stuff.

I'm hoping Joss can go beyond this. I know he can. I hope he does.

But do the Joss fans out there have a dream or direction for Joss to go? Yes, this is the third time I've asked.

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

Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:54 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
But do the Joss fans out there have a dream or direction for Joss to go? Yes, this is the third time I've asked.

Well, I disagree with you on the B5 front, but have some sympathy for what you say about there being no new SF stories - but isn't that true of every genre. Deconstructed down, there are no original stories anymore, and it has never been truer that "it ain't what you do its the way that you do it".

The cop show, the legal drama, the war movie; there isn't anything new anymore, but few would dispute that The Shield, Murder One and (the first 20 minutes at least) Saving Private Ryan did something new with the old routine.

You seem to be critcising the genre Science Fiction for containing science fiction - what else would it involve but space ships, aliens etc. SF is in fact the only genre that can, and does, expand its trappings - the legal drama has to adhere to the structure of the law, the cop drama has the crime and punishment. The concept of the SF show is unlikely to stretch things, but in every decent show, there will be individual episodes that add something to the genre, be that a new idea or a new twist on an old idea.

As to Joss, I'd like to see him do something out of the SF genre, see if he could shake up the cop drama say. I'd like to see Joss be allowed to cut loose as JMS was on Jeremiah and Supreme Power - without the cnstraints of network censorship.

"I threw up on your bed"

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

Thursday, August 12, 2004 1:28 PM

SEMTEXJACK

SF....Science Fiction.... It does not merely contain spaceships and aliens. The premise behind it is that any element of Science is taken and a story is made from it.

If you want a perfect example of how Science Fiction works well without even touching the realms of Aliens or Space in general then try 'Village of The Damned' or the book it was based on 'The Midwitch Cuckoos'. With the film, go for the original Black and White one not the 90's remake, that was awful.

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

Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:24 PM

HKCAVALIER

I have yet to really 'get into' the buffy-verse and I think I just figured out why. I saw the first 4 episodes of Angel last weekend. About 3 and a half of them were pretty great--gritty, morose, plot-twisty, smart. Then, I think it was about 10 minutes into the 3rd episode, Oz walks in. Right there the tenuous reality of the soulful vampire seeking redemption (but not TOO MUCH redemption) gets sidelined for all the "Hey, it's Oz! Oz is here! Look, how cool is that, it's Oz!" And for the next 10 minutes I'm watching BtVS and wondering why me, oh lord? Then the episode gets back to business and Angel is getting tortured a la War Stories and when things have gotten their bleakest: "IT'S OZ TO THE RESCUE!" Oz drives a fricken van through a wall and saves the day! Certainly the silliest/lamest stunt I've ever seen Joss & co. pull. Then the 4th episode was fine.

See, Joss isn't going to jump the shark, because he pretty much jumps the shark every few episodes of Buffy and Angel. He does it in small doses though, so it kinda inoculates the fanbase from thinking the show has gone too far. If you like BtVS, then you kinda like going a little too far now and again, see what I mean?

Firefly is different. It's very real-world, even though it's SciFi. Its obsession with American history grounds it like no SciFi I've ever seen. How can a show set in the future have a sense of history? But Firefly does. There's nothing whimsical or fable-like about its world. You believe Firefly exists. From the very first episode of the very first season the show is exactly what it sets out to be. It is one of the most artistically mature T.V. shows I've ever seen. It's hard to imagine the creator of that world betraying that or lapsing into self parody. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point Joss simply finished it. After four or five seasons of the best television imaginable he would bring the story to an incredibly satisfying close.

(ALTHOUGH: Trash came VERY close to being one of Joss's mini-shark jumps. "Looky-loo, it's beloved criminal crazy, Saffron! I don't want to miss a MINUTE of the wacky hijinks!" The episode stretched Mal's funny-man hat all out of shape and for the first 5/6ths of its running time made the entire crew look like witless fools with no longterm memory. But I digress...)

Or do I?

I think Joss has a taste for travesty and if the show were gonna go south I think it would have to go thataway.

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

Friday, August 13, 2004 2:36 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ HKCAVALIER, I read all your posts! Great stuff, great points. Mini shark jump, *chuckle*, that's a terrific way to put it. And I completely agree with your post, I think we are as demanding as TV viewers get. A little more and we will forgo TV completely for books. And I agree that Trash is old Joss Whedon, I'm glad it was such a tight ep. I agree that Firefly seems to be Joss' most mature work, most complex, and best!

Quote:
Misguided by Voices said:
The cop show, the legal drama, the war movie; there isn't anything new anymore, but few would dispute that The Shield, Murder One and (the first 20 minutes at least) Saving Private Ryan did something new with the old routine.

Yeah, it's all the same eh? Though "new" is something I'm demanding about. Saving Private Ryan might have had lots of cool new film work (or rip offs of old techniques... we should talk) but the story is drop dead dull and frankly, crap. Take Clint Eastwoods' "Unforgiven": Constantly refered to as a "revision" of the Western, this movie actually follows the old stale Western formula perfectly and without variation. Good movie... but not anything new at all. And frankly, a real bore to those who aren't into that genre and sees it as more of the same. Why? Because it is!

That's the thing about TV and movies (genre or not)... it's all old stuff redone. ALL OF IT! Joss' stuff might be really great in a lot of ways but Joss is still veryu much in the world of iconic comix characters and setting. He can't seem to get out of that though I'd argue that Firefly shows some breaking through that barrier.

When Misguided mentions the cops shows, etc. that's exactly the point - Sci-Fi TV shows and movies have degenerated just as these shows did (in the f*ckin' 70s). That is, Sci-Fi is as stale as all those other shows. Sci-Fi is SO mainstream it sucks like mainstream - repetitive, self consuming, pap. Yes, I think B5 andSG-1 do this. I think Firefly does this too! But hey, this is a very deep critizism that leaves out ALL of the production values, acting, etc so don't think this is anything more than a deconstruction of the form - and where Joss' creations fit into this new world of... pap.

Quote:
Originally posted by SemtexJack:
SF....Science Fiction.... It does not merely contain spaceships and aliens. The premise behind it is that any element of Science is taken and a story is made from it.

If you want a perfect example of how Science Fiction works well without even touching the realms of Aliens or Space in general then try 'Village of The Damned' or the book it was based on 'The Midwitch Cuckoos'. With the film, go for the original Black and White one not the 90's remake, that was awful.

Perfect example of something new. And a perfect example of it being strip mined today. Something new? Nope! Something from five decades ago... but not as well done. Greeeeaaat. Any wonder kids today are homicidal?

One thing I might suggest to improve Firefly and move the show forward into a higher state of being... er, a TV show. Create a new character unlike any character Joss has ever created. Something unique like Spock was in the 60s. A character that is outside the usual iconic soup Joss pulls his characters from. Hmm, someone Chinese would be nice! Gorram round eye...

Oops! I've a job! Forgot.. heh heh.

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

Friday, August 13, 2004 4:02 AM

NEDWARD

Quote:
Originally posted by SemtexJack:
SF....Science Fiction.... It does not merely contain spaceships and aliens. The premise behind it is that any element of Science is taken and a story is made from it.

Isn't science fiction whatever I say is science fiction? (To borrow from Damon Knight.)

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

Friday, August 13, 2004 6:12 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ you gotta have some "science" in there. Sci-Fi, as opposed to Science Fiction, can have any elements really as long as they are recognizable as a Science Fiction element.

Children of the Damned is Sci-Fi, not Horror. Why? Because of the Science Fiction idea of telekinesis used as the stories motivator.

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

Friday, August 13, 2004 2:39 PM

HKCAVALIER

Sorry in advance for all the rambling to come...

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Yeah, it's all the same eh? Though "new" is something I'm demanding about. Saving Private Ryan might have had lots of cool new film work (or rip offs of old techniques... we should talk) but the story is drop dead dull and frankly, crap. Take Clint Eastwoods' "Unforgiven": Constantly refered to as a "revision" of the Western, this movie actually follows the old stale Western formula perfectly and without variation. Good movie... but not anything new at all. And frankly, a real bore to those who aren't into that genre and sees it as more of the same. Why? Because it is!

Couple things: First of all I really, really think you're missing the real point of departure that these films represent. Historically, literary and cinematic criticism have largely ignored the realm of feeling. It's hard to be "objective" and "critical" when you're feeling a work of art and letting it move you. Far too often there's very little distinction between "deconstruction" and "reduction." I think your assessment of these two movies is a little on the reductive side.

"Saving Private Ryan" doesn't feel like any other war movie I've seen. It invites me to participate in the experience on a very deep and visceral level that hasn't even been possible before CGI. I've always known that war was a severe societal psychosis but SPR was the first movie that showed that to me. The opening scene on the boat, before all the state-of-the-art atrocity, was terrifyingly immediate. Those men could feel that they were going to their doom. Their bodies felt it and rebeled. Somehow a generation of men had signed up to die. No film made the horrific absurdity of war more immediate and simply felt.

And "Unforgiven" is profoundly different from previous westerns on a feeling level because of its obsessive observance of grief and failure. Previous to that movie, the character Eastwood played would have been utterly mysterious and unavailable. But "Unforgiven" showed a heartbroken man, a man who is aware of himself in a way that allows the viewer to be aware of the true human cost of the life of a gunslinger. Maybe you can dismiss it and say, "Of course they were all a bunch of drunken yahoos, I knew that!" but I think you miss out on the harrowing human journey the film would take you on if you would open up and let it.

There's plenty of sentimental Sci-Fi out there thanks to Star Trek. But no Star Trek episode has ever come close to moving me the way I am moved when I see Mal deside to let Jayne live at the end of Ariel. There's no simple moral followed by a cute musical riff at the end of a Firefly episode. The stories are too real for that kind of crap.

The one thing that kills T.V. shows every time is not trusting the reality of the characters in the story. The reality of the characters exists on a level that is very difficult to turn into a formula, because when real people's lives become formulaic, they tend to change or if they don't change, they dwindle into very undramatic depression. So, the more formulaic the show becomes, the less real it feals, because in reality, the characters in the show should be nearly as aware of the formula as we are. If we know that Mal and Inara are nuts about eachother, there comes a point when everyone agrees that if the show is to be believed they better fricken notice!

That's the great thing about Joss though, he can be relied upon to make things happen. I hope if Firefly is allowed to continue as a T.V. show that the Firefly of season 7 will be very different from the Firefly of season 1. For instance, I want all of the current plot threads to be quite resolved by then. Or in the case of the Blue Hands and the Reavers, I want the conflict to be on a wholely new level. I want the world of Firefly to evolve. I want there to be political events that change the course of our BDH's lives. But most of all I want Joss to simply trust the characters to tell their own story and have the creative control to see it through.

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

Friday, August 13, 2004 5:24 PM

AERRIN

Quote:
The one thing that kills T.V. shows every time is not trusting the reality of the characters in the story. The reality of the characters exists on a level that is very difficult to turn into a formula, because when real people's lives become formulaic, they tend to change or if they don't change, they dwindle into very undramatic depression.

Excellent point.

Someone earlier mentioned that when you strip the details away from Buffy and Angel and Firefly characters, they become simliar. That's true, of course. But it's those details that make the difference. It's the thin line between archetype and stereotype.

Does the crew have a base in sci fi (or more precisely, in literary) archetypes? They surely do. I think you'd be quite hard pressed to create a character that didn't.

One of Joss's strengths, though, is that he routinely rises above this. He adds that little dimension that creates a /character/, a person that we care about, intensely. A person who is able to draw from the base of that archetype, but who is also their own person, able to move away from it when needed. They feel, to echo HKCavalier, real.

His other strength, in my opinion, has been his willingness - his insistence - to experiment. Sometimes it works, spectacularly (Hush, The Body, Once More with Feeling, Objects in Space), sometimes it doesn't. (see above re: mini-shark jumps. right on!). But I suspect that we'd never see the greatness of some of Joss's work without a few less spectacular bits. Cough.

One trapping of /any/ long-running show, mentioned earlier, is getting caught up in it's own mythology. It's both a blessing and a curse. As a fan, I /love/ it when a show is packed with stuff from its beginnings, references fans get. I want to see the Red Button in the BDM like nothing else. At the same time, there's a point where the show just becomes too hard to understand from an outside point. Reruns can help, but...

I guess the answer is just to get everyone to fall in love with Firefly right now, at the beginning? ;)

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

Friday, August 13, 2004 10:42 PM

AMNESIACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:

Someone earlier mentioned that when you strip the details away from Buffy and Angel and Firefly characters, they become simliar. That's true, of course. But it's those details that make the difference. It's the thin line between archetype and stereotype.

I think that's an excellent statement, because it really applies to people in general, not just characters. I can mention that I have a tall, quiet friend who loves books, and almost all of you can think of someone similar that you know. It's the details of a person that make them individual. Full deconstruction of any form of entertainment, be it literature, film, tv, or anything else, is flawed to that extent because it discounts details as unimportant, when they are, in my mind, one of the central results of the creative process.

That being said, when I was discussing Firefly with a friend recently, she said that the reason it was the best of the three shows that Joss has made was because they didn't have time to run it into the ground. I think she may have a point, but I still stick by my response as well: I'd rather have a long-running series like Firefly that has a lot of hits and a few misses than only 14 episodes.

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

Friday, August 13, 2004 10:59 PM

CAM

Quote:
I'd rather have a long-running series like Firefly that has a lot of hits and a few misses than only 14 episodes.

And that's where we disagree. :p 14 winners are better than one Star Trek franchise (I like Trek, but you have to admit from Kirk and Spock to Enterprise there's been a whole lot of stupid crap) in my book.

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 7:03 PM

AMNESIACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Cam:
And that's where we disagree. :p 14 winners are better than one Star Trek franchise (I like Trek, but you have to admit from Kirk and Spock to Enterprise there's been a whole lot of stupid crap) in my book.

Well, there's a big difference between having a series that goes for multiple seasons and more than 14 episodes and a franchise that spawns multiple spin-offs and remakes. A vast difference. I wouldn't want to see that happen to Firefly either, but I do wish that it had gone on for longer than it did, even if it meant that we saw a few episodes didn't work quite as well as the ones we've seen so far.

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

Sunday, August 15, 2004 6:58 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Sorry in advance for all the rambling to come...

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Yeah, it's all the same eh? Though "new" is something I'm demanding about. Saving Private Ryan might have had lots of cool new film work (or rip offs of old techniques... we should talk) but the story is drop dead dull and frankly, crap. Take Clint Eastwoods' "Unforgiven": Constantly refered to as a "revision" of the Western, this movie actually follows the old stale Western formula perfectly and without variation. Good movie... but not anything new at all. And frankly, a real bore to those who aren't into that genre and sees it as more of the same. Why? Because it is!

Couple things: First of all I really, really think you're missing the real point of departure that these films represent. Historically, literary and cinematic criticism have largely ignored the realm of feeling. It's hard to be "objective" and "critical" when you're feeling a work of art and letting it move you. Far too often there's very little distinction between "deconstruction" and "reduction." I think your assessment of these two movies is a little on the reductive side.

... SNIP!

Yes, you're quite right though I'm trying to avoid a reductionists baloney arguement.

And don't think I really have a far reaching understanding of just what "deconstructing" a work of liturature intales. I'm just winging it here.

And I'm right there with you when it comes to feeling a story, letting it wash over you. Your disbelief carries you away with the narrative and any movie or TV show that can do this is a success artistically. Great points referenced by AMNESIACK earlier. Nice work. :)

But...

The thing I'm going on about here is stripping away just that, the feeling, and looking at what bones (the "deconstruction") make up the story, trying to understand what the 'bones' mean. What "truth" do the bones reveal? Every genre has it's own set of bones which is the formula for that genre. It is these bones that can make or break a story as it is the very foundation of it and deconstruction must have an eye towards the cultural conciousness, in this case the Sci-Fi genre/culture and how Firefly is part of that.

"It's just an object. It doesn't have any meaning".

... but it does River. Oh it does.

That is, take away the horror and in your face action of Saving Private Ryan and you have a rather dull story filled with rather lame sentimental dialog... and to deconstruct further it is nothing more than a warm hearted tribute to dead heros. Take out the action and it looks like a Rememberance Day video salute - the deconstructed meaning/truth of SPR is little more than blind sentimentality. Now, that is not a fair critizism of the movie since that movie is all about the viseral experience, which offsets the sentimentality. But, the story is still just that. There is no reversal or realism to pull the story above adolecent hero worship. It is a Steven Speilberg movie after all. Not surprised at all. *chuckle*

So what I'm on about is a bare bones look at the genre in general using the last three Joss Whedon shows to demonstrate the Sci-Fi genre limits and, on the side, the lametable state of Sci-Fi story telling (Film/TV) in general (though I'll stick to Firefly for this post). Which I believe is made up of rehashed old Trek stories, and the like. To me, Firefly represents the ONLY departure from the incredibly self-referential world of TV and Film today. But even Firefly is unoriginal in that it's bare bones are recognisable genre elements and plots, mostly "the Western" - naturally.

Objects in Space being a riff on just that, or so I devine. Here was an ep that did nothing but, through River, explore the bare bones of everything in the show. The ship, the characters, and thier meaning. Their truth. Hell, even Early blurted out "I'm a lion"... really telling dialog there. So brilliant. I love Joss. I really want to kiss him sometimes.

Anyho'...

So when I deconstruct Firefly I get lots of recognizable genre elements just as I have in all of Joss' other shows. Naturally. This is what Joss does. This is what we like to watch.

Before I go on I want to say the above posts are right on and make terrific points about the subtle subversion of the genre that Joss so artfully reviels with his great team of creators from Marti to Tim. Not to mention the great contributions from the actors in Firefly who, I think, have brought more to any Joss production I've ever seen. But when deconstructing as I am, I'm ignoring all that. Ignoring the 'feeling' all these things bring to the show.

I should start a thread about how Joss and company take genre and turn it on it's ear, in spite of purist/fanboy resentment. But that's for another day ...

Why deconstruct? To find the essential truth under all those elements - the actors, the clever dialog, everything. What we are left with, the bare bones, is what the characters represent, what the premise says/means, and why this story is relevant. What is the truth of Firefly?

So ok, let's strip! Daaa Daaa, da da da, boom! Baby!

A few bare bones of Firefly...
A Western.
Firefly places the old West into outer space, it is a romantisized Western world familiar to the genre. Like other Civil War oriented Westerns, this one has a sense of place in that the outer worlds are wild, like the Old West, while "Core" worlds are a developed populace. Alliance vs. Independants - The Union vs. The South is recast as Hegemonism vs. Individualism. The main conflict of the premise.

Anti-hero protagonist.
Hero who lacks traditional heroic qualities.
Good guy, after personal despair, choses to be... a good guy who appears/acts bad. A dower and humourless creature who pulls the audience along toward a redemtive revenge. An ironic revenge. Or just plain revenge. This character exists only as a chaotic spirit ready to avenge whatever crimes the setting or society manifests.

Hooker with Heart of Gold
All westerns have hookers. That is because the only two jobs a women, in those days, could get was on her back or marriage. This character is here to give absolution to the evil life styles of the various characters. The hooker with the heart of gold represents a redemtive force in the face of sin. A potant Christian and highly mysoginistic symbol of womanhood as these characters are by definition completely powerless to control thier own destinies. Inara is trapped. Is Mal her 'way out' like all hooker Western characters looking for a man to save them from thier doomed existance?

Serenity
A horse. That transport which represents the ability to gain personal freedom.

... So there are a few little takes on Firefly and what it looks like without all the surface elements. Certainly we could go on about the rest of the elements and characters and what thier essential form is - Kaylee is the "Good Girl". Simon is the "Refined City Boy". Jayne is the "Ignorant Thug". I'd go on but my fingers are cramping.

Sure, there are things in the show that will contradict these deconstructions. As I said before, this is NOT a fair critizism of the show but a search for the basic structure. And in doing so there is lots and lots that is ignored (such as all those fine points made in posts above!). But if we can persist and find those things that have built what constitutes a terrific genre creation (Firefly) we can understand and further exactly what it is we see as the best example of the true meanings of objects, things, and even Sci-Fi genre shows.

From these bare bones we can ask good questions about Firefly - What does being a Western say about the story? Could it represent a profound resentment of the ultra modern in our CGI infested media landscape of Metropolis like robotic spectacle? Is the Western setting just a metafor about getting away from the rigid sociatal norms of civilization? Or perhaps this seemingly out of nowhere premise came to Joss when he found a basic kinship with those who have been excommunicated (to pick a word) from what they thought was the truth?

And hey... is it just me or is River the only character not truley connected to the basic structure (the Western) Joss has created here?

River: It's just an object. Doesn't mean what you think.

Mal: Fully loaded, safety off. This here's a recipe for unpleasantness. Does she understand that?
River: She understands. She doesn't comprehend.
Mal: Well, I'm glad we've made that distinction.

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

Sunday, August 15, 2004 7:06 PM

HKCAVALIER

I know you've said that you're not using the term "deconstruction" very precisely, Ghoulman, but seriously, you really aren't even in the ballpark in your definition. I think you'd find actual deconstruction pretty interesting so I'm gonna indulge myself here. In fact, I think you do it pretty often here on the board yourself!

A few words about deconstruction: Deconstruction is not reducing a work of art to forms and tropes as you're doing to Firefly. It's actually the opposite. All that stuff is actually the stuff that gets stripped away in deconstruction. Deconstruction is concerned with what the work is actually "about." It's about the basic cultural assumptions that fuel the story. For example: Dracula, in your reductionist view is a ghost story, a haunted house story, perhaps a romance where the heroine is captured by an evil wizard and her beloved must go through many trials to win her back. But these mere characteristics have nothing to do with why the novel is so important or popular. A deconstruction of Dracula would have much more to do with 19th Century England and sexual repression. In a pretty standard deconstructionist view Dracula would be a story that tells us that female sexuality is utterly dangerous and destructive to society. It expresses Victorian Sex-phobia at its most extreme. It legitimizes women's marginalization as bearers of such a destructive power, portraying Bram Stoker's novel as a repressive christian screed. Deconstructionist arguments are usually intentionally contravercial and highly debatible. Even as they break down the cultural assumptions of a given work, they tend to be the product of the deconstructionist's own cultural assumptions and biases. It can become something of a hall of mirrors. Ah, post-modernism!

A deconstructionist view of Firefly would prolly talk about America at the turn of the 21st century. It would prolly talk about the shows post-watergate mistrust of governance, the marginalization of old-style conservatism in the multi-national corporate culture of the post-modern age, it might even go after Firefly as a reprehensible exercise in revisionist nostalgia for the culture of the pre-war south, efacing as it does the bitter reality of the "peculiar institution."

A deconstructionist would argue that the forms which concern you so are not what makes people love the show, for instance. If they were, then any western or space western would be popular. Deconstruction tells us that the show is popular or loved because it fills the emotional needs of its viewers by supporting their prejudices and justifying their sense of entitlement.

I'm just saying...

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, August 16, 2004 6:35 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ Ah! Well I do indulge *chuckle*, and here is where I loose my mind when it comes to more academic pursuits - a lack of understanding what it intales. See kids? A lack of education can make you look like a fool online! Don't be like Ghoulman... go to school!

At least this thread has been a revelation for me in that regard.

Sooo what I had done is reductionism?

Quote:

HKCAVALIER wrote:
A deconstructionist view of Firefly would prolly talk about America at the turn of the 21st century. It would prolly talk about the shows post-watergate mistrust of governance, the marginalization of old-style conservatism in the multi-national corporate culture of the post-modern age, it might even go after Firefly as a reprehensible exercise in revisionist nostalgia for the culture of the pre-war south, efacing as it does the bitter reality of the "peculiar institution."

Nicely done. Loved your points here.

Quote:

HKCAVALIER also wrote:
A deconstructionist would argue that the forms which concern you so are not what makes people love the show, for instance. If they were, then any western or space western would be popular. Deconstruction tells us that the show is popular or loved because it fills the emotional needs of its viewers by supporting their prejudices and justifying their sense of entitlement.

Hmm. Is this where deconstruction tends to skew when it comes to what deconstruction should accomplish? Surely it's not just what people perceive or enjoy about a work of Art but also what isn't perceived? Especially in a hindsight view of the cultural context of the work?

Or am I just boring everyone now?

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

Monday, August 16, 2004 11:40 AM

CARDIE

Actually, neither Ghoulman nor HKCavalier is doing a deconstructionist reading of Firefly. Ghoulman is doing a structuralist analysis and HK is doing a cultural and ideological critique. The true deconstructionist in the thread is River, with her comments on the gun. In fact, OIS is in some ways a duel between two deconstructionists, River and Early.

Deconstruction has as its main purpose the denial of ascertainable meaning and can always take a given sentence or a given work of art and show that its apparent meaning is not its meaning at all. It always begins at the level of language, of word choice, syntax and grammar. (I'm a university English professor, and they pay me to know the difference among these different critical methodologies.)

To spare everyone a pages long essay, as an example of the method at work, I'll deconstruct one pithy line from the show, say "I'll be in my bunk.": The context of this remark causes the viewer to make the assumption that Jayne is retiring to the privacy of his bedroom in order to masturbate. But what does the statement actually tell us? Jayne is announcing the place in which he will exist. He will "be" in his bunk. The word "bunk" refers not only to a certain sort of bed, but also designates something that is untrue and fraudulent. Moreover, the common idiom "in my bed," which Jayne semantically alters to "in my bunk," misrepresents the relationship of man and bunk. One lies on a bed or bunk, not in it. The use of "in" implies a blurring of the distinction between man and bunk, and the double meaning of bunk thus has Jayne announcing that his existence, his being, is bunk. In other words, Jayne suffers from a false consciousness and does not have a true self or being. While Jayne apparently asserts himself as dominated by the heterosexual hyper-masculinity he projects to others, the statement actually reveals the emptiness and indeterminacy of his internalized self image.

. . .Which of course sounds pretty much like bunk in quite another way, doesn't it?

So by all means keep up the fascinating analyses. I'd strongly caution anyone to stay far away from truly deconstructing Firefly, however. It's never very illuminating.

Cardie

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

Monday, August 16, 2004 12:28 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Cardie,

That's so funny! You are absolutely correct. I kinda blocked all that real deconstruction out of my mind and replaced it with this kinda neo-historicist psychoanalysis of the text. "The denial of ascertainable meaning." Does that ever take me back! Bunk is right. That "purpose" is wholely nehilistic. It serves no one but the deconstructionist's ego (which doesn't exist, either, btw). I hate the real deconstruction! I'll take my marxist/feminist fakey kind any day of the week! I now intend to retire to my futon and choke the chicken, fer cryin' out loud!

Anyway, now that that's been cleared up, I've been thinking about this toning down of the western in the new movie and I don't get it. First of all, they can't be talking about changing the way the characters speak, right? You might as well recast the whole thing, if you're silly enough to do that. But if they don't change the way the characters talk, and they go ahead and change all the western settings to cool futuristical high tech enviros then the cast is gonna sound like a bunch of hicks for no reason. I sure hope the "toning down" is gonna be of the kind that only diehard fans would even notice. Like giving Wash a cool futuristic jumper to wear.

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, August 16, 2004 2:17 PM

CARDIE

Sometimes I scare myself that I can just make up that stuff at a moment's notice! Thank heavens deconstruction has more or less played itself out in academia. It had to, as its whole purpose was always to wind up nowhere, and, as you said, that sort of nihilism doesn't go very far!

As for the "toning down," I'm just assuming that this will be a bit more like "Ariel" than like "Heart of Gold," but that the dual high tech core/low tech rim contrast will be preserved.

Cardie

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

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 6:17 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Cardie:
Actually, neither Ghoulman nor HKCavalier is doing a deconstructionist reading of Firefly. Ghoulman is doing a structuralist analysis and HK is doing a cultural and ideological critique. The true deconstructionist in the thread is River, with her comments on the gun. In fact, OIS is in some ways a duel between two deconstructionists, River and Early.

Oh, wish I had more time...

Thanx! It's a real pleasure to have you comment.

And your take that River and Early were battling deconstructionists really strikes me. As I said I noticed this dynamic as well (even if I didn't undersand, er, comprehend, er... anyho'). Truly it's shows like this that are consistantly ignored by the Emmy people thus proving the brilliance.

Quote:
SNIP!
. . .Which of course sounds pretty much like bunk in quite another way, doesn't it? So by all means keep up the fascinating analyses. I'd strongly caution anyone to stay far away from truly deconstructing Firefly, however. It's never very illuminating.

Really? How odd. Somehow I was under the impression a deconstructionist was looking for the basic meaning (basic truth). But I see this is still structuralist now. I think. You know, it looked bigger when I couldn't see 'em.

Quote:
HKCAVALIER wrote:
Anyway, now that that's been cleared up, I've been thinking about this toning down of the western in the new movie and I don't get it. First of all, they can't be talking about changing the way the characters speak, right? You might as well recast the whole thing, if you're silly enough to do that. But if they don't change the way the characters talk, and they go ahead and change all the western settings to cool futuristical high tech enviros then the cast is gonna sound like a bunch of hicks for no reason. I sure hope the "toning down" is gonna be of the kind that only diehard fans would even notice. Like giving Wash a cool futuristic jumper to wear.

Can't say I disagree with this. Gotta say that, to me, the Western premise is really great given the other elements added to give the show the feeling of a truly futuristic Western setting. Surely it need not be skewed to satisfy any perceived problem as there isn't one. Right? Gorram right!

After all, if the setting felt like bullplop it wouldn't matter what the details of it were. You know, the new Star Wars movies have terribley cartoony settings and social structures (and rather fascistic). Compared to this Firefly seems like the real thing.

One big thing I love about Fireflys' setting is that there are actually living poor. Not the peasants we are used to seeing in Hollywoodland stuff.

Quote:
CARDIE
Sometimes I scare myself that I can just make up that stuff at a moment's notice! Thank heavens deconstruction has more or less played itself out in academia. It had to, as its whole purpose was always to wind up nowhere, and, as you said, that sort of nihilism doesn't go very far!

Well I for one thank you for it!

Quote:
As for the "toning down," I'm just assuming that this will be a bit more like "Ariel" than like "Heart of Gold," but that the dual high tech core/low tech rim contrast will be preserved.

Here here.

Gotta bail. Thanks again!

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE