GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Would you prefer an uncompromised Serenity?

POSTED BY: HAZE
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4568
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, October 17, 2005 7:23 AM

HAZE


Serenity is a good movie. Actually I would go so far as to say Serenity is a great movie. It is a movie that can be viewed and enjoyed by people who have never even heard the name Firefly. And it is a real testament to Joss’s writing talent that that is so.

But as far as we fans go that fact may also be Serenity’s greatest problem. Like all Hollywood adaptations its not a movie made for the fans it’s a movie made for the public. Joss said as much in an interview on ITV. The quote went something along the lines of “When making the movie you’ve got to assume that people seeing it have never seen Firefly because not a lot of people did” or words to that effect. Hollywood has a massive fear of making movies for a specific audience. And it has a point. If Serenity had been made just for us we would all (well mostly all) have been happy but the movie would have done noting in the box-office. But would that have been a bad thing? Would it have been better to have one super hardcore “just for the fans” Firefly movie rather than three compromised ones?

A good example of what im talking about of would be what I consider to be this years other big movie release. Final Fantasy Advent Children, AC is completely uncompromising. It makes absolutely no attempt to reestablish the characters, no attempt to explain itself; the movie assumes you have played Final Fantasy VII to death.

And if you haven’t?

“To hell with you this is for the fans.”

As such to none fans it’s soulless and impenetrable. To an FF nut like myself its pure Nirvana. Honest to God I wept with joy the first time I saw it. Of course this kind of super hardcore film making is not uncommon in Japan. Even Akira was written assuming the audience had read the manga.

So I put forward the question again would you have rather seen one Firefly movie that was made just for the fans but would do noting in the box-office or what we have a somewhat compromised movie for Joe and Jane public that will most likely lead to two sequels? (and despite the doom and gloom that’s around im convinced it will)


Who do you suppose is in there?

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 8:57 AM

DONCOAT


Given the fact that I find the compromises in Serenity to be minor and acceptable, I'd instantly opt for three movies.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 9:06 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
Given the fact that I find the compromises in Serenity to be minor and acceptable, I'd instantly opt for three movies.




Agreed. I saw nothing I would really consider an unacceptable compromise in Serenity.

I also think that the story of Serenity is such a great one that I want it shared with everyone, if that means bending a bit to accomodate people who are not familiar w/ Firefly than I am okay w/ that.

__________________________________________

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Monday, October 17, 2005 9:16 AM

GROUNDED


I suspect the number of people who have played Final Fantasy VII to the point that they don't need the back story explained is a lot higher than the number of people who have seen Firefly all the way through ;)

Besides, I'd agree that the compromises in Serenity are minimal.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 9:16 AM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
Given the fact that I find the compromises in Serenity to be minor and acceptable, I'd instantly opt for three movies.




Agreed. I saw nothing I would really consider an unacceptable compromise in Serenity.

I also think that the story of Serenity is such a great one that I want it shared with everyone, if that means bending a bit to accomodate people who are not familiar w/ Firefly than I am okay w/ that.

__________________________________________

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org




Me three. As long as it isn't bent down to the ground under the weight of stupidity and compromise, I'll take it in any form Joss dishes it out.

'I have a way? That better 'n a plan?'

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 9:19 AM

SHIRLOCKC


I enjoyed the movie very much and I think Joss did a great job for both the fans and the non-fans. I also think that his vision would have led the TV series (if there had been another season) to this same/similar plot line as seen in the movie. Even without hours of character development, there was still an emotional impact. I don't think the movie can be compared or judged based on the TV series. Different formats -- 2 hours can't be compared to 14 and while I'd love to see another seasons' worth, I'd rather have 2 more movie sequels than nothing at all.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 9:24 AM

EMBERS


I think 'Serenity' IS the movie Joss wanted to make,
he had to make some concessions to the medium,
and to the hopes of finding a new (and larger) audience
but he was allowed to have his ship and his characters the way he wanted them,

he had a whole set of other compromises imposed upon him when the TV show was set in production...

(Mal shouldn't be so grumpy, the scenes shouldn't be shot so dark, etc etc)

Personally I think 'Serenity' is amazing
I would have loved to have had five seasons of Firefly on TV,
but that was no longer an option...

obviously if Joss has to change mediums again then he'll also have to adapt the story telling to fit the wood cuts and interpretive dance that he promised us
(you read that interview too, right?)

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 9:48 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
Given the fact that I find the compromises in Serenity to be minor and acceptable, I'd instantly opt for three movies.

He said it for me too.
Can you imagine if we get two more of THAT quality? (Dude, did ya ever see that scene in Scanners...?)

Chrisisall's head will....

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 9:56 AM

REGINAROADIE


I'm not that picky. I'll take whatever I can get.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XANDER: (baby-talk) Who's a little fear demon?
C'mon, who's a lit-tle fear demon?
GILES: Don't taunt the fear demon.
XANDER: Why? Can he hurt me?
GILES: No, it's just… tacky.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:16 AM

ROCKETJOCK


What some folks are forgetting is that Firefly itself was a result of several compromises--such things as lightening Mal's character from that seen in the pilot.

Writing a TV show is a lot like writing a sonnet--very strict rules as to style, but freedom within those rules. Think of the TV episodes as a series of sonnets, connected by theme to tell a larger story.

By that standard Serenity is a single, epic poem in a simpler meter -- a much larger story than any single sonnet could encompass. A different kind of storytelling, but just as valid. And in its own way, as true to Joss' vision as the original show.

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

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:53 AM

SHINY


Quote:

Originally posted by RocketJock:
What some folks are forgetting is that Firefly itself was a result of several compromises--such things as lightening Mal's character from that seen in the pilot.



Great point; and in fact even within the pilot he was lightened somewhat (e.g. replaced Mal's 'acerbic' comment about Inara's profession with the one about 'someone's got to make an honest living...')

I agree with everyone saying there were very few compromises in Serenity, and I'm not sure what I'd change specifically to tailor it more to the existing fans.

---

Serenity is coming. 9/30/05.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:07 PM

DREAMTROVE


I think it was compromised well. He pleased movie audiences, and fed that flame, but kept the through story rolling. Serenity was definitely much better with the show's backstory, so I don't think it's intended to be a break. It's always something of a compromise, but I suspect we'll see more pure fan stuff coming.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:22 PM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


To an FF nut like myself its pure Nirvana. Honest to God I wept with joy the first time I saw it.



Hey! Another Final Fantasy fan on this website! I love FF7 too. In fact I'm playing it over again right now so when I finally get to watch Advent Children I'll catch everything. Anyways, that being said, I think Serenity is fine the way it is. I loved it (except for the Wash thing) and would love to see two more. Though I'm sure I'll weep for joy when I see Advent Children too.

Tree burn, fire pretty.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:59 PM

MICHAELANGELO


Quote:

Originally posted by Haze:
Serenity is a good movie...
So I put forward the question again would you have rather seen one Firefly movie that was made just for the fans but would do noting in the box-office or what we have a somewhat compromised movie for Joe and Jane public that will most likely lead to two sequels? (and despite the doom and gloom that’s around im convinced it will)


Who do you suppose is in there?



I'd have to say that the character re-establishment was quite minor. A person watching the movie with no knowledge of Firefly must have been wondering how all these people got together on this ship & what roles they played (or maybe they went to see an action movie & don't care...).

I don't think the movie was compromised at all. Let me make an exception to that last sentence. I think the character play was minimal in the movie as compared to the series with the exception of the 2 biggies, Mal & River. Their character history drove the storyline of the movie. Other than that, character background was of no consequence. At heart I knew this would be so. Hollywood isn’t so much about characters as it is about CGI.

Serenity was an action movie, the series was a drama. That is obviously the biggest difference between the 2. Action movies just don’t have time for good character development. When they try, people whine the movie was too slow. By the end of RotK (some 10 hours later), we felt Frodo’s weariness, his sorrow, etc. Not so much in a 90 minute bang-fest. Our blood is still pumping from the 1st fight scene & we can't calm down to enjoy a tender or sorrowful moment.

Sure, it's a hoot to see Mal punch or shoot a baddie once in a while, but i'd don't want that to get in the way of seeing Kaylee *almost* kiss Simon, or the discomfort between Mal & Inara, or Wash feel left out of the military brotherhood Mal & Zoe share, or River ripping pages out of Book's Bible, etc.

Serenity was a great movie; good action, good FX, good story, and I’ll take more movies ONLY if it’s not at the expense of the return of the series. I want the drama!


~
"You can't take the sky from me"

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 1:23 PM

DONCOAT


I think that if we get sequels, they'll be a little closer to Firefly.

Remember "The Train Job" and its rapid-fire reintroduction of the main characters? Compare that to the original pilot. I think the same thing would be true of sequels: quicker and sketchier introductions, leaving more time for the kinds of treasured scenes we love from the series.

Serenity had them too, of course -- just fewer and faster ones, with less luxury of time. A good example: Kaylee's exchange with Simon after the mule departs to do crime. Only a couple lines, but the camera did linger a bit on Kaylee's forlorn expression. (Great moment there, Jewel!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 1:38 PM

TUNABELLY


Quote:

Originally posted by Grounded:
I suspect the number of people who have played Final Fantasy VII to the point that they don't need the back story explained is a lot higher than the number of people who have seen Firefly all the way through ;)

Besides, I'd agree that the compromises in Serenity are minimal.



i agree. FF is generally recognized far more than Firefly. it's been around for ages and has been able to reach out to a much larger audience. the movie is a step towards this type of brand recognition, isn't it? Firefly needed the reach beyond and it has. the movie didn't feel too compromised. it needed to appeal and make sense to an audience that has never seen Firefly. it did and without too much of a cost. i think fans will still enjoy the movie to a greater degree. other than the girls being prettied up i don't feel ripped off in the slightest. i would have preferred River stayed gangly and kinda ragged instead of the flowy version we see in the movie but it needed to sell and i get that.

Jewel Staite had to gain 20 pounds to play Kaylee in Firefly. did else notice that she got to keep that 20 pounds off for the movie.

"we've done the impossible, that makes us mighty."

-Mal

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 5:14 PM

HKCAVALIER


(WARNING: sour-puss alert; still pretty frustrated with the movie.)

I'm kinda incredulous how folk have swallowed this "dumbing down" of Firefly as necessary to insure a good box office take. Hello? What box office take? What make's y'all think a more adult, more complex, less wise-crack-a-minute Firefly movie would have done any worse than Serenity has?

And furthermore, I sure don't think any, ANY of the first twenty minutes of exposition served non-fans of Firefly. Alien didn't need any, Pitch Black didn't need any. There are all kinds of movies about small, quirky groups of people lost in some terrible situation that tell an excellent story and make you want to see more of the characters with minimal exposition. Half the fun of such a movie is figuring out what the relationships between the different characters are. Nobody wants or needs a connect-the-dots. All the exposition did was take away any of the surprise of finding out who these people are; and remind all the non-fans in the audience that there was a t.v. show once where all these people had really complicated relationships that, I'm sorry, we can't really go into here, but we can give you a taste. The very title of the movie is bad for business unless you're a giant fan! The gorram title! That's supposed to be the sellingest thing about a movie and Joss wasted it on the fans! Call the thing "Into the Black" and tell a good story about Reavers. If we get to know the characters along the way, fine, if some remain under developed, tell folk to get the Firefly DVD.

The way I see it, with Serenity Joss was trying to serve too many masters. Firefly was the best t.v. show ever aired, EVER! Of course a movie based on it is gonna have a lot going for it.

Look at it this way: not too long ago, every intelligent person I knew dismissed t.v. as the lowest form of life. Then Firefly came along and changed that perception for all of us (you know, 'cept folks that loved Buffy and Angel already).

So now, every browncoat and his brother is defending the so-called "decision" to sex up the t.v. show for its cinematic debut. Taking a uniquely intelligent and subtle work of art and turning it into a more or less crowd pleasing funhouse ride. How is it that folks who have seen conventional t.v. wisdom turned on its head by a visionary artist, defend that same artist when he panders to a mass audience because "that's what movies are about?" Seriously, do you think film is a more conservative medium than t.v.???

Batman Begins was a huge hit, single handedly revitalizing a moribund franchise--a franchise, I might add, dumbed down and sexed up nearly out of existence; and did it by extensively downplaying the sensational subject matter, exploring very adult moral themes with subtle characterization and one decidedly dark anti-hero at its center. The thing was ostensibly a superhero movie but it played like a bio-pic and made big $$$ at the box office.

In short, Firefly was groundbreaking--and sold like hot cakes on DVD; can anyone honestly say Serenity in its own right was groundbreaking? Aside from being the capper to the best t.v. show ever, at best it's a quirky high-energy B-movie that just enough folks will see to get the sequels greenlit.

The pilot of the t.v. series suffered because it took too long to get down to business. That's a real problem with a t.v. show, 'cause if you don't immediately grab folks, they're liable to turn the channel. Movies can afford to be a little more mysterious, a little more leisurely setting everything up because they have a captive audience who will be remembering the slam-bam ending more than the quiet start. I seriously wonder if simply giving the original Serenity a theatrical release, maybe with a CGI face lift and the like, wouldn't have done as well as Serenity the movie. We all would have gone, and non-fans wouldn't have felt left out.

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  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:47 AM

HAZE


Although I would not agree with all that has been said here I would definitely agree with the sentiment that “sexing up the female characters” is no good thing. Particularly River, as Iv said in other posts im sick to death of Hollywood patting me on the head telling me to be a good boy and sending me off to go look at boobs. Yes im male and yes I have a libido but that is just one aspect of me and it does not need it fed by EVERY damn movie ever made from now till the end of time.

What also annoys me and I would definitely class this as a compromise to the mass market is the shift of the role of violence in Rivers character. I just this weekend watched Firefly from beginning to end again and I just today went to see Serenity again and I am now more convinced that ever that River would NOT have used her academy “training” (by which I really mean torture) to take out those Reavers. She would have found another more cerebral manner of dealing with them. But that doesn’t play on celluloid, its not instantly cool and instantly gratifying. So she just kicked the excrement out of them. As iv said before when ever River used violence in Firefly it was creepy and disturbing. Not so in Serenity, in Serenity its cool.

Given Joss’s distaste for both writing and shooting fight scenes and the direction the character was taking in “Objects in Space” I can only assume that Rivers more action orientated role in Serenity was a concession to make the move more marketable.

I understand why he did it.

But damn if it isn’t annoying


Who do you suppose is in there?

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

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:05 AM

VANCOUVER


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
(WARNING: sour-puss alert; still pretty frustrated with the movie.)

I'm kinda incredulous how folk have swallowed this "dumbing down" of Firefly as necessary to insure a good box office take. Hello? What box office take? What make's y'all think a more adult, more complex, less wise-crack-a-minute Firefly movie would have done any worse than Serenity has?

And furthermore, I sure don't think any, ANY of the first twenty minutes of exposition served non-fans of Firefly. Alien didn't need any, Pitch Black didn't need any. There are all kinds of movies about small, quirky groups of people lost in some terrible situation that tell an excellent story and make you want to see more of the characters with minimal exposition. Half the fun of such a movie is figuring out what the relationships between the different characters are. Nobody wants or needs a connect-the-dots. All the exposition did was take away any of the surprise of finding out who these people are; and remind all the non-fans in the audience that there was a t.v. show once where all these people had really complicated relationships that, I'm sorry, we can't really go into here, but we can give you a taste. The very title of the movie is bad for business unless you're a giant fan! The gorram title! That's supposed to be the sellingest thing about a movie and Joss wasted it on the fans! Call the thing "Into the Black" and tell a good story about Reavers. If we get to know the characters along the way, fine, if some remain under developed, tell folk to get the Firefly DVD.

The way I see it, with Serenity Joss was trying to serve too many masters. Firefly was the best t.v. show ever aired, EVER! Of course a movie based on it is gonna have a lot going for it.

Look at it this way: not too long ago, every intelligent person I knew dismissed t.v. as the lowest form of life. Then Firefly came along and changed that perception for all of us (you know, 'cept folks that loved Buffy and Angel already).

So now, every browncoat and his brother is defending the so-called "decision" to sex up the t.v. show for its cinematic debut. Taking a uniquely intelligent and subtle work of art and turning it into a more or less crowd pleasing funhouse ride. How is it that folks who have seen conventional t.v. wisdom turned on its head by a visionary artist, defend that same artist when he panders to a mass audience because "that's what movies are about?" Seriously, do you think film is a more conservative medium than t.v.???

Batman Begins was a huge hit, single handedly revitalizing a moribund franchise--a franchise, I might add, dumbed down and sexed up nearly out of existence; and did it by extensively downplaying the sensational subject matter, exploring very adult moral themes with subtle characterization and one decidedly dark anti-hero at its center. The thing was ostensibly a superhero movie but it played like a bio-pic and made big $$$ at the box office.

In short, Firefly was groundbreaking--and sold like hot cakes on DVD; can anyone honestly say Serenity in its own right was groundbreaking? Aside from being the capper to the best t.v. show ever, at best it's a quirky high-energy B-movie that just enough folks will see to get the sequels greenlit.

The pilot of the t.v. series suffered because it took too long to get down to business. That's a real problem with a t.v. show, 'cause if you don't immediately grab folks, they're liable to turn the channel. Movies can afford to be a little more mysterious, a little more leisurely setting everything up because they have a captive audience who will be remembering the slam-bam ending more than the quiet start. I seriously wonder if simply giving the original Serenity a theatrical release, maybe with a CGI face lift and the like, wouldn't have done as well as Serenity the movie. We all would have gone, and non-fans wouldn't have felt left out.

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.



I absolutely disagree that Serenity was dumbed down, or that spending time on background and character introduction was misguided. I didn't want to go to this movie by myself: I wanted to go with all my usual movie-going friends, not a single one of whom had seen or even heard about the TV show. The way the movie was written, I felt at home and my friends felt included--and please, let's not say it was a box-office bomb so it was all pointless. If the domestic tops out at $25 million, really think how many people that is. If anything LIKE that number had watched the TV series, it would have been the biggest show on television. So obviously a huge number of non-initiates has been going to the movie, and the "cult" has spread to the mainstream, possibly enough that a savvy TV station will pick it up and renew the series.

On top of that, have you seen Firefly sales? They're #3 on Amazon, and where I live, the stores can't keep them in stock: boxes of 50, or 100, sell out before they can get another one in. (I know, because I'm about to drive for over an hour, to downtown Vancouver, to get a copy for my friends--and even there, they've had to put it aside for me, for fear that they'll be sold out by the time I get there.) To me, that says that the movie was pitch-perfect in terms of getting new people interested in the series. You don't do that for CGI: you do that for characters you care about. Or that's my opinion, anyway.

Vancouver

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

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:16 AM

REAVERMADNESS


Rather have a Firefly movie than a Serenity. As for having 3 Serenitys instead of 1 Firefly... I wouldn't hold my breath for those other Serenitys.

When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not screaming and yelling like everyone else in the car he was driving.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL