GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Unpopular Opinions

POSTED BY: LEXAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 8, 2008 06:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 47742
PAGE 5 of 5

Sunday, November 4, 2007 8:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I'm not too big on TALKING about M&I. If they had hot monkey sex, my interest level would be higher.

A side note: recently in some interview, Nathan said he didn't want M&I to kiss. Morena asked him "you don't want to kiss me?" Nathan said "Oh, I definitely want to kiss you, just not for the show." Morena replied "Good answer."
In BDM, Mal's last words to Inara are "Good answer."

Anyhow, why are M&I such an item? For Inara, creating chemistry with EVERYBODY is part of her training and craft - she is supposed to be desirable to everybody, and have chemistry with them all. So obviously Mal finds her attractive, as does everybody, and he surely knows this.
In Out of Gas, I thought I noticed that he does not call her whore until after she proclaims that she supported Unification. He seems to have no conflict, animosity, or dissagreement with her until after that statement.
Mal respects Zoe in some part because she also does not want to be under the thumb of Alliance opression. I cannot see him having the level of attraction/intrigue for Inara if she wasn't displaying her "independant" streak by spending so much time away from Alliance controlled areas, and with thieves like on Serenity. I don't see Mal falling for anybody who is entirely comfy being a core citizen - just not his type. Her higher social standing might tack on some points, but are not asd important as her level of independence. Companinions are creatures of the Core and Centrals, not common among the rim or places where reavers might be. Nandi was an example of how unwanted and disrespected Companions were outside the Core/Centrals. I'm fairly sure that Mal never knows where he stands with Inara - he is always unsure of his footing around her, except in situations where he needs her to just be quient and obey while he gets serenity out of danger or other compromising situation.
Not that I could really understand why any woman would want any particular man, but Joss is nice enough to try to spell it our for me - and Inara does say that Mal is unique in being not highly understandable (or maybe predictable - in her spongebath scene). His independence and aversion to the Alliance, as well in his honorability and loyalty to his own seem to be her key points of attraction.

So, Maybe Inara could fall for another, unless she's "IN LOVE" with Mal - which is what Nandi finally figured out. But I don't think he'll get over Inara and fall as hard for somebody else.

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

Sunday, November 4, 2007 8:55 PM

MERRYK


Hey, another unpopular opinion...the thought River read from Simon in Objects in Space isn't all it's cracked up to be. She only read what was in his mind at that moment: he was recalling an enjoyable time of friendship and male bonding, no wonder he wanted to be back there. And later, when he repeats a similar sentiment to Kaylee, she and Shepherd Book (and maybe Inara) are the only people who treat him with more than reluctant tolerance. At that moment in time, it's unrealistic to do anything but wish he was back in his old life. That doesn't mean he doesn't care for Kaylee. More importantly, that doesn't mean that's what he's always going to think.

Most importantly, and something that might be an unpopular opinion, I believe that all characters grow and have shown signs of growth. I don't think we can judge any of them totally by what they once said or thought. I also think priorities can and have changed for pretty much all of them.

I see more opportunity for growth in Simon and Kaylee than in Mal and Inara...of the pairs, the former have grown and changed for the better at least three times as much as the latter in the short season we saw.

Another opinion that seems to be unpopular: Simon is perfectly right to have River as his first priority. Of the women he cares about, who's the schizophrenic who needs constant care to keep from hurting others or herself? Not Kaylee, that's for sure. Romance is not the most important thing, and Simon's darned right for recognizing that. I think that dynamic changes post-BDM, and I think that Simon will (eventually; he's still clueless) realize that.

--
"My way of being polite, or however...well, it's the only way I have of showing you that I like you. Of showing respect." Simon Tam, Jaynestown

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 12:44 AM

WYTCHCROFT


Merry - i'm not sure your opinions are all that unpopular!:)
damn straight we all miss / curse the fact that a long show (e.g. angel) has room for character growth -
we alas are left with an arc that finishes BDM. --
in a fan's estimation tthat is too soon!

the joy is that all options are possible (hence fic) we're just arguuing the likelies...

Asarian - Agent Rouka - Platonist - Jewelstaitefan ; posts like yours (and merry's and many others) convince me -
a) i love this shiny site
b) Jane Espenson should do a 3rd book 'Serenity Held' -
detailing eveything from the podcasts to this site's wonderful character examinations (some of you peopple have articles in you i can tell!) -
to 11th hour's bookmarks - to 'kids need to read' and on and on.

even more OT sidebar - congrats P for your daughter!:)

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 5:49 AM

MERRYK


I don't know about everyone accepting character growth, Wytchcroft. I know I've gotten caught into putting characters into a box, and I can definitely see others doing it. It's easy to label characters by what we see them doing most often or by what they do that's most defining, and then assume that they'll always do that. Even when we see characters change and grow, fics rarely acknowledge that, especially sequel fics. And in discussion, I see most people using everything about a character to define what's "in character", instead of realizing that what's "in character" at one point in time would be out of place later on in their development. So it's probably an unconscious opinion, because I've caught myself falling into it occasionally, but it seems to be that most people don't approve of character growth.

--
"My way of being polite, or however...well, it's the only way I have of showing you that I like you. Of showing respect." Simon Tam, Jaynestown

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 7:32 AM

NBZ


Some character growths I can stomach, others not so much. It all depends on the "Why". You have to remember what the characters are doing now is for a reason.

As an example mal/Inara issues. I have no idea why her being a companion/whore is always the major issue. It was not in the series. Their clashes seemed to focus more on authority. Inara undermined Mal. Mal's decisions meant Inara had to play second fiddle in lining up her jobs.

Yes, Mal did not respect Inara's job (some fic out there put it well. "Should not have to afford love" or something like that), but for Mal there never was an issue of her job holding them apart.

Back onto topic of change - they get together. Her quitting is not enough. Nor satisfactory. It does not get to the heart of the matter as a certain Mr Niska would say.

For me being in character is about motivation. The "Why" of it all. If you have that right, the same character can react in a number of different ways and they would all be "in character". Ofcourse noone apart from joss really knows what their motivations are...

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 9:39 AM

REGINAROADIE


Just realized another one.

I'm not too big a fan of the music.

I know on the DVD they talked about how amazing the music is one the show and how Nathan cries when he hears it, but when I remember the series, I don't really recall the music. I mean, there are no themes or motifs or anything that stand out in my mind, and I'm not itching for a FIREFLY soundtrack. And that includes the theme song. Was never too big a fan of "The Ballad of Serenity". On the DVD, I always skip past the credit sequence mainly because of the song. I always thought the lyrics were really hokey and oatey. Like they were trying to give it a "good ol' boy" feeling to the series.

In comparison, I think the music to HEROES and BIG LOVE are shows that if they had a soundtrack to I'd immediately buy. The HEROES music is so evocative and unusual. It sounds traditionally heroic, but it has an otherworldly quality to it. You keep in mind the music when you watch the show because it really helps the overall quality of the series. BIG LOVE I pay attention to because it's done by David Byrne of the Talking Heads.

I dunno. Maybe I'm more drawn to series that has rock stars or rock star affiliates doing the music.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 10:14 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by asarian:
Likewise with Inara: she's knows she's sleeping with men for money, but chooses to call what she's doing something else; like 'therapy,' for instance. As a therapist would say: Can't imagine how many times men in my position hear that excuse. :) I agree that Inara is not lying. But she's nonetheless living a lie. That's what denial is.



I can't see what she does as denial because I don't think Inara, in all honesty, has issues with the sex aspect of her work. Your definition of what she does is a very narrow one, focusing only on the fact that sex takes place and not at all on anything else.

See, the thing for me is that there is more to Companioning than just sex. It is a form of therapy through sex.

Sex is the means, not the end.

There are many types of therapy and the Companion type is sexuality. Why must the sex be focused on exclusively, as opposed to the therapeutic intention in there?

Quote:


Quote:


She fights against the denigrating word because she believes that its wrong.



Actually, that's not true. In Heart of Gold Inara uses the word "whore" on women, too. Mal is even shocked that she does it:




I know she does, but I still hold with my opinion . I think she was trying to keep things neutral because their bickering was not the focus at hand. Using Mal's term to describe what Nandi does was the quickest way to get across that a) they are not Companions and don't have Guild protection and b) their expected living conditions. It was a linguistic sacrifice for the sake of quick communication and minimum confrontation.

Quote:



There this joke ascribed to Churchill, where he asks a lady whether she would sleep with men for, say, $100. She's highly offended. Then he asks her whether she'd do it for a million, and she goes: "Hmmm.." She then asks him whether he thinks she's a prostitute. To which he answers: "Madam, we've already established what you are; we're just determining your price." Point being exactly the one you made: highly skilled or merely talented, they're both singers. :)



I already class them in a category: prostitute. I do not accept the blanket term whore because it's derogatory.

Not to mention, in your example the money is the woman's only motivation. Nothing suggests that it is for Inara.


Quote:



And you presuppose a presupposition where none exists. :) A Companion is a kind of mix between a geisha and a courtisan: all the refinement and education of a geisha, but sleeping with the clients (courtisans).



You see, it's the "but" in there that doesn't work for me. To me it's an "and". No judgment necessary to divide the sexual aspect from the refinement.

Quote:


Quote:


You seem to start from the position that prostitution is in itself unrespectable, saying that social acceptance and wealth must be tied to a facade. Is that just my impression?



It is my belief that prostitution is a form of exploitation of women, no matter how nicely it's dressed up, yes. And that everyone involved in the trade, by consequence, is, one way or the other, in denial about that.



Where is the exploitation if both parties are of consenting age, willing and in full agreement about what takes place?

I am all against exploitation and into that I count the type of prostitution that results from poverty and a lack of substantial alternative. But there are educated, adult women with options choosing to be prostitutes and fine with it. Look at the Netherlands or Germany. Why is that exploitation?

What about the act of sex makes it exploitation if it is turned into a service willingly provided?

Quote:


I wouldn't call prostitution 'unrespectable', though, as that entails a judgement towards the women-one I do not share.



Is it not a judgment to imply that their adult choices must be built upon denial? That they aren't making rational choices even if they say and feel they do? Aren't you judging them by calling them victims, whether they agree or not?


Quote:



That's like asking whether the medieval courtisans were a truly accepted and respected profession. Yes, there were.




Not universally. Prostitution was still generally frowned upon in the widest parts of society. That's not what I would call truly accepted and respected.

Quote:



And yes, I'm sure that on Core worlds prostitution has become an acceptable way of making a living. Without hidden disdain, though? That's harder, and ties in with the hypocrisy. "Hypokrisis." play-acting. In the Greek. So, do I think they're all overtly play-acting that prostitution is okay? No. I think they've rationalized it well and long enough to believe it's okay, themselves. That's where their denial comes in.



Do you call it denial because you consider your opinion a universal truth that all people must necessarily share, deep inside?

What speaks against the idea that they truly believe that prostitution is okay?

Quote:


Ultimately, I'm of the firm belief that women selling their bodies for money is inherently degrading to women. And I certainly wouldn't call that stance "anti-feminist," as if 'the right to be a prostitute' is some sort of feminist achievement to be proud of. In fact, I nourish the hope that feminism will one day bring women to a place of true respect and acceptance, where sexploitation of the women -- however cleverly hidden -- is for ever a thing of the past. What can I say? I'm a traditionalist.




Prostitutes don't sell their bodies. That'd be slavery.

They sell a service. Just like construction workers sell a service or cashiers sell a service or bodyguards sell a service.

Sex is a neutral activity. It can be done with intense emotion and without any emotion at all and the only thing determining whether it's harmful or not is the type of intense emotion and the factor of consent.
As such, sex is a neutral action that can be sold like any other action (typing, carrying, massage, teaching, singing) if both seller and costumer are fine with this.

I don't see what's so obviously degrading and as such fail to understand what Inara would have to be in denial about when she rejects the judgment of being called something she doesn't identify with.

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:42 AM

PACHELBEL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by pachelbel:


I believe he said "change is the essential process of all existence."

I stand corrected; thanks Pach!

Memory didn't serve Chrisisall



You're welcome.

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 1:33 PM

BORIS


I think this may be an unpopular opinion....I think Mal Reynolds is an ass. Ironically I like the character...I really do his loyalty to his people is heartwarming, but if I met him in real life I'd put alot of effort into avoiding him ...friends of mine are in love with the character,Mal's their ideal guy.That concerns me coz he's got so much baggage he won't deal with, and is chronically screwed up...interestingly my favourite characters are Jayne and Badger.Yes they are flawed, but they are what they are. There is nothing hidden under the surface no mysteries to decipher.

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 2:39 PM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I can't see what she does as denial because I don't think Inara, in all honesty, has issues with the sex aspect of her work.



Inara's denial is not about having sex. Like I said: "she's knows she's sleeping with men for money, but chooses to call what she's doing something else." It's the 'calling it something else' part where the denial kicks in. Shindig:

INARA
These people like me, and I like
them. I like Atherton too, by the
way.

MAL
Well, sure, what's not to like? I'm
liable to sleep with him myself.

INARA
And he likes me, whether you see it
or not.

Do you honestly believe Inara honestly believes that? I honestly don't believe that. In fact, I say she can hardly even say it with a straight face. "These people like me," riiiight. Atherton himself, crude as he is, cuts right through the bull, painfully, but accurately defining Inara's undefinable allure:

ATHERTON
Half the men in this room wish you
were on their arm tonight.

INARA
Only half? I must be losing my undefinable allure.

ATHERTON
Not that undefinable. All of them
wish you were in their bed.

Quote:


Your definition of what she does is a very narrow one, focusing only on the fact that sex takes place and not at all on anything else.



I'm not telling people what to see; I'm just trying to show them how. :) I focus on the sex part, here, to demonstrate that the sex is not just one aspect of being a Companion, next to the others, but is, in fact, the core activity (pardon the pun) of a Companion. Take away the sponge baths, and you'll still have a Companion. Take away the tea ceremonies, and you'll still have a Companion. But take away the sex, and suddenly it's no longer a Companion, but something completely different. Like a geisha.

Quote:


See, the thing for me is that there is more to Companioning than just sex.



Never said it weren't. But, in earnest, let's ask ourselves this: would folks still hire Inara for her undefinable allure alone, without having her in their bed? That's the point I've been making: that, yes, there's more to Companioning than just sex; but let's not kid ourselves, either: it's ultimately, really, the sex that's the product, to put it irreverently.

Quote:


I know she does, but I still hold with my opinion. I think she was trying to keep things neutral because their bickering was not the focus at hand. Using Mal's term to describe what Nandi does was the quickest way to get across that a) they are not Companions and don't have Guild protection and b) their expected living conditions. It was a linguistic sacrifice for the sake of quick communication and minimum confrontation.



I'll give you a point for this. +1.

Quote:


You see, it's the "but" in there that doesn't work for me. To me it's an "and". No judgment necessary to divide the sexual aspect from the refinement.



But the "but" is factual. It's a common misunderstanding that a geisha had sex with her man. As a rule, she didn't. Courtisans, however, as a rule, did.

Quote:


Where is the exploitation if both parties are of consenting age, willing and in full agreement about what takes place?

I am all against exploitation and into that I count the type of prostitution that results from poverty and a lack of substantial alternative. But there are educated, adult women with options choosing to be prostitutes and fine with it. Look at the Netherlands or Germany. Why is that exploitation?



Is that the direction you want this conversation to go in? :) Seriously, I'm from the Netherlands, my own self. And I can tell you, there ain't nothing non-exploitive about the women sitting behind glass windows in our red light district. Having said that, reports of prostitution in our capital are highly exaggerated; but still. Please, let's not romanticize prostitution in our day. It's not something women nowadays can choose, as the latest cool new job women's lib has opened up for them. Spend one day here, in Amsterdam, and you'll see differently.

Quote:


Is it not a judgment to imply that their adult choices must be built upon denial? That they aren't making rational choices even if they say and feel they do? Aren't you judging them by calling them victims, whether they agree or not?



No judgement, like I said. The word has many different meanings, of course; but no judgent in the sense of pronouncing a moral rejection. I specifically said no judgement towards the women in question, because I believe societies have a nasty habit of projecting their own 'vices' onto the prostitutes. At times you get em to see that it's really the jons that are the reason prostitution exists; but soon enough they swing back to the belief that it's really the prostitutes themselves that need to be looked down on. And I do not hold to that.

As for 'calling them victims, whether they agree or not', I understand this is a potentially triggery subject, because it ties in, so closely, with what can easily be construed as me not respecting, or taking seriously, the free will choices women make. I'm already seeing some of that crop up in this thread.

But free will is a complex matter. I've seen young girls, in their twenties, turning tricks, or highly priced call girls, all doing rather well, and all saying -- and mean it, too -- that they're doing the sex thing of their own free will. But are they? Often, if you look closer, they've had some sort of abusive past. And that, when they've come of age, may well think that a life of prostitution is a thing they freely 'choose'. I wouldn't call that a free choice, though. Oh, I'm fair certain plenty men gladly leap to these women's alleged 'free will' choices, but I'm not one of them. Saffron is a very good example. Not the duplicitous, real Saffron, of course, but the innocent girl she pretends to be. How many girls do you think are for real like that? Many, I reckon. And Mal does the honorable thing: he takes no advantage, even though she offers--with a passion. Sigh. I love my Captain (okay, eventually he caves a bit; but like Saffron said, he did good nonetheless: most men would be on her inside of ten minutes).

See? That's the beauty of free will: prostitutes have one, and I have one, too. They can choose to not see themselves as a victim, and 'freely 'offer, and I can choose to take no advantage, and not avail myself of their services. Unless you were to suggest that the only way for me to respect their free will is to sleep with them, I'd like to think I can retain my own free will in the process. :)

Quote:


Not universally. Prostitution was still generally frowned upon in the widest parts of society. That's not what I would call truly accepted and respected.



Didn't say "Prostitution." Said "Courtisans." Courtisans (it. 'courtisane' = lit. lady of the Court) were for the upper parts of society. In those circles of society they were generally accepted, yes.

Quote:


Do you call it denial because you consider your opinion a universal truth that all people must necessarily share, deep inside?



Personal foul. Detracting one point again. -1.

Quote:


What speaks against the idea that they truly believe that prostitution is okay?



Nothing. In fact, I've been saying that all along: they truly see no harm in it. Believing one thing, and it being so, are not necessarily the same thing, though.

Quote:


Prostitutes don't sell their bodies. That'd be slavery. They sell a service. Just like construction workers sell a service or cashiers sell a service or bodyguards sell a service.

(...)

I don't see what's so obviously degrading and as such fail to understand what Inara would have to be in denial about when she rejects the judgment of being called something she doesn't identify with.



Why degrading? Waxing existential for a moment, I believe it has to do with self-love--or lack thereof, rather. Now, all too often peeps take a concept like "the integrity of the body" to mean they're free to find all unseemly manner of use for it (like drug abuse); or free to share it haphazardly. Now, that freedom always exists, of course: that's what free will is. :) But here's how I see it. Wen you sell your body -- or rent it out, or however you wanna call it -- you're actually selling yourself short. It's saying: "It's just an object. Doesn't mean what you think." It's essentially saying what you say: "Sex is a neutral activity." Well, it ain't. At least not in my book. Your body is an integral part of you (save the times you're incorporeally possessing a spaceship). And, therefore, sex is, too. So, when you dissociate sex from your own self, as it were, in the sharing of your body for anything else but love, you're effectively taking away from your own value. That's the degrading part. So, it ain't about bodyguards, really, but 'bout guarding your body. Not out of some misguided, antiquated puritan notion of practicing self-denial as a spiritual discipline, but simply because the only real way to honor the integrity of your body is, well, to honor it. :)

Okay, here endeth the lecture, lol. I have a few other catchy ones prepared. Sin, and hellfire. One has lepers.

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 2:47 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by asarian:
One has lepers.


Serve it up, preacher!

Falling apart Chrisisall

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

Monday, November 5, 2007 4:43 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


There should have been male Companions highlighted in the show. I know they probably exist (I think I saw a boy/man in the training house in Serenity, and there were boy whores in HoG), and I wanted to see them. And if there weren't male Companions, then dammit, there should have been!

Unpopular opinion, unpopular opinion... hated the artwork for the graphic novel. Mal only sort of looked like Mal, and Simon... just bad. And I'm still not entirely sure what I think about Book stealing a mule (or whatever). Dobson's crazy fanaticism was also unbelievable for me.

I don't think Simon/Kaylee would work in the long run, either. Even if it could have, I don't see anyone else on the crew approving much. We tend to loose sight of it, what with her mechanical genius and all, but she's maybe 20, 21, and she'd need to grow up some to make it work. And as much fun as them hooking up at the end of the movie was, I imagine the next day Simon woke up and freaked out.

Oh, and Kaylee in the movie? I didn't like her nearly as much. I don't remember her being very funny, and in some scenes she was just so severe-looking. I'm sure if I watched the movie again so it was more recent I'd see the things I liked, but right now I don't remember Kaylee having very much of a point in the movie. The "You mean to say as sex?" got old quick, too.

River running right after her little speech to the wounded Simon? Didn't like that part visually. Right after the blast doors open and she's standing victorious? Maybe it's just the color on my TV, but that doesn't look good, either. I like it (except if I hadn't read these forums I wouldn't have the blast door niggle), but the visual appeal is a little lacking - it's just so dark.

The part I dislike most in the whole movie, though? Right after Zoe and Mal talk and he climbs down to his room, there's no good transition between that and her little interaction with Wash. It's so bizzare, and it bothers me a lot more than it should. Joss mentioned in the commentary (I think) that some people didn't get that those two were married, and I feel it's something he should have spent a teensy bit more time on.

Oh, and if I'd seen the movie first, I doubt I would be a Browncoat now. I like the movie because I'm invested in the characters, but stand-alone... Hearing that other people came to the 'verse through the movie is always weird.

Edit: And, I think it's operative, not Operative.

---

(Rules for voting - http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=30747&m=542683)

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 9:23 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by asarian:

Inara's denial is not about having sex. Like I said: "she's knows she's sleeping with men for money, but chooses to call what she's doing something else." It's the 'calling it something else' part where the denial kicks in.



You don't, however, allow for the possibility that the sex element is not the most important aspect of it to her, that the therapy achieved through the entirety of the event, ceremonial tea, talking , sex, everything, is the point to her.

You reduce it all to one single aspect, and I disagree with that.

Quote:



INARA
These people like me, and I like
them. I like Atherton too, by the
way.

MAL
Well, sure, what's not to like? I'm
liable to sleep with him myself.

INARA
And he likes me, whether you see it
or not.

Do you honestly believe Inara honestly believes that? I honestly don't believe that. In fact, I say she can hardly even say it with a straight face. "These people like me," riiiight. Atherton himself, crude as he is, cuts right through the bull, painfully, but accurately defining Inara's undefinable allure:



I don't believe Inara believed it. I think she lied because she had chosen a bad client and that'd be the exact moment Mal would barge in on her job. She was trying not to loose ground to Mal over one case of bad judgment.

I don't think Atherton understands what a Companion is about, at all. He reduces them to the sex aspect, too.

Quote:


Quote:


Your definition of what she does is a very narrow one, focusing only on the fact that sex takes place and not at all on anything else.



I focus on the sex part, here, to demonstrate that the sex is not just one aspect of being a Companion, next to the others, but is, in fact, the core activity (pardon the pun) of a Companion. Take away the sponge baths, and you'll still have a Companion. Take away the tea ceremonies, and you'll still have a Companion. But take away the sex, and suddenly it's no longer a Companion, but something completely different. Like a geisha.



Disagree. Take away the ceremony and the therapeutic aspect and you end up with a different kind of prostitution. Take away the sex and you end up with a different kind of therapy. Both, though, are integral to the Companion work.

Therapy and counseling are the point, sex is the means. Like talking or painting or behavior modification can be means.

Quote:


Quote:


See, the thing for me is that there is more to Companioning than just sex.



Never said it weren't. But, in earnest, let's ask ourselves this: would folks still hire Inara for her undefinable allure alone, without having her in their bed? That's the point I've been making: that, yes, there's more to Companioning than just sex; but let's not kid ourselves, either: it's ultimately, really, the sex that's the product, to put it irreverently.



Nope, it's the kind of sex, the how and why of it. It's not just for the short-term sexual gratification of the client, there's more to it.

Quote:


Quote:


You see, it's the "but" in there that doesn't work for me. To me it's an "and". No judgment necessary to divide the sexual aspect from the refinement.



But the "but" is factual. It's a common misunderstanding that a geisha had sex with her man. As a rule, she didn't. Courtisans, however, as a rule, did.




I'm not disputing your examples, I was disputing the distinction between respectable and sexual service that you made with your "but", because to me these two are combined in the Companion.

Quote:


Please, let's not romanticize prostitution in our day. It's not something women nowadays can choose, as the latest cool new job women's lib has opened up for them. Spend one day here, in Amsterdam, and you'll see differently.



I am not trying to romanticize anything- I' in Germany, myself. I am not saying that all prostitutes in Europe are happy and willingly in this line of work. But there are those who are. And those are not victims of any kind of exploitation.

Quote:


As for 'calling them victims, whether they agree or not', I understand this is a potentially triggery subject, because it ties in, so closely, with what can easily be construed as me not respecting, or taking seriously, the free will choices women make. I'm already seeing some of that crop up in this thread.



That is, indeed, the danger.

Quote:


Often, if you look closer, they've had some sort of abusive past. And that, when they've come of age, may well think that a life of prostitution is a thing they freely 'choose'. I wouldn't call that a free choice, though.



Why not? If they, indeed, freely choose this, no one pressuring them, it is a free choice. It may not be a wise one, if it is born out of psychological problems, but it is a free one.

And I was not talking about abuse victims. I was talking about adult women making this choice. It's easy to revert to an abused background to undermine that aspect but what about women who were not abused? Are their choices free and they not victims? Or do you think it impossible that someone would make that choice without being damaged in some way and thus not fully in control of their choices?

Quote:


Saffron is a very good example. Not the duplicitous, real Saffron, of course, but the innocent girl she pretends to be. How many girls do you think are for real like that? Many, I reckon. And Mal does the honorable thing: he takes no advantage, even though she offers--with a passion.



But where would have been the harm had he accepted her offer? Why would be have been taking advantage? She - hypothetically - wanted it, was of age and actively pursued him. What would the harm have been?

Quote:


Quote:


Do you call it denial because you consider your opinion a universal truth that all people must necessarily share, deep inside?



Personal foul. Detracting one point again. -1.



I didn't mean it as an offense. I asked because I honestly want to know, because you don't allow for the option that they might not be in denial. Like there's a universal constant involved.


Quote:



Quote:


Prostitutes don't sell their bodies. That'd be slavery. They sell a service. Just like construction workers sell a service or cashiers sell a service or bodyguards sell a service.

(...)

I don't see what's so obviously degrading and as such fail to understand what Inara would have to be in denial about when she rejects the judgment of being called something she doesn't identify with.



Why degrading? Waxing existential for a moment, I believe it has to do with self-love--or lack thereof, rather. Now, all too often peeps take a concept like "the integrity of the body" to mean they're free to find all unseemly manner of use for it (like drug abuse); or free to share it haphazardly. Now, that freedom always exists, of course: that's what free will is. :)



Yes, agreeing so far.

Quote:


But here's how I see it. Wen you sell your body -- or rent it out, or however you wanna call it -- you're actually selling yourself short.



I think the distinction in terminology (body vs. service) is very important because the ownership of the body does not change hands.

Quote:


It's essentially saying what you say: "Sex is a neutral activity." Well, it ain't. At least not in my book. Your body is an integral part of you (save the times you're incorporeally possessing a spaceship). And, therefore, sex is, too.



So what about other actions performed with the body? After all, the body I type with is also an integral part of me.

What makes sex different, as a physical activity?

Quote:



So, when you dissociate sex from your own self, as it were, in the sharing of your body for anything else but love, you're effectively taking away from your own value. That's the degrading part.



Wha about casual sex, the type that Kaylee had with Bester or Mal had with Nandi? Was that degrading, too?

Do you allow for the option of sex without love as not-degrading? Because I certainly do.

Quote:



So, it ain't about bodyguards, really, but 'bout guarding your body. Not out of some misguided, antiquated puritan notion of practicing self-denial as a spiritual discipline, but simply because the only real way to honor the integrity of your body is, well, to honor it. :)



But why is sex equal to the body as a whole and something as dangerous as body-guarding is not - and not degrading?


I am of the opinion that meaning is not inherent but imbued. As such, sex can mean love, but it can also mean just physical pleasure or just kindness. As such, the act of sex is no different than any other action we can do with or for another person. Our emotions and intentions and choices define what it means to us.

Sex needs negative emotions to be harmful. It is not harmful itself. Thus, sex is a neutral activity, and if a person person is gladly willing to employ sex for a means other than love-making - for example, therapy - I do not see any inherent harm that would make such an action degrading.

With that lack of inherent degradation or harm, I see absolutely no basis or need for a denial of such.

Therefor, I think Inara is at absolute peace with her job, but that it bothers her that people feel the need to see negativity in it.

See where I'm coming from?

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 2:53 PM

ASARIAN



Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I was not talking about abuse victims. I was talking about adult women making this choice. It's easy to revert to an abused background to undermine that aspect but what about women who were not abused? Are their choices free and they not victims? Or do you think it impossible that someone would make that choice without being damaged in some way and thus not fully in control of their choices?



What about women who were not abused? Well, that's the crux of the matter, ain't it? I consider female prostitution a form of abuse itself. It's like child labor. A child in, say, a sweatshop in India, may very well not look upon himself as exploited. After all, he's taking back a few welcome rupies and has no real knowledge or example of things possibly being any different than they currently are. To see that what's happening to him, indeed, does constitute abuse, he'd have to take a considerable amount of steps back, and see the overview--one he cannot possibly have in his position.

As for Inara, for the record, I don't think she's had an abusive past at all. Nonetheless, pulling those many steps back, on a whole, yes, I say female prostitution is a form of exploitation of the 'weaker' sex, in that I conjecture that if women were truly considered, and treated, equal to men, female prostitution would, most like, not exist--or be roughly on equal footing with male prostitution. There's boy whores in this 'Verse, for sure. But how many of them serve girl folks? See, that's the red flag for me: it just so happens it's primarily the women who are in a (sexual) subservient role to the men. Coincidence? I think not.

So, as for 'not fully in control of their choices,' when you take it from the general to the specific, things get fuzzy a mite fast: not every individual will experience the effects of the overall exploitation equally--or not at all, even. But, out of principle, I would, for the reasons stated, never be engaged in sexual procurement. Even if a person like Inara were to offer (yes, I know, "In your lonely, pathetic dreams," lol) I would decline. Not because I would think that she, her own self, was being horribly repressed per se, but simply because I consider female prositiution, on a whole, a type of abuse. I guess that's why they're called principles: because they come first. :)

Quote:


Quote:


Saffron is a very good example. Not the duplicitous, real Saffron, of course, but the innocent girl she pretends to be. How many girls do you think are for real like that? Many, I reckon. And Mal does the honorable thing: he takes no advantage, even though she offers--with a passion.



But where would have been the harm had he accepted her offer? Why would be have been taking advantage? She - hypothetically - wanted it, was of age and actively pursued him. What would the harm have been?



No, THIS is the crux of the matter. :) It ties in with what you wrote earlier:

Quote:


Quote:


Often, if you look closer, they've had some sort of abusive past. And that, when they've come of age, may well think that a life of prostitution is a thing they freely 'choose'. I wouldn't call that a free choice, though.



(...) Why not? If they, indeed, freely choose this, no one pressuring them, it is a free choice. It may not be a wise one, if it is born out of psychological problems, but it is a free one.



What's "pressuring them" is the predonderance of their past, is what. And that makes their 'free' choice highly tainted. A young women with an abusive past will, most like, have learnt that the only way for her to receive affection, or attention -- or what resembles those things, at least, in her mind -- is to 'give' of herself sexually. So, come of age, the profession she then allegedly 'chooses', has, in fact, very little to do with free will. For a choice to be truly free, one must namely also have REAL options; and real options require that one is aware of REAL alternatives. Ay, there's the rub. I would consider it exceedingly immoral to take advantage of a girl like that. Why? Because, despite her offering, were I in such position, and I accepted, I would in effect become an extension of the abuse she suffered: not as the one who abused her in the past, but as the one who takes advantage of her past in the present. I think Book pegged it entirely right when he said: "If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell." And if Mal had done so, I would have personaaly stepped onto the big screen stage and riddled him with holes myself! Instead, the right thing, I believe, is what Mal did: expose her to real alternatives. Like -- I suppose you already know what I'm about to say? -- love.

A girl like that is not untouchable. She's not a leper. :) But one would need to tread very carefully. Only, and only, if I were absolutely convinced that such a person were no longer conditioned by their past to see offering sex as the only real viable option available to them, would I consider sleeping with a girl like our hypothetical Saffron--cuz, well, let's face it, she's really hot! :) Okay, the fun interlude notwithstanding, I would probably still err on the side of caution: the past has a nasty way of pursuing us. Or, as The Great Gatsby puts it so poetically: "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." Yes, I read a book; try not to faint. :)

Quote:


What about casual sex, the type that Kaylee had with Bester or Mal had with Nandi? Was that degrading, too?

Do you allow for the option of sex without love as not-degrading? Because I certainly do.



The questions you're asking are way too difficult. Well, the answers thereto, at least, are. At least, to me. :)

I think casual sex, the kind Kaylee had with Bester, can be loving, too--in terms of self-love, that is; as in the act of doing something nice (and pleasurable) for yourself. There ain't nothing wrong with that. I'm not necesarrily sure, though, that casual sex -- especially when occurring all too casual and frequent -- necesarrily makes people happier. Ere the opposite. There's this American psychiatrist who recently published a study, saying very promiscuous people tend to develop signs of anger and resentment towards their partners. Forgot his name, off-hand, or I would have pulled it up. But ennyhows, I largely agree with that assessment. I'm thinking this be the case because such sex is inherently empty, whereas the soul keeps expecting a fulfillment of sorts, which to the conscious mind then translates as a resentment towards the one not being able to deliver. By golly, I always come back to love, don't I? So, yes, I think sex without love is like skipping a meal: it won't directly kill you, but go too long without the love, and you'll find yourself starving all the same.

I told ya: I'm a traditionalist. :)


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 4:20 PM

IHAVEISSUES


How do you account for the fact that some of the best sex between 2 lovers happens when both are pretending its casual? :)


Mal: "Seems like we arrived here in the nick of time. What does that make us?"
Zoe: "Big damn heroes, sir!"
Mal: "Aint we just!"

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 8:27 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I am not so certain Inara doesn't really believe her customers and thier kind really li9ke her.
Whenever one of her clients asks her.....to be his permanent companion, they have enough money, the camera always goes back to her face with a disappointed look, like she would have been flattered or considered it if they'd asked her to marry them. But just be a perpetual slave is not what she's looking for. She is disappointed to be reminded that they only consider her to be companion material, and not wife material.

I suspect KayLee is a big reason she stays on serenity - KayLee makes her feel as glamorous as she thinks she should feel, and KayLee does it right in front of Mal.

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 9:02 PM

SORCHA425


Phew! I finally got to the end of this thread.
Here's my little rant about the BDM. I do like it as a whole and separate from the series, but. . .

I don't like Mr. Universe. The name is stupid, and he shouldn't have gotten a grave next to Book and Wash at the end. He was a poorly-concocted glue for the BDH to solve their tech problems.

I'm disgusted with any Rayne mention.

I liked the humor in BDM;my fave lines are in it.

I hate River's "I swallowed a bug." line-- it was too much. But I think her best-acted line is "do you?" to Mal at the beginning-- it's such a forshadow. (Why does River have to wear those elfin boots and trade in her girly dresses for nightgowns?)

The movie coloring was too dark! You can't see anyone's faces.

That's it for now,







K

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 9:48 PM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

She wasn't on Sihnon, though!! It was a little backwater Training House. If you watch the deleted scenes, it comes through in how she talks about the girls. That's not Sihnon standard, certainly.



With so much disagreeing going on of late, I'd almost forget I usually agree with you. :)

Yes, that weren't Sihnon--not by long shot. Sihnon is highly sophisticated and technologically advanced. From space, the planet has a deep red color. Described by Inara "like an ocean of light." Her quarters on the shuttle are kind of a red-ish color, too--an atmosphere no doubt modelled after Sihnon home life. Also, remember this convo?

INARA
I guess we're having
something of a problem
here with the locals.

MAL
And, I thought maybe...
You could use a gun hand?

Believe you me, the peeps on Sihnon wouldn't need a bunch of brigand gun-slingers to help em out (can you use 'brigand' as an adjective?). No, if that were Sihnon, then I'm Alliance. And a lion, too, for that matter. :)

Quote:


She could have gone anywhere, really. And worked there. The movie put her in a Training House for the sake of convenience. It neglected a lot of things about her character for the sake of convenience, but this one bugs me the most because it takes away the greatest point of conflict between Mal and Inara and replaces it with "Mal has trouble admitting his feelings" which is just wrong, as he was about to tell her right there in "Heart of Gold".



Agreed. Agreed. And agreed. Yes, the "Mal has trouble admitting his feelings" part was odd (couched in the patently obvious "Kaylee's been missing you something fierce." line). It also simply misrepresents the situation between them. Or simply just tells half the story. Boy, if ever I saw "Half of writing history is hiding the truth." in action, then it was in the BDM itself, about Inara! For frak's sake, by the end of the BDM I didn't even know her profession! (I saw the BDM first).

So, for the sake of whose convenience exactly did they put her on that backwater? Not for mine, for certain. :) It don't make no sense. 'Cept that 'Nara needed to be situated on a backbirth planet/moon type, so as to set Mal up for a faux 'Heart of Gold' kinda rescue mission. Which works great if you hadn't seen Firefly yet; otherwise, not so much. The more plausible thing would have been for Inara to have settled somewhere on, say, Ariel. Or indeed on Sihnon.


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:59 PM

WALTZING


Ooh unpopular opinion time. I've read quite a bit of this thread and seen things I agree with, things I definitely don't agree with, and some things that made me re-think what I do and don't agree with (got all that?). So now ... my turn.

I don't like Book. And before you fire, just hear me out. To me he was one of the least interesting characters in the series. We didn't even realize that he might have a more 'interesting' past until the episode Ariel. That was the only time Book felt at all three-dimensional to me. Otherwise he was barely in the episodes, if he was even there at all. Plus the continual lines of 'how does a preacher know so much about (guns, ships, etc)?' got annoying, like they were hammering the 'mystery' home a bit too hard. In the end, I just felt that he didn't bring very much to the dynamic of the show- he didn't add anything. Maybe if the show had been on longer, he would have been given more depth, but as it is, he's just not much of a presence.

Ok, now you can fire. (ducks)

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

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:25 PM

RALLEM


If you go to wikipedia under firefly and check each of the episodes, it looks like Book has several hints to an interesting past life. Actually he was one of the few unanswered questions I most pined for after Firefly was cancelled and upset over not having any real answers after Serenity. I of course looked on the bright side and saw that there was plenty of material for a second movie.


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

Friday, November 9, 2007 4:42 PM

AMDOBELL


Asarian, I totally agree with your comments on the problem being with Inara being in denial about being a whore rather than Mal not accepting her being a Companion. He very much wants to get her to take the blinkers off but that would be to tear down the fabricated shiny world in which Inara lives. The most telling comment Mal makes for me in "Shindig" is where he tells Inara that they don't see her and how it is the lie of it that gets him. He does not look down on her or disrespect her but rather sees her as better than the Companion she aspires to be. It hurts him to see her demean herself by pandering to people who have no actual love or affection for her.

I think part of Inara's wariness when it comes to Mal is that he is not blinkered by her glamour, he sees her as she really is and she doesn't want to face that, to have to admit that what he says may hold merit so she undermines him. In Heart of Gold Inara rebukes an embarrassed Mal as he comes out of Nandi's room putting on his shirt by telling him that one of the good things about being a Companion is not being puritanical about sex. I wanted to laugh out loud especially as her reaction when she goes off to that room, sinks on the floor and cries her eyes out, does not support that assertion. She is also having problems with the sex, I think hitting home most forcibly because Mal spent the night with Nandi, a self confessed whore. While Inara pretends she is above that because she is a Companion I think she is secretly jealous of the freedom Nandi has to simply offer herself to Mal where Inara cannot. And she can hardly claim the moral highground when she deliberately pretends to have no feelings for Mal in that regard. She is the one after all who drew the line that must not be crossed from the outset ("I will not be servicing either you or your crew") so it is not as if he has been unfaithful to her yet that is how she acts.

It is one of the things that annoys me about Inara. I actually would have loved to have seen Nandi as a semi recurring love interest for Mal rather than her getting killed off in HoG. Those two are a jolly good match for each other, they understand each other and share a mutual respect.

As for Kaylee and Simon, I don't think they would have stayed together but I think after sexing each other a time or two the novelty would wear off leaving too many differences for them to mesh into a long standing couple. I do think their affection and respect for each other would remain and they would be be firm friends after agreeing that it just wasn't working romantically.

I hated Book and Wash getting killed off in the BDM. I felt it was just done for impact and didn't really serve the story especially when you consider all the terrible injuries Mal, Zoe, Simon, Kaylee and Jayne incurred and miraculously survived. Mal surviving being run through with a sword among numerous other injuries was pretty unbelievable but made good drama. Zoe being cut open down her back then being filled with crazy foam to seal the wound was pretty novel too but I liked it. I thought Inara going into the fight against the Reavers with a bow and arrow looked pretty stupid and not very practical. The decision seemed more to make her look elegant in battle rather than practical. Would have been more impressed had she been firing a gun. What was she supposed to do once her six arrows had been fired?

I loved the series and really enjoyed the movie (apart from losing Wash and Book) but they were in a way two different animals. I was puzzled somewhat by Simon's changes and disconcerted that with everything they had gone through in the series, and all that Serenity and her crew had done in taking him and his sister in, protecting and hiding them from the Alliance etc, he doesn't confide in anyone the fact that there is a safe word should his sister be triggered into becoming a homicidal assassin. That simply never seemed believable to me given how noble and honourable I have always considered Simon to be at his core. It is as if everybody is expendable except River which may have been something Simon initially felt when he was saving her, but surely he had developed some loyalty and affection for the crew along the way? What, for example, would have happened had River been triggered and Simon NOT been there to utter to safe word? Ooops, there goes the movie.

I particularly hated Book being killed off because I felt there was a hell of a lot more to that character that we could have found out. I always had the notion that Jubal Early was actually right when he said he was no Shepherd and think he took on that persona for reasons we may now never know.

Ali D :~)
You can't take the sky from me...

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

Friday, November 9, 2007 7:46 PM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AMDOBELL:

Asarian, I totally agree with your comments on the problem being with Inara being in denial about being a whore rather than Mal not accepting her being a Companion. He very much wants to get her to take the blinkers off but that would be to tear down the fabricated shiny world in which Inara lives. The most telling comment Mal makes for me in "Shindig" is where he tells Inara that they don't see her and how it is the lie of it that gets him. He does not look down on her or disrepect her but rather sees her as better than the Companion she aspires to be. It hurts him to see her demean herself by pandering to people who have no actual love or affection for her.



You said this so very very well. :) Thanks for sayin'. It is exactly like you said.

It bugs Mal, to no end, that Inara won't try and break free from her self-imposed bonds. The 'not being under anyone's heel' thingy is just something which is deeply ingrained in Mal's personality. Even, or especially even, when it's your own heel. I just recalled this convo from the outtakes of "Our Mrs. Reynolds", where Saffron is caught having stolen some food:

BOOK
There's certainly no harm done.

MAL
And I say there is. Good deal of harm.
And it's starting to tick me off.

(...)

But what I got even less use for,
is a woman who won't stand up for herself.

It's the subservience Mal cannot stand. Not out of disdain or some such, but simply because he wants Saffron to live up to her potential. Like he wants Inara to see past what she is, and onto what she can be: more than a Companion; truly "better than."

Quote:


I think part of Inara's wariness when it comes to Mal is that he is not blinkered by her glamour, he sees her as she really is and she doesn't want to face that, to have to admit that what he says may hold merit so she undermines him. In Heart of Gold Inara rebukes an embarrassed Mal as he comes out of Nandi's room putting on his shirt by telling him that one of the good things about being a Companion is not being puritanical about sex. I wanted to laugh out loud especially as her reaction when she goes off to that room, sinks on the floor and cries her eyes out, does not support that assertion. She is also having problems with the sex, I think hitting home most forcibly because Mal spent the night with Nandi, a self confessed whore. While Inara pretends she is above that because she is a Companion I think she is secretly jealous of the freedom Nandi has to simply offer herself to Mal where Inara cannot. And she can hardly claim the moral highground when she deliberately pretends to have no feelings for Mal in that regard. She is the one after all who drew the line that must not be crossed from the outset ("I will not be servicing either you or your crew") so it is not as if he has been unfaithful to her yet that is how she acts.



Again, you hit the nail on the head. On all counts. Yes, all the training, the rationalizing, the keeping up the air or professionalism, it all comes crumbling down in the face of real humanity. Her reality breaks down--breaks thru, rather. The denial, this we are past. Now she gets to the real questions. About herself. About who she truly is.


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Friday, November 9, 2007 9:48 PM

PLATONIST


I agree to some degree with everything that has been said in regards to Inara and her view of herself and the role she services. But I don’t think for a minute that we should forget that Mal and Inara are both tragically flawed human characters that make mistakes, hurt each other and others (Nandi) in the process of protecting their insecurities and fragile egos. And as much as I agree that Inara lives a life of illusion, I can’t help but to sympathize with her plight as she was trained and indoctrinated at a young age (like 12?). Being a Companion is all she has ever known, and having Mal, the man she loves, constantly belittle and disrespect what she holds as a life truth must be unsettling and his behavior viewed, by her, as serving no purpose but to hurt her. It’s judgmental and destructive on Mal’s part and doesn’t in anyway endear me to respect HIM as a person. Gosh, Mal, do you think she got it that you thought her job was below you and degrading? I mean you told her every chance you got, and then you wondered why she left?

And after Nandi figured out what really going on, I don’t think she was very impressed with his behavior either, “You didn’t give me the whole truth, Mal”, any prospect of them having a relationship was null and void well before she got burned (no pun intended) by the fiasco of Mal and Inara’s dishonest floor show. She probably couldn’t wait until they got the hell off her moon.

As much as I adore the series and love the movie, I do think that Inara’s understated arc in the movie is the shedding of her Companion facade, best illustrated at the end with her no make up scene. It is a step in the right direction for the both of them to work toward a more accepting relationship and a barb truce.

Bearing and sharing witness to the horrors of Miranda will cause life changing events for this crew. It's that big guys, it fried poor River's brain.

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

Saturday, November 10, 2007 1:04 AM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Platonist:

I agree to some degree with everything that has been said in regards to Inara and her view of herself and the role she services. But I don’t think for a minute that we should forget that Mal and Inara are both tragically flawed human characters that make mistakes, hurt each other and others (Nandi) in the process of protecting their insecurities and fragile egos. And as much as I agree that Inara lives a life of illusion, I can’t help but to sympathize with her plight as she was trained and indoctrinated at a young age (like 12?). Being a Companion is all she has ever known, and having Mal, the man she loves, constantly belittle and disrespect what she holds as a life truth must be unsettling and his behavior viewed, by her, as serving no purpose but to hurt her. It’s judgmental and destructive on Mal’s part and doesn’t in anyway endear me to respect HIM as a person. Gosh, Mal, do you think she got it that you thought her job was below you and degrading? I mean you told her every chance you got, and then you wondered why she left?

And after Nandi figured out what really going on, I don’t think she was very impressed with his behavior either, “You didn’t give me the whole truth, Mal”, any prospect of them having a relationship was null and void well before she got burned (no pun intended) by the fiasco of Mal and Inara’s dishonest floor show. She probably couldn’t wait until they got the hell off her moon.

As much as I too adore the series and love the movie, I do think that Inara’s understated arc in the movie is the shedding of her Companion facade, best illustrated at the end with her no make up scene. It is a step in the right direction for the both of them to work toward a more accepting relationship and a barb truce.



I'm liking what you wrote. There's good posts in the 'Verse; not many, Lord knows, but you only need a few. :)


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Saturday, November 10, 2007 1:35 AM

ASARIAN


Ok, now here's a really unpopular opinion... I don't like Joss doing Dollhouse with FOX. There, I said it. We've always been dissing FOX for being just about money, and yada yada yada. And now Joss goes and makes a new series with them, as if they didn't cancel Firefly. Man, would I would loved it had he told them they could stick Dollhouse where the sun don't shine! Guess it really IS all about the money, then. :(

Best shoot me now. Or... we could talk more.


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Sunday, July 6, 2008 10:18 PM

WYTCHCROFT


Quote:

Originally posted by Platonist:
I agree to some degree with everything that has been said in regards to Inara and her view of herself and the role she services. But I don’t think for a minute that we should forget that Mal and Inara are both tragically flawed human characters that make mistakes, hurt each other and others (Nandi) in the process of protecting their insecurities and fragile egos. And as much as I agree that Inara lives a life of illusion, I can’t help but to sympathize with her plight as she was trained and indoctrinated at a young age (like 12?). Being a Companion is all she has ever known, and having Mal, the man she loves, constantly belittle and disrespect what she holds as a life truth must be unsettling and his behavior viewed, by her, as serving no purpose but to hurt her. It’s judgmental and destructive on Mal’s part and doesn’t in anyway endear me to respect HIM as a person. Gosh, Mal, do you think she got it that you thought her job was below you and degrading? I mean you told her every chance you got, and then you wondered why she left?

And after Nandi figured out what really going on, I don’t think she was very impressed with his behavior either, “You didn’t give me the whole truth, Mal”, any prospect of them having a relationship was null and void well before she got burned (no pun intended) by the fiasco of Mal and Inara’s dishonest floor show. She probably couldn’t wait until they got the hell off her moon.

As much as I adore the series and love the movie, I do think that Inara’s understated arc in the movie is the shedding of her Companion facade, best illustrated at the end with her no make up scene. It is a step in the right direction for the both of them to work toward a more accepting relationship and a barb truce.

Bearing and sharing witness to the horrors of Miranda will cause life changing events for this crew. It's that big guys, it fried poor River's brain.



doncha think that Better Days ties in real well with all this?

unpopular opinion: i LOVE the comics!

(and a cunning bump for anothersky)

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

Sunday, July 6, 2008 10:42 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


After skimming this thread, I agree River is sane, Message is the last episode, and I gotta get me some 4400 DVDs to check out more Summer - it had seemed interesting for a few eps that I sorta caught, but went Hollyweird later.
Kaylee was great. HoG was not the best ep. Simon's skills are unimpressive, mostly be cause this verse has a low standard for medical talent.
Mal sees 2 women in the series who live up to their potential: Zoe and Kaylee. (and Nandi is his kind of stupid).

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

Sunday, July 6, 2008 11:51 PM

RALLEM


It is my opinion that a troll resides in the room below the bridge of Serenity because a troll lives below every bridge.

It is my opinion that Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu is a silly name, and should be the name of the next big movie.

I think that was a good idea to kill Shepard Book in BDM but not so much Wash because Shepard Book was a complex character with a long lost past which could have an entire BDM made with the crew backtracking his past to solve a problem, but with Wash what can we learn about him? Did they really juggle goslings on that planet?





http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 12:01 AM

KELLEN


I'm too tired to state the reasons at the moment but:

1. I didn't like the BDM

2. I dislike BDM River as a character. I think it would have been better with out her.

3. I dislike BDM Simon.

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 5:38 AM

PLATONIST



Yeah, wytchcroft, Mal's pretty pitiful in the comics, I like them too...did someone say flawed and non-heroic? And Inara, thinking on Mal while she's working, and then he beats Mal to a pulp. I guess Inara didn't heal him enough??? lol

and River the Ninja Turtle Girl on the llama...love them

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 10:01 AM

CHARLIEBZ


Quote:

Originally posted by wytchcroft:

unpopular opinion: i LOVE the comics!




I didn't know that was an unpopular opinion. Then I'm guilty as well since I enjoyed them thoroughly.

My unpopular opinion is that I think River is still insane - what with the brain messing and schizophrenia. I think this makes her character far more interesting than being Buffy, Jr.

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 10:46 AM

MIIKE


un popular opinions i really hate next generation star trek its all talk and space communism and jeeze those clothes i you have to wear them in he future then taste is finally abolished by the federation i feel sorry for the fans who have to dress like that at conventions those clothes look damn uncomftable. oh yeah lastthing for some reason i really dislike rykers fat sumg face

im just going out,i may be some time

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 10:56 AM

RALLEM


My unpopular opinions besides what I may have already posted are that I am not a fan at all of Buffy, or Angel or any of the other "Vampire" shows of Joss Whedon. I simply am not a fan of vampires. My second unpopular opinion is while I think it sucked what happened to the great show Firefly with it getting cancelled before it completed one season, I do think it is a better fate than allowing it to go on past its "Jumping the Shark Episode," like what has happened to so many other great television shows in the past.



http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 11:39 AM

MIIKE


wasnt too keen on buffy or angel myself

im just going out,i may be some time

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 11:46 AM

ANOTHERSKY


Starrbaby, I completely agree with both points.

[Caution, spoilers, duh.]

Mal and Inara: The tension is priceless, and is one of the most giggle-worth (if you giggle, otherwise chuckle like a manly mercenary with a big gun) themes in the show. NO jumping that shark! (treads won't take it anyway--Wash, what were ya thinkin'?);D

Zoe and Wash:

The whole kids thing would have been rather unworkable. Also, the most UNIQUE and AWESOME thing about this show is it's INCREDIBLE character interaction. That's very carefully balanced (and part of the intrigue of the storyline IS that of a cobbled-together piece of junk flown through space by a ragtag crew living job-to-job).

Kids would throw the first characteristic(the relationship balance) out of whack and near-destroy the second(the mood). Plus they come, (as if the TV stations give them a warranty lable)with their own set of requisite cliches.
I would do kids, but only as a last resort from flagging storyline. Which shouldn't ever happen, since this thing was/is largely character-driven.

The Simon-Kaylee baby thing? No. Absolutely not. Can you hear the incredulity in my voice?
Kaylee is already the baby on board (even considering River---isn't that odd?) There is always a place for that kind of character, granted, but I think the situation could become even more stupid than Anakin's nightmares in Episode III.
Sorry for the connection. It just occured to me.
I'm still bummed about the Star Wars prequels.


Unpopular opinion of my own:

#1
This is about Kaylee. Kaylee-ites, this shall be heresy. You are warned.
You know when you're in the kitchen and you decide to mess around with ingredients? Some of you do. What I'm talking about is mixing things that maybe sounded like a good idea, but you can't stomach it unless you hold your nose, cross your eyes, and look at it sideways? I could never reconcile the parts of Kaylee that made sense with the parts that didn't. Not that I have anything against 'complex' characters. Everybody has facets--part of the genius of the show--but as another poster put it, "horny schoolgirl" is not one of the most entertaining character possibilites.
She's just the one that seems most "out of character" of the whole crew. Her obstinate cheerfulness ALMOST makes up for it. Sadly, almost. When she's not breaking out with lines like the cantina scene.

#2
I didn't like the killing of Book for the simple reason of "why?". (Yes, and Wash, but he's already been lamented thoroughly, and his death, as the death of the cocky joker who always said 'we're all gonna die' seemed to underscore that things had really gotten a mite serious this time).


Going for a Ride.

AnotherSky

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 12:36 PM

PHYRELIGHT


I have to voice my opinion: Heart of Gold is actually one of my top five episodes (including War Stories, Out of Gas, Our Mrs. Reynolds, and Serenity). Being an M/I 'shipper, I love it because it brings all of Mal and Inara's emotions out. And, that twist at the end. *gasp* :D



Darksiders can keep their cookies. We have better writers.

Grrr. Argghh.

Really can't wait to see Cap'n Tightpants sing!
http://doctorhorrible.net/doctor-horrible-teaser-video/80


... Oh, my gosh. I've turned into one of those people with a crazy signature! ACK!! O_o

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 1:06 PM

RALLEM


Quote:

Originally posted by PhyreLight:
I have to voice my opinion: Heart of Gold is actually one of my top five episodes (including War Stories, Out of Gas, Our Mrs. Reynolds, and Serenity). Being an M/I 'shipper, I love it because it brings all of Mal and Inara's emotions out. And, that twist at the end. *gasp* :D



Darksiders can keep their cookies. We have better writers.

Grrr. Argghh.

Really can't wait to see Cap'n Tightpants sing!
http://doctorhorrible.net/doctor-horrible-teaser-video/80


... Oh, my gosh. I've turned into one of those people with a crazy signature! ACK!! O_o



I respect your opinion but I feared that Heart of Gold was their "Jumping the Shark" episode.



http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 1:12 PM

MIIKE


i hear evolution is a pretty unpopular opinion at the moment

im just going out,i may be some time

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

Monday, July 7, 2008 1:20 PM

RALLEM


Quote:

Originally posted by miike:
i hear evolution is a pretty unpopular opinion at the moment

im just going out,i may be some time ]





http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

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

Tuesday, July 8, 2008 6:53 AM

MALACHITE


Okay, I've read through most of this thread... Whew! I have some unpopular opinions to contribute.

1) I think the Serenity Pilot is over-rated. I like it, so don't get me wrong. My main complaint is that it is too slow and doesn't really start get interesting until the second half. I (gulp...) can see why Fox would have wanted something more action-packed and quick paced to serve as an introduction to the show.

2) I didn't like Serenity those left behind very much. It was too choppy and hard to follow. I also didn't like how the agent who was chasing Simon and River in the pilot somehow survived being shot in the head and being left on a desert planet.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL