Bad Firefly Review at Amazon!

POSTED BY: rklenseth
UPDATED: Thursday, November 4, 2004 18:33
VIEWED: 25170
PAGE 1 of 1

RKLENSETH

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:56 PM

Quote:
Right-wing paranoia in space, March 9, 2004
Reviewer: Elizabeth Durack (see more about me) from Madison, WI
The good: Nice special effects for a TV series, good production values, some clever humor, some fun but stereotypical characters, sexy women if you like that kinda thing.

The bad: This is an unapologetically violent show, and not in a silly "Xena" way. Han Solo is an example of a good guy who thinks he's a bad guy; Captain "Mal" is a bad guy who thinks he's a good guy--and he mostly fails for me as a sympathetic character. I like good guys. The "Serenity" gang are a bunch of amoral parasites. Even the preacher never much questions the thieving and killing.

The ugly: The concept is a group of Confederate holdouts after the Civil War. In a way it's the anti-Star Trek, like a group of violently independent right-wingers who can't stand the liberal Federation of Planets (or a present-day anti-government militia group). This show panders to the worst of the Right and apparently enjoyed a strong following from that sector, but the rest of us should let it pass into well-deserved obscurity.

I can't begin to say how wrong this is....

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

CARTAGIA

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:04 PM

Left wing nutcase...

I'm sure that anyone that disagrees with her is a Nazi in her opinion too.

Simon: I've never shot anyone before.

Book: I was there, son. I'm fair sure you haven't shot anyone yet.

AJ

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:06 PM

Bizarre!

Ms Durack clearly has not so much a chip on her shoulder, as an entire potato farm.

Seems she's taken objection to Firefly without really watching much of it, and projected her own fears and insecurities onto it. Maybe she saw Mal shooting the alleged 'lawman' in 'Serenity', and decided there and then that it's only okay to shoot bounty hunters if a) They are threatening you personally, and b) They are aliens (cf. Han Solo analogy).

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but couldn't you reasonably compare the Serenity crew with survivors of a failed [Star Wars] rebel alliance? Hmm, apparently, comparing Mal and co. to fascists seems easier....

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:21 PM

Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of the web is that anybody can post any damn thing they want. It's also the medium's strongest asset of course, which is why we're all here.

Amusing that the reviewer describes the crew of Serenity as "confederates after the civil war"; not even "a civil war", but "the civil war", which might give a casual reader the impression that Firefly is a historical drama set in the 1870's...*

As a member of the radical middle (IE Libertarian) I also find it amusing that nowadays any call for personal property rights or freedoms is categorized "right wing", while any call for social justice is similarly marginalized as "left wing"; as if slapping a label on a concept immediately dismisses it.

*Footquote: "Forward, into the past!" -- The Firesign Theatre

RocketJock

MAUGWAI

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:24 PM

Quote:
Left wing nutcase...

Whoa. Just because she accuses Firely of being right wing propganda does not make her a leftist. Of course, the classification as something as "right" or "left" is kind of annoying anyway, but some of us who lean to this "left" side find her comments just as silly as you do.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

VICPALISADES

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:24 PM

Shes clueless.

Best way to deal with these people is just smile, nod, pat them on the head and send them out for donuts.

"My mind is like a steel trap- rusty, and illegal in 37 states."

RKLENSETH

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:27 PM

Well, that is why I categorize liberals into groups;

Jeffersonian Liberals or better described as libertarians. They hate big or centralized government

OR

Socialist Liberals as this woman might be compared to. They love big and centralized government.

And both forms of Liberalism disagree with each other on many point.

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

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:39 PM

This lady does make a point. Maybe Firefly should come with the following warning:

"Firefly may offend people who believe that despotic, centralized governments with strict social and economic regimentation are desirable. People who subscribe to autocratic ideologies such as facism or nazism will no doubt take offense at this show, as totalitarianism itself is portrayed as one of the main villains."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

BROWNCOAT1

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:44 PM

Sad really.

I have yet to understand how anyone who is moderately intelligent can watch this show and make the illogical leap that this show is a smokescreen for "Confederates" hiding out after the "War". There may be a loose basis on a novel but it is not the Civil War.

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

One bad, misinformed view will not tarnish all the glowing reviews from fans and critics alike of the series.

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

FORRESTWOLF

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:47 PM

'Scuse me, 'scuse me, liberal coming through...

I think she's dead wrong. I love big government - please spend my tax dollars, and take more! But I love Firefly.

Not all governments are the same - I couldn't survive in the Communist USSR, or in North Korea, or likely even in modern China. Too liberal. Those governments were/are centralized, big, etc.

So when I don't like the Alliance, and identify with the Independents as I watch the show, I'm not repudiating OUR big government, just BAD big government.

Sorry, folks - I understand the Libertarian bent that can be attributed to Firefly, but as a "radical liberal", I love the show :)

And Mal's crew is GOOD, darn it. Even Jayne has his moments (not many mind you, but a few), particularly after Jayne's Paradise when he sees that guy take a hit for him.

Alliance: bad. Independents: good. Liberals? Libertarians? Not what the show's about, for me.

RKLENSETH

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This lady does make a point. Maybe Firefly should come with the following warning:

"Firefly may offend people who believe that despotic, centralized governments with strict social and economic regimentation are desirable. People who subscribe to autocratic ideologies such as facism or nazism will no doubt take offense at this show, as totalitarianism itself is portrayed as one of the main villains."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

You forgot things like Communist and other socialistic government styles.

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

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:07 PM

I agree with her that it's kind of like an anti-Star Trek. However, I might point out that we really haven't been told the exact details of the Civil War that took place. What was it about? What started it? How long did it last? Where was Mal when it started? All important questions to determine the significance of the war. I might also point out that the Federation is not exactly seen as "evil" as much as it is sort of like Orwell's big brother.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:22 PM

It's TOTALLY the anti-Trek! I look at the way our blatant militarism and empire building is totally whitewashed by the mainstream press and I get to thinking, "What if Star Trek were a propaganda film for a much less squeeky clean regime, than we're shown?" Well, we'd have Firefly, that's what.

(Do I need to appologize for calling our current U.S. foreign policy "militaristic" and "empire building?" Gosh, I hope not. I hope the supporters of George W. are at least honest with themselves enough to be out about that.)

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.

KILLJOY

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:29 PM

the fact that she's from madison, wi is a pretty good indication that she's probably an extreme leftist. being from that area, i know that madison tends to be pretty crazy in that regard.

CUDA

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackoutNights:
I might point out that we really haven't been told the exact details of the Civil War that took place. What was it about? What started it?

I thought it was made clear in the show that it was about unifying the planets under one government, versus leaving them independently governed.

For example: Browncoats are known as independents, and various other people make comments about being pro-unification

KNIBBLET

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:34 PM

Quote:
Reviewer: Elizabeth Durack ... from Madison, WI

Well there's the problem folks. She's from Mad-town Sconnie.

Madison is home to the University of Wisconsin and its greatest claims to fame are the invention of the beer bong and drunken pontificating. You would be hard-pressed to find a sober person amongst this student population.

Actually, those Madtown folks did come up with "The Onion" so a handful aren't complete blathering idiots.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:45 PM

Sure unifying the planets was a part of it, but that's not the whole story. It never is. Who or what planet(s) started the Federation? And which planet or planets were most opposed? There's a big story there. We're, luckily, hearing the story about a rogue smuggler who fought on the losing side. I would love to hear more about the war.

ARAWAEN

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:09 PM

I have to partially defend this woman. After seeing "Train Job" when it aired as the pilot I had a similar reaction. It struck me as pro-confederacy, anti-government, and had amoral (or nearly so) thieves as the protagonists. While I would never have criticized the whole series based on this observation, I didn't particularly like it an didn't watch another episode until "Out of Gas."

"Out of Gas" was awesome and brought my overall opinion to neutral. I didn't get to see another episode before the series was cancelled. I was given the DVD set as a gift and was converted in full upon watching the series in order.

That said, I must condemn her political labelling, which is unfortunately too common in the United States (I cannot speak for other nations, but I hope they are not so label happy).

Why would the right-wing be pre-disposed towards this show? Why wouldn't the left-wing? The show had legalized prostitution, an inter-racial relationship, tolerance of same-sex couplings, equality of women in employment and on the battlefield. While not all conservatives are against these, they are hardly on the 'right-wing' platform and surely not on any extreme right stance that could be characterized as having paranoia.

If anything I thought the show had a rather libertarian feel. This notion that you are either (a) or (b) is getting ridiculous. The polarization of the American political system is at the point that the suggestion of a 'third way' is tantamount to treason or something. I guess it is the "If your not with us, your against us" attitude.

I gave up on any politicized discussion on the internet (except when I get really angry or foolish) because I got tired of being called a 'communist' everytime I suggested that 'social justice' is a valid concern or that I was 'anti-woman' because I believe a fetus is a living person.

I don't mean to upset or offend anyone with this post. Just expressing myself or maybe I having one of my foolish episodes. I am just so tired of the rhetoric that passes for political and intellectual discussion, it leaks into everything for me, even apparantly my enjoyment of all-things Firefly.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

BLINKER

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:15 PM

Quote:
Captain "Mal" is a bad guy who thinks he's a good guy

Which is why his words in an early version of the pilot include "Score one for the bad guys," and his actions include returning much-needed medicine to the poor, enduring torture and death for it, and never once looking back. I think I understand the character a lot better now. Thanks, Ms. Durack!

_________
Sliders: Gate Haven - http://slidersweb.net/blinker

BROWNCOAT1

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:23 PM

Arawaen wrote:

Quote:
Why would the right-wing be pre-disposed towards this show? Why wouldn't the left-wing? The show had legalized prostitution, an inter-racial relationship, tolerance of same-sex couplings, equality of women in employment and on the battlefield. While not all conservatives are against these, they are hardly on the 'right-wing' platform and surely not on any extreme right stance that could be characterized as having paranoia.

If anything I thought the show had a rather libertarian feel. This notion that you are either (a) or (b) is getting ridiculous. The polarization of the American political system is at the point that the suggestion of a 'third way' is tantamount to treason or something. I guess it is the "If your not with us, your against us" attitude.

I agree. The show has a livertarian feel to it, an how this person could state it would appeal to the "right" is beyond me.

It seems to me she only watched one or two episodes, going into those w/ a predetermined judgement, and then posted her so called opinion on the net.

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

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:00 PM

ARAWAEN-

Great post! Wow! I wholeheartedly agree with your political stance that, in America, those with strong political opinions classify you as either "left" or "right" wing - whichever is opposite to what "they" are - unless you agree with every point they believe in.

That kind of attitude is so annoying.

For instance, I think abortion is wrong. If you don't want a baby, either (and preferably because I guarantee it'll work) abstain or practice safe-sex. On the other hand, I'm against the death penalty. How can we expect people to not commit murder when, as a society, we say it's ok to murder someone if they deserve it? In other words, our justice system condones it in certain circumstances.
I also am against taking away someone's firearms, but support forcing the gun manufacturers to place some sort of mechanism, such as a fingerprint code or something, to prevent anyone but the owner from firing the weapon.

I'm for a fair tax system. Everybody should pay the same percentage, regardless of our economic stance. A standard percantage still gauantees the wealthy pay more, because they make more - but don't make them pay a higher percentage because they're successful. On the other hand, I'm against homestead exemptions that freeze property assets and force someone to pay more for equally valued land just because they are newer to the community.

Am I right to think these things? You bet your ass I am. Would these practices make the world a better place? Maybe, maybe not. It's not "moderate" thinking, that assumes we have to trade one ideal to achieve another, it's "independant" thinking.

There's a lot more similar thoughts out there than people know. And in the end, it's us who decide who's going to hold political offices, because we're not limited by political party preferences.

CARTAGIA

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:

Whoa. Just because she accuses Firely of being right wing propganda does not make her a leftist. Of course, the classification as something as "right" or "left" is kind of annoying anyway, but some of us who lean to this "left" side find her comments just as silly as you do.

Leaning to the left is a bit different than what I was accusing her of being. I'm certain that on some issues, you and I will even agree. I'm saying that she's a left winger. Which would place her to the extreme left.

Even then, I'm certain that there are some very rational people to the extreme left. I may not agree with a word they say, but I wouldn't question their sanity.

This lady is obviously a nutjob. I have no problem dismissing her and her opinions out of hand.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that you can be left wing, you can be a nutjob, but she is both.

Simon: I've never shot anyone before.

Book: I was there, son. I'm fair sure you haven't shot anyone yet.

ECMORGAN69

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by VicPalisades:
Shes clueless.

Best way to deal with these people is just smile, nod, pat them on the head and send them out for donuts.

"My mind is like a steel trap- rusty, and illegal in 37 states."

Only drawback to that plan is that her type probably get the niu shi donuts made from soy meal or some such because it's "better for you."

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

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

ECMORGAN69

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I have to partially defend this woman. After seeing "Train Job" when it aired as the pilot I had a similar reaction. It struck me as pro-confederacy, anti-government, and had amoral (or nearly so) thieves as the protagonists. While I would never have criticized the whole series based on this observation, I didn't particularly like it an didn't watch another episode until "Out of Gas."

"Out of Gas" was awesome and brought my overall opinion to neutral. I didn't get to see another episode before the series was cancelled. I was given the DVD set as a gift and was converted in full upon watching the series in order.

That said, I must condemn her political labeling, which is unfortunately too common in the United States (I cannot speak for other nations, but I hope they are not so label-happy).

Why would the right-wing be pre-disposed towards this show? Why wouldn't the left-wing? The show had legalized prostitution, an inter-racial relationship, tolerance of same-sex couplings, equality of women in employment and on the battlefield. While not all conservatives are against these, they are hardly on the 'right-wing' platform and surely not on any extreme right stance that could be characterized as having paranoia.

If anything I thought the show had a rather libertarian feel. This notion that you are either (a) or (b) is getting ridiculous. The polarization of the American political system is at the point that the suggestion of a 'third way' is tantamount to treason or something. I guess it is the "If your not with us, your against us" attitude.

I gave up on any politicized discussion on the internet (except when I get really angry or foolish) because I got tired of being called a 'communist' everytime I suggested that 'social justice' is a valid concern or that I was 'anti-woman' because I believe a fetus is a living person.

I don't mean to upset or offend anyone with this post. Just expressing myself or maybe I having one of my foolish episodes. I am just so tired of the rhetoric that passes for political and intellectual discussion, it leaks into everything for me, even apparantly my enjoyment of all-things Firefly.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

Very nice post! I whole-heartedly agree that this program has a Libertarian bias to it, if anything. It is just easier for others to say, "It's this" or, "It's that", rather than just relax and enjoy it.

I also totally agree that there is far too much politicizing on the web, even in our little den of Browncoats here. I've seen athread or two that go that way. Hell, I've even lobbed a few Apples of Discord into the fray myself when my Niu Shi Radar kicks on. But, I agree that that stuff has it's own place. Boring, political websites

Anyway, I hope the left-wing nut who started this thread enjoys the two Sean Hannity books and any anti-Clinton book I can lay hands on that I'm sending to her for review

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

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

KALIMEERI

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Quote:
Right-wing paranoia in space, March 9, 2004
Reviewer: Elizabeth Durack (see more about me) from Madison, WI
The good: Nice special effects for a TV series, good production values, some clever humor, some fun but stereotypical characters, sexy women if you like that kinda thing.

The bad: This is an unapologetically violent show, and not in a silly "Xena" way. Han Solo is an example of a good guy who thinks he's a bad guy; Captain "Mal" is a bad guy who thinks he's a good guy--and he mostly fails for me as a sympathetic character. I like good guys. The "Serenity" gang are a bunch of amoral parasites. Even the preacher never much questions the thieving and killing.

The ugly: The concept is a group of Confederate holdouts after the Civil War. In a way it's the anti-Star Trek, like a group of violently independent right-wingers who can't stand the liberal Federation of Planets (or a present-day anti-government militia group). This show panders to the worst of the Right and apparently enjoyed a strong following from that sector, but the rest of us should let it pass into well-deserved obscurity.

I can't begin to say how wrong this is....

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

"Woman, you are completely off your nut."

...no place I can be...

VICPALISADES

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
Quote:
Originally posted by VicPalisades:
Shes clueless.

Best way to deal with these people is just smile, nod, pat them on the head and send them out for donuts.

"My mind is like a steel trap- rusty, and illegal in 37 states."

Only drawback to that plan is that her type probably get the niu shi donuts made from soy meal or some such because it's "better for you."

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

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"My mind is like a steel trap- rusty, and illegal in 37 states."

ARAWAEN

Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:24 PM

Quote:
I'm for a fair tax system. Everybody should pay the same percentage, regardless of our economic stance. A standard percantage still gauantees the wealthy pay more, because they make more - but don't make them pay a higher percentage because they're successful. On the other hand, I'm against homestead exemptions that freeze property assets and force someone to pay more for equally valued land just because they are newer to the community.

This first part should not be construed as being as pro- or con- with regard to the issue of flat taxes. It is merely an explanation of a perceived misconception regarding how taxes work. Nor should be interpreted as an assumption that BlackOutNights has made this misconception.

There seems to be a misconception among the majority of Americans with regards to how graduated income taxes work. Graduated does not mean that the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes as is commonly portrayed. Everybody pays the same rate in fact, it is just that rate increases for that portion of your income which falls into higher brackets. I think an illustration is the best way to understand it. Let us enter hypothetical land for a moment. We will establish 3 tax brackets, one at $0-$20,000.00, one at $20,001-$50,000.00 and one at $50,001-$100,000.00. We will set our tax rates at 10% for the first bracket, 20% for the second and 30% for the third. A person that makes $15,000.00 will pay 10% in taxes (or $1,500.00), the person that makes $60,000 will pay 10% on the first $20,000.00 (or $2,000.00) plus 20% on the next $30,000.00 (or $6,000.00) and 30% on the last $10,000.00 (or $3,000.00). The person that makes $60,000 is paying a total of $11,000 in taxes under this system, not $18,000.00 as would be the case if they were paying 30% on all their income as is commonly perceived.

The thinking behind taxes in general is that everybody in the community is obligated to financially support the community according to his or her ability. Graduated income taxes mean the more a person’s income falls into the surplus/luxury range the more that person can afford to contribute to the well being of the community as a whole. Each citizen pays the same rates, but some people make more surplus money than others. Some people agree with this and some don’t, but it is not a case of the wealthy being taxed at a higher rate.

The following part is personal conjecture.

I think the greater failing of the American income tax system is with regards to tax incentives (i.e. deductions and the like). These are an attempt to control (usually with good intent) the American populace, to encourage them engage in certain types of activities. I believe that they create an overly complex tax system that makes it impossible to adequately police or regulate. Some people managed to take advantage of the incentives and loopholes to the point where they didn’t have to pay taxes at all (not the intent of incentives as the belief was that all people have a responsibility towards the community), so the politicians tacked on an alternative minimum tax, again adding complexity and creating confusion and loopholes.

I recognize the importance encouraging certain choices from citizens, like going to college and giving to charity, etc. I also recognize the effectiveness of using greed to encourage people and corporations to do the right thing. But I also feel that using a vice to encourage virtue is a slippery slope with dire ramifications.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

DRAGONLORD

Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:36 PM

I read her review. She can rotate on this. It's her opinion and she's welcome to it, but if you look at the majority of reviews, they support Firefly.

Respectfully,

Dragon Lord Tibbetts

"Quando Omni Plunkus Moritati"
(when all else fails, play dead!)

LUNATIKAT

Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:40 PM

Hi. Can anyone direct me to a message with the info about the DVD Easter egg. I've lost the information. Thanks.

lunatikat - not just for breakfast anymore

BROWNCOAT1

Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lunatikat:
Hi. Can anyone direct me to a message with the info about the DVD Easter egg. I've lost the information. Thanks.

lunatikat - not just for breakfast anymore

Go to special features. Highlight "Joss sings..", but do not click it. push your directional control to the left and the squiggly pattern on the left side of the screen will highlight. click on it. This will play Adam Baldwin in his Jayne hat singing the "Hero of Canton".

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

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:54 PM

And, I might add, the 10-percent bracket has increased. :D I agree the tax system has become too complex. I used to do ours myself, but now calculating dividends and other source of income is too much of a headache. Much better to pay someone to do it.

WREN

Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:54 PM

The woman is an idiot!!! However there are a few of them out there. I found this while trawling round the web:

by: Mike Sampson

OK, so let me get this straight cause I'm still a little flummoxed by the whole thing. There was this show, "Firefly," on Fox that was cancelled after 11 episodes cause ratings were so low. It was free and people still weren't watching it. So now they've decided to make a movie out of said TV series with the hope that people who wouldn't watch it when it was free will now pay $10 to see it. Hmmm... Yes, "Firefly" will officially be a movie. Universal has greenlit SERENITY, the feature film adaptation of the TV series by Joss Whedon ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). Whedon will direct the film from his own script and all the original cast members from the series will return for the film. Filming is scheduled to begin this June with a 2005 release planned. Whedon had hoped to bring "Firefly" back to TV after it was cancelled and shopped the series to other networks. Unable to reach a deal to return the show to television, he turned his attention to writing a feature and successfully conned, I mean, sold Universal on the idea. Like the X-FILES movie the film will look to satisfy fans (??) of the series while still appealing to the audience who never saw "Firefly." Another of Whedon's TV shows, "Angel," was recently cancelled, which may mean a film could be on the way for that too. Who knows in this topsy-turvy world? Black is white. Up is down.... Up next at Universal pictures is a feature film version of the cancelled TV shows "Emeril," "Cop Rock," and "Suddenly Susan." (Just kidding. I hope.)

It was at - http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=3724

At the bottom of the page you can discuss the article in their forum. As the site claims to have 13872 members it might be worth a few of us going in and setting them straight.

AJ

Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I think the greater failing of the American income tax system is with regards to tax incentives (i.e. deductions and the like). These are an attempt to control (usually with good intent) the American populace, to encourage them engage in certain types of activities. I believe that they create an overly complex tax system that makes it impossible to adequately police or regulate. Some people managed to take advantage of the incentives and loopholes to the point where they didn’t have to pay taxes at all (not the intent of incentives as the belief was that all people have a responsibility towards the community), so the politicians tacked on an alternative minimum tax, again adding complexity and creating confusion and loopholes.

I've had to maintain software like that!!!

DRAGONLORD

Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:Go to special features. Highlight "Joss sings..", but do not click it. push your directional control to the left and the squiggly pattern on the left side of the screen will highlight. click on it. This will play Adam Baldwin in his Jayne hat singing the "Hero of Canton".

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

BrownCoat,

Is there a website for these little "easter egg" things? I've seen my dvd's 15 times since I recieved it in early March. Still don't know how to look for those pesky little "eggs".

Respectfully,

Dragon Lord Tibbetts

Summer: Jane's a girls name
Jane: Well I ain't no girl! I can prove it!
Simon: I'm trying to picture you more vulgar... but, I can't...

SASJA

Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:47 PM

The latest review at imdb.com is also less than sparkling - please, someone who hasn't already added a review go and add your more sound view on the matter to bump it a little down :-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/usercomments

WREN

Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlord:
Quote:
Is there a website for these little "easter egg" things?

I use http://movieweb.com

Just type the film name in the 'search the site' box, select dvd eggs from the drop menu next to it and hit find it.

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

KNIBBLET

Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:07 PM

I've printed off a few pages of that site, thanks Wren.

Now, I've got to go home and play with every stinking one of my 200 DVDs to ensure I've found all the easter eggs.

You'll see Knibblet adding eggs to that site soon.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SHADOWVESSEL

Friday, March 12, 2004 1:24 AM

You know, I don't even know the definitions of a "right-winger" or a "left-winger". I've never been into politics enough to F'n care. I guess I just depend too much on people's actions instead of their beliefs in order to get a decent ascession on 'em. And I never try to see past the people around me whenever possible.

Why? Isn't that a closed-off view of the world?

Yes. And I'll tell you why...

I only have the ability to change my immediate surroundings. Yeah, yeah. Vote. Send Greenpiece and Sally Struthers a check. Let's start a F'n riot.

Truth is this: I'm a working man trying to save my wife and I. If Sally Struthers wants to help that starving kid out of the mudhole so bad then why doesn't she F'n pick the kid up out of the damn mudhole herself! How do I even know my check gets to that starving kid? Don't get me wrong, if I see someone in pain I do what I can to help. My wife has a terminally ill disease that hasn't gotten a damn bit of help until recently now that the F'n thing has her bed-ridden! Do I blame Bush for that? No. I blame the people who have abused the system for selfish or criminal purposes for so long that it's near impossible for people who actually need help to get it. He's one man in a group of thousands who govern us. To be honest, the President isn't the one with the real power anyway. But I'll vote for him. Thanks to him Saddam is finally out of F'n power. Saddam financed the SOB's who took out the Trade Center, I think he got off easy. Oh yeah, and I'm a little pissed about the Confederacy gettin' such a bad rep', too. That's just another example of history being written by the victors. I know they did bad things, but so did the Union and every other side in every other war ever fought throughout history ( anybody remember the Crusades? ).

OK, I'm sorry for such a rant and I do apologize if I offended anyone. I never talk about this kind of stuff so it must've been some pent up rage or something. But I won't take it back. I think the point I was originally supposed to be making can be summed up in a line from Angel:

"If nothing we do really matters, than the only thing that matters is what we do."

'Nuff said.

Oh yeah, and to the pieces of fei yoo who gave Firefly such a bitterly sarcastic and, heh-heh, ignorant view of a show that has generated such a fan-base, a special edition DVD set, and motion picture in, technically, only 11 episodes ( since the other three weren't seen until the DVD release ), And you're retarded.

Let's steer clear of the politics and stick to the Firefly here folks. Otherwise, take me out to the black.

"I'll be in my bunk."

MCNALLY

Friday, March 12, 2004 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowVessel:
Let's steer clear of the politics and stick to the Firefly here folks.

We can steer clear of the politics, but let's not give up on the donuts yet. We can stick to talking about Firefly and donuts.

Man, Boston Creams are awesome.
And coincidentally, so is Firefly!

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, March 12, 2004 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

If anything I thought the show had a rather libertarian feel. This notion that you are either (a) or (b) is getting ridiculous. The polarization of the American political system is at the point that the suggestion of a 'third way' is tantamount to treason or something. I guess it is the "If your not with us, your against us" attitude.

Oh, I quite agree. As L. Neil Smith pointed out, any show whose lead characters are smugglers, soldiers of fortune, and prostitutes, can hardly help being Libertarian in nature.

The polarization of american politics is an alternating source of disgust and amusement to me. The worst part is that so few people even realize alternatives are available.

True story: Some years ago, following a move, I picked up a voter registration card at a Republican booth at the county fair; as I walked away, the woman at the booth told me I didn't have to waste postage mailing it; she could take it.

I told her that I wouldn't feel right about that, since I wasn't registering as a Republican.

She replied that was fine, because the democrats had a booth one aisle over.

I told her I wasn't registering democratic either.

She looked confused, then got angry. "Well, you have to be one or the other, you know."*

The worst part is: This is someone who at least cared enough to volunteer.

*Footquote: "You have to vote for one of us. It's a two-party system!" -- Kang (Or possibly Kodos.)

RocketJock

INVISIBLEGREEN

Friday, March 12, 2004 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
She looked confused, then got angry. "Well, you have to be one or the other, you know."*

The worst part is: This is someone who at least cared enough to volunteer.

OMG! That is insane. Don't Republicans and Democrats realize that some people actually like to make up their own minds on important issues? (I am a moderate.)[no offense to either party]

It's true that there's only two parties with any real power, which is a total shame in my opinion.

I'm registered to vote, though w/o any particular party affiliation, but I haven't yet--I just turned 18 in June. And since I haven't bothered to learn anything about this year's political campaign, I probably won't end up voting this year.

Oh, and I don't necessarily think I'd call the the Libertarian. I dislike how the back of the DVD box set calls the government "totalitarian." This is untrue. The gov't in the Fireflyverse was modeled after the US gov't, which certainly is not totalitarian. It's just that the main characters are thieves--a lot of the work they do is illegal--of course the gov't's gonna be after them.

POPEBOB

Friday, March 12, 2004 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
Why would the right-wing be pre-disposed towards this show? Why wouldn't the left-wing? The show had legalized prostitution, an inter-racial relationship, tolerance of same-sex couplings, equality of women in employment and on the battlefield. While not all conservatives are against these, they are hardly on the 'right-wing' platform and surely not on any extreme right stance that could be characterized as having paranoia.

Oh bless you child ,and all of you like her(sorry if yer male it just sounds like a female name), for identifying the true threat at hand... close-mindedness.

This woman, who wrote this appalingly uninsightful review, has truly chosen her side of the fence, built a brick wall and defensive perimiter and armed herself with enough ignorance to baffle a class of 2nd graders, as to what the HELL is she thinking. I can see certain points she makes, such as Mal being BAD. But that point is quickly shot down with scenes like him visiting Kaylee in the infirmary in Serenity. Or how about almost every action he takes in "the Message"? There is far more GOOD in Mal than bad. He's just unscroupulous. He just cares about the only thing he has left.. his Crew and Ship.. and nearly nothing else. Just because he's a criminal in most Governmental eyes, doesnt make him bad.. just Illegal.

An example of a Bad guy would be Niska and his torturous punishments, or Early with his accute powers of inflicting Fear and Pain on people. I hardly think that Mal falls into this category. I don't even think Jayne falls into this category.. he's just a selfish opportunist. As far as Book being counted amongst them, well i have my own thoughts about him.. and quite frankly i agree with Early.."that ain't no Shepherd".

Again.. keep those minds a rolling along the hills of contemplation kids, and bless you for your much needed ability to see beyond the static of fascism.

--------------------------------------------------
You see that man hangin' out of the spaceship with the realy big gun? Now I ain't sayin' it wasn't easy to find you, but it was a little out of our way and he didn't want to come in the first place. So realy it's his will you ought to be twartin'. -Mal "Safe"

POPEBOB

Friday, March 12, 2004 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
[BIt's true that there's only two parties with any real power, which is a total shame in my opinion.

I'm registered to vote, though w/o any particular party affiliation, but I haven't yet--I just turned 18 in June. And since I haven't bothered to learn anything about this year's political campaign, I probably won't end up voting this year.

Thats good man. Don't vote if you don't know the depth of the choice before you. I believe that more important to our american "Right to Vote" is our american "Right not to Vote". As for the parties.. it's a damn shame that only 2 of them have power.. not that the party i registered for( and may have been subsequently flagged by government agencies) was the Discordian party. As of right now I may be the only member. But thats not the point. the point is I HAVE THAT GORRAMN CHOICE!!

BTW I plan to run for Pres in 2012. I'm not gonna campaign, But i'm ready for anyone who wants to query me for where i stand on any given issue. Who knows.. maybe i'll end up getting Elected and then have my votes recounted too

Ahhhh.. Curse you sudden but inevitable betrayal!!

ARAWAEN

Friday, March 12, 2004 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PopeBob:
...the party i registered for( and may have been subsequently flagged by government agencies) was the Discordian party. As of right now I may be the only member.

You're opposed to Accordians?

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

HPUFFIN

Friday, March 12, 2004 3:20 PM

I'm guessing that this reviewer has never had to run for her life or *actively* defend her values (if she has any). If she had done either of these things, she could not fail to identify with the impassioned valuers that are Serenity's crew.

Violence has a *context*: Mal and the others only use it in self-defense; they are never the initiators.

The "amoral parasite" presented is the Alliance. The government has left the independent man like Mal no alternative: he either has to turn outlaw or become an Alliance slave. His decision to remain independent is completely moral, given the context.

"We're just happy to be doing good works..."

DRAGONLORD

Friday, March 12, 2004 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wren:

I use http://movieweb.com

Just type the film name in the 'search the site' box, select dvd eggs from the drop menu next to it and hit find it.

Thanks Wren.

Dragon Lord

Summer: Jane's a girls name
Jane: Well I ain't no girl! I can prove it!
Simon: I'm trying to picture you more vulgar... but, I can't

LUNATIKAT

Friday, March 19, 2004 6:20 PM

Dear Browncoat1,
Couldn't remember if I ever said thanks. THANK YOU VER' MUCH!

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

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, March 19, 2004 7:11 PM

Wow..don't waste the only opportunity you have to make a difference. Voting is one of the few rights we as citizens of the US have, that really means anything in regards to the Nation.

Don't mean to preach..it's just hard to see someone say they don't want to vote because they don't care. Scares me really..take the time to at least see who the candidates are (there are more then 2 candidates..though Nader still remains a numbnut) after all there is alil over 7 months till the presidential vote. You have nothing to lose..except your political voice. Those who don't vote..don't deserve to complain or commend the status of our country. I take pride in my country because we have those said rights.

I think that really applies to any citizen of any country who has the right to vote.. What do you have to lose?

ARAWAEN

Friday, March 19, 2004 8:26 PM

Quote:
though Nader still remains a numbnut.

I don't agree with about half the Nader platform, but he seems well above the major two candidates in 'numbnut status' to me.

I don't know of any candidate beyond Bush and Kerry that are going to be on the ballots in all 50 states this coming election. While it would cause untold problems (and hence I couldn't really support it), sometimes I wish we had a binding None of the Above option on the ballot. Especially when so many states don't even get to have a say in the primaries, with candidates dropping out after the first few. I think the primary should be held on a single day, with a media black-out for 24 hours on the results.

Then again, I am the type of numbnut who would like to see campaigning limited to 2 weeks before the election, media stations obligated (as part of their civic duty) to show debates and ads, and public funding of campaigns (with very low caps) and moderators who call the candidates when they lie, distort or obfuscate an issue.

It is not like 10 months of distortion ads, slander attacks, character assassination and spewing of rhetoric actually helps anybody make an informed decision. Both sides engage in it, both sides attack the other side for doing it. In my mind it makes them both unworthy to hold the office.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

CONANTHEBARBIE

Friday, March 19, 2004 9:08 PM

I'll give our dim-witted reviewer this much: she got an entire fan board into a great political discussion.

If all progress depends on the unreasonable, she is really going to get us somewhere.

I wonder if she's posted similar reviews on most of the "B" horror flicks I love... "Michael Myers is a bad man. Only right-wing fanatics could appreciate this movie. It has him punishing innocent teenagers for engaging in premarital sex."

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

SPLIBERTARIAN

Friday, March 19, 2004 9:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

BUTTERFLY043

Friday, March 19, 2004 10:33 PM

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

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

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

LTNOWIS

Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:35 PM

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

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

RADAR75

Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:48 AM

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

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

PEACE

Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:55 AM

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

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

BRITCHICK

Sunday, March 21, 2004 10:09 AM

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

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

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

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

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

ECGORDON

Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:01 PM

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

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

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

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

ECMORGAN69

Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:51 PM

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

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

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

CONNORFLYNN

Monday, March 22, 2004 3:09 PM

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

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

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

My 2cps

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

SPLIBERTARIAN

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:13 AM

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

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

Voting is voting, speech is speech.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONNORFLYNN

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:54 PM

Hehehe.. Okies..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also..how does this affect the Electoral process?

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

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

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

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

PS..sorry to have hijacked this thread.

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:05 PM

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

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

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

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

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:19 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONNORFLYNN

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:44 PM

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

ASIA

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:14 PM

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

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

SPLIBERTARIAN

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:46 PM

Attn: ALL INNOCENTS

PLEASE DISREGARD THE FOLLOWING HIJACKED THREAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

This was one of three examples I put forth to demonstrate how the electoral process (i.e. the many processes involved in the election of government officials) is constantly changing - independent of whether or not thes

THEFOP

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:31 AM

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

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

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

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

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

RKLENSETH

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:02 AM

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

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

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

THEFOP

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:06 AM

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

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

CONANTHEBARBIE

Saturday, April 3, 2004 1:27 AM

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

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

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

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

ANKHAGOGO

Saturday, April 3, 2004 2:59 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANKHAGOGO

Saturday, April 3, 2004 3:19 AM

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

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

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

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

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

DRACOS

Saturday, April 3, 2004 3:32 AM

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

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

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

-Dracos

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

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Saturday, April 3, 2004 5:48 AM

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

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

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

RKLENSETH

Saturday, April 3, 2004 6:27 AM

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

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

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

OUTLANDER

Saturday, April 3, 2004 12:18 PM

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

JOHNCLARK

Saturday, April 3, 2004 5:17 PM

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

No, it's not just you ;)

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

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

ZORIAH

Sunday, April 4, 2004 7:29 AM

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

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

EMBERS

Sunday, April 4, 2004 4:15 PM

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

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

ANKHAGOGO

Sunday, April 4, 2004 6:03 PM

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

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

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

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

ELIZD

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 5:48 AM

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

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

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

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

IZCHAN

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 8:08 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:) ... keep flying.

SASJA

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 8:10 AM

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

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

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

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

EBONEZER

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 12:05 AM

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

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

Four out of five dentists reccomend calling Ebo a girl.

DESROKO

Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:

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

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

DESROKO

Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:

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

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