Discussion for the subject: What happened to my show, 'cause Serenity wasn't it?!

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 03:51
VIEWED: 33288
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 11:35 PM

Allow an analogy for a moment:
Star Trek IV. Kirk was a bumbling idiot, Checkov just plain stupid, McCoy giving out 'kidney growth' pills, and Spock was the baby-sitter of the bunch. What happened to my show? Did 'Assignment: Earth' never take place? Save-the-whales, in SPACE??
Now I enjoyed it for the 'Spock's Brain' that it was, but bottom line is that it was pretty dumb, and had little regard for the competant, skilled characters we'd come to know; everything was in service of the comedy.

Now, I've heard similar grumblings about Serenity.
I see it as a logical extention and conclusion to the events begun in Firefly, but to some, it seems to have left our characters behind in service of the big-time action and brutality necessary for a theatrical release, and offers only faint glimmers of 'Firefly-that-was'.

Was this our show, or wasn't it?
I think it'd be interesting to hear all angles on this...

Chrisisall

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:35 AM

Was. But writ large, and for much higher stakes. This time our Big Damn Heroes were fighting for something bigger than mere survival. Something so big even Jayne accepted the risk, with no thought of profit.

Select to view spoiler:

I mourn our lost. The wound is still raw. I've watched the film three times now, and tears still flow.

I can understand why some feel they have to turn away, disown the movie.

But I'm not among them.

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

RAKARR

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:43 AM

In my opinion Serenity stayed true to the fans. There wasn't a moment where I thought it didn't feel like a true Firefly movie. Hell it was better than any singel Firefly episode! Just awsome!

Startrek movies never were that great in my opinion.

"I am a leaf in the wind."
Big Damn Fansite - Where the Browncoats gather.
http://www.freewebs.com/bigdamnfansite

EMBERS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:58 AM

well it makes sense that there would be differences
#1 Firefly wasn't entirely Joss' vision, it was a Big Damn compromise with Fox... Joss said many times that he wanted Mal to be angrier and more bitter.

#2 Firefly was a TV show and they thought they would have 22 episodes to slowly enjoy the characters, their relationships and developing and revealing elements about things

Select to view spoiler:

things like where Reavers really came from

with Serenity we are dealing with a movie, where we don't have the luxury of wasting any time...
characters have to be sketched out quickly so that we can get to the story.
But at least the characters and the story can be what Joss intended,
without anyone trying to tell him what he should or should not do.

I think the comic book was supposed to bridge the gap,
explain changes that had happened on board...
at least it did for me.
But personally I don't have any problems with the movie as compared to the TV show....
I would like to have 22 episodes per year,
instead of one two hour movie every 3 years....
but there is nothing we can do about that.

Heck, I'll just be happy to have more comic books.

MACBAKER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rakarr:
In my opinion Serenity stayed true to the fans. There wasn't a moment where I thought it didn't feel like a true Firefly movie. Hell it was better than any single Firefly episode! Just awesome!

Agreed! Sometimes it wasn't fun, and certain scenes broke my heart, but no doubt about it, IT WAS FIREFLY! Yes, it had more anguish than any episode of the show, but it also had far more at stake and far more excitement than the series ever did!

Select to view spoiler:

I'll continue to morn the dead, but I still have to smile cuz in the end, Mal's ship Serenity is "Still Flying!"

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:29 AM

I have seen the movie 3 times. And each time I walk away amazed at new layers I hadn't seen before.

It is easy to see shortcomings of too many crowd-pleasing compromises, or not enough. But each time I see the movie again, I see something grander than theatrics. Serenity has a story to tell, and at heart, it doesn't much matter if the crowd is pleased or not. And the story is this: each character, even the Alliance, is more complicated and flawed than what we saw in Firefly.

No, it wasn't Out of Gas or Objects in Space, or even Jaynestown. Firefly had the luxury of intimacy. We miss that in Serenity--there simply wasn't enough time. But what Serenity offers is perspective, the bigger picture. We pull away from the beauty of each tree to look at the majesty of the forest, if you will.

For me, it took repeated viewings to shift gears. I was confused and disappointed too the first time around. My initial reaction was, I hate to say it but Constantine was a better movie. By the 3rd time, I saw what Orson Scott Card and the New York Times/New York Magazine saw. Serenity has a depth and complexity that rivals the best plays out there.

Perhaps Joss' mistake was he is too intelligent and ambitious for his own good. It is hard for an average person like myself to get it the first time around.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:34 AM

MacBaker,

Can you edit your post to hide the spoilers, please? Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

R1Z

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:19 AM

Free associating here--

Didn't plan to, but that's how this post is turning out.

I'm just back from my third viewing, and I'm still conflicted. There are a few plot glitches I'm working through. If Serenity is 5 years past Firefly, why does Mal talk about the 8 months Simon and River have been on board? Did they get off for 4 years?

I was in shock after you-know-what in the first viewing, but I'm coming to grips with it. I suppose we can still explore the plot threads that would seem to be ended.

It stands to reason that Mal would be grimmer when dealing with system-wide injustice, as opposed to a threat to just his little crew.

I think what I miss is slipping back into the Firefly 'verse I know, kind of like coming home from the office and taking off the shiny shoes that hurt and slipping into the ratty old sneakers that are only good for painting the garage in. Serenity is shiny and slick and it's not HOME yet.

I get all misty at one point in the movie--did anyone else notice that they used the spacesuits from the tv series? Jayne in yellow and Mal and Zoe in military surplus. It's the only thing I've noticed brought forward from the series.

And I HATE Mal's black suspenders, and he's not wearing the tan-mit-brown-stripe pants that I always assumed were leftover from his uniforms.

Maybe eventually, Serenity will feel like home, too, but not yet.

Thomas Wolfe said it: You can't go home again. I'm afraid he's right. I wish he wasn't.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:46 AM

Aw, Chris...unfortunately, I think I'm the guy you wanna hear from. I've been sitting on posting this because I had a very negative experience with the BDM and I'm too down-hearted about it to get in a fight with anyone over it. By the same token, I can't seem to contribute to any of the other threads until I get all this off my chest. I don't think I have ever been so disappointed in a movie. I'm by no means saying that this is the worst movie I've ever seen. It's a good movie. But I had really high hopes. Higher hopes than I would ever allow myself if I didn't have 14 near perfect to utterly perfect episodes of Firefly to fuel them. So the ratio of hopes to actual outcome is greater than any other movie I can think of. Ouch.

(Warning: this is absolutely the longest post I’ve ever written--and I’ve written some long posts! Sorry in advance. This is prolly the hardest post I’ve ever written as well. I’m very disappointed on a lot of levels. Part of me hopes I’m alone in that, but part of me hopes I’m not. I’ve been visiting this site since before the show even got cancelled. I consider a lot of people here friends--as far as this awkward, flimsy internet intimacy can foster such. I’m not looking for a fight; not calling anybody out. I need to put my thoughts together and share my sadness and frustration with people who’ve been where I've been. I know a lot of you loved the movie and I’m glad. I’m overjoyed, really. I didn’t hate it. It was good seeing everybody again; good to get at least one more episode of the best t.v. show ever. I liked how Mal turned the tables on the Operative. In time, I think I’ll come not to mind the movie quite as much as I do right now. Even so, I don’t think it’ll ever climb above “least favorite episode” status. Be warned, once I get rolling there are constant spoilers, and I don’t soft peddle. But first, a little aesthetics. )

Up to now I’ve thought the two main forces in popular art were plot and character; stories were either plot driven or character driven. There are other less reputable forces that get involved, of course; nowadays, there’s “effects driven,” and sex and/or violence will keep plenty of people entertained in spite of the most incoherent plots and non-existent characterization.

I’ve been thinking about how these different drives engage us emotionally. The plot driven story engages us on a direct, visceral level with the circumstances. There’s a certain impersonal quality; we watch a gun fight, for instance, and imagine what it would be like to be in a gun fight. We’re not thinking about what would motivate us as individuals to get in a gun fight, we’re not thinking about how our gun fighting would affect the people we love, we’re just in it and that’s enough. We don’t think about the characters overmuch; hopefully they’re generic enough not to interfere with our fantasy. Our emotions are personal and primal. Most genre fiction is plot driven (genre driven?) in this way. Most "event movies" for that matter.

A character driven story is very different, primarily on an emotional level. Compelling characters bring us into the story on their terms. We’re not watching “a gun fight” we’re watching the Alliance mole panic and shoot Kaylee in the gut. We’re not thinking, “Youch, that musta hurt!” so much as we’re thinking, “Simon wouldn’t really let Kaylee die, he’s bluffing!” In a character driven story, the stakes for each character take center stage. Our emotions project forward and look backward constantly, looking to consequence and motive. We compare the characters’ reactions to what we imagine we would do under the same circumstances. The characters are not merely vehicles for our vicarious enjoyment, but guides and even fellow participants.

In Firefly, character always trumped plot, even when the plot was at its most intense, we never forgot what it meant for the people involved. But in Serenity there's a thing that trumps character.

Serenity has clarified a third force that’s flown just under my r

RAKARR

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
well it makes sense that there would be differences
#1 Firefly wasn't entirely Joss' vision, it was a Big Damn compromise with Fox... Joss said many times that he wanted Mal to be angrier and more bitter.

#2 Firefly was a TV show and they thought they would have 22 episodes to slowly enjoy the characters, their relationships and developing and revealing elements about things
Select to view spoiler:
things like where Reavers really came from

with Serenity we are dealing with a movie, where we don't have the luxury of wasting any time...
characters have to be sketched out quickly so that we can get to the story.
But at least the characters and the story can be what Joss intended,
without anyone trying to tell him what he should or should not do.

I think the comic book was supposed to bridge the gap,
explain changes that had happened on board...
at least it did for me.
But personally I don't have any problems with the movie as compared to the TV show....
I would like to have 22 episodes per year,
instead of one two hour movie every 3 years....
but there is nothing we can do about that.

Heck, I'll just be happy to have more comic books.

It was 14 episodes I believe. I can't remember the last show I saw that had more than 14 episodes to it in a single season. So yeah pretty sure it's 14...

"I am a leaf in the wind."

Big Damn Fansite - Where the Browncoats gather.
http://www.freewebs.com/bigdamnfansite

EMBERS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rakarr:
So yeah pretty sure it's 14...

yes
obviously
I was talking about what it should have been
which is 22 episodes
and what I would want if I was given my preference:
22 episodes a year.

RAKARR

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:10 AM

I don't understand what you mean it "should have been" 22 episodes? The season was going to be 22 episodes long? Or you just wish it was? or what? No way it was going to be 22 episodes and I highly doubt any show will have a 22 episode season. Atleast not any time soon.

"I am a leaf in the wind."
Big Damn Fansite - Where the Browncoats gather.
http://www.freewebs.com/bigdamnfansite

EMBERS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
If Serenity is 5 years past Firefly, why does Mal talk about the 8 months Simon and River have been on board? Did they get off for 4 years?
--Robt. Heinlein

no no, the movie takes place 5-6 MONTHS after the ending of Firefly...
not years, months.

EMBERS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:18 AM

yeah, they all do...
Buffy always (well, not the first season) had 22 episodes per year
Angel always had 22 episodes per year...
Enterprise got cut to only 18 but they had been more

I understood that that was standard for most shows in the USA...at least most network shows.

RAKARR

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:26 AM

22 being the standard? Hmmm.... I believe 13 or 14 is the standard. That's what its been for most shows recently that I watch. Like The Shield, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, Lost was around 14 eps, Prison Break's first season isn't over yet but seems to be comeing really close to an end, Law & Order I believe... I'm pretty sure the standard is about 14 episodes for a season. I think Firefly was going to be just a 14 episode season cause they only produced 14 episodes.

"I am a leaf in the wind."
Big Damn Fansite - Where the Browncoats gather.
http://www.freewebs.com/bigdamnfansite

EMBERS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Select to view spoiler:
Neither man was killed deliberately or specifically. Neither man’s death was a necessary means to the ends of their killers who killed them anonymously. Book’s survival alone wouldn’t have granted Mal a place to hide; Wash’s death was purely random, could have been anyone (again, only meaningful as a way to shake up genre-cynical hardcore fans).

Book’s death has a motivational consequence for Mal, at least; but Wash’s death is virtually without consequence. I’m sorry, a couple tired double entendres from Zoe don’t cut it for me. On another thread someone suggested a brief scene of Zoe crying in Mal’s arms. That’s the kind of scene we might have gotten near the end of an episode of Firefly--quiet, unexpected, slightly out of character, but so meaningful.

you complain that 'Serenity' was written to please the fans,
but in fact you are complaining that it didn't suit YOUR needs.....
you wanted movie deaths with meaning, and speeches, and time to mourn...
but in RL death is senseless, random, and sudden...
and I think Joss is a fan of the RL arbitary death.

And Zoe would NEVER have cried in Mal's arms, she never did during war and there is no way their formal relationship (she always calls him 'Sir') would allow her to do it...
ever

Select to view spoiler:

She could have cried in Wash's arms,
that is part of the reason her repression of all emotion is so emotional...IMO

it is very true that we had quiet time, down time on Firefly,
but that is the thing about TV...you have unlimited time to take your time to tell a story,
that will never ever happen in a movie.
Movies have to keep to the point.
well, at least action movies do.

EMBERS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:30 AM

oh Rakaar, you are comparing cable station's original programming
(which is always done on the cheap, w/fewer episodes per season)
I had noticed that w/HBO & Showtime too,
they ran VERY short seasons....
BUT
with a network show...
Firefly would have been like Angel & Buffy
and Friends and West Wing and Law & Order and Desperate Housewives and Lost and and and
it would have had 22

RAKARR

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:39 AM

If it were to have 22 episodes, then why doesn't it on the DVD Set? Or why haven't those episodes been made?

There isn't need to argue over this. there isn't 22 episodes. Just 14. What could of been doesn't matter. What matters is what can be.

"I am a leaf in the wind."
Big Damn Fansite - Where the Browncoats gather.
http://www.freewebs.com/bigdamnfansite

R1Z

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:54 AM

Quote:
If it were to have 22 episodes, then why doesn't it on the DVD Set? Or why haven't those episodes been made?

Because the show was cancelled mid-season. The Christmas party became the "wrap" party.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 9:54 AM

Rakarr,

Network TV usually has 22 episodes per season. When new series are produced, they usually order about half a season's worth to start, like 10 or 11. In Firefly's case, they ordered 11, then 3 more (probably the 3 that weren't aired). So Firefly the complete series is really half a season's worth...and people can't help but wonder what Joss could have done with a full season's worth to tell the story. That's all. No need to get into a wad over it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

EMMA

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 10:36 AM

HKCavalier, I enjoyed the film but I wouldn't have done if I hadn't have been a fan. I think the nature of Serenity is different to the nature of Firefly but not because of the reasons you stated. I think it is an extremely violent film and what Joss would have done on television if he could have gotten away with it. I for one am glad he didn't because I wouldn't have enjoyed it.

I do agree with you about fan-led art though. Buffy and Angel are pure fan-fiction, a soap opera of the nth degree but I love it because of that. Joss writes a fantastic story because it is a fully rounded soap opera and he gives the fans what they want, and then takes it away from them. This is where I disagree with you though, it is the taking away which makes him so popular.

Select to view spoiler:

Tara's relationship with Willow was wonderful, but better because Tara died. Angel and Buffy were fantastic when they finally got together but better when he turned into Angelus

Serenity is good because it will have 1 or 2 sequels and there will be consequences

Select to view spoiler:

Simon and Kaylee will fail, Inara and Mal will struggle, eventually get together and then fail, Zoe will breakdown - I imagine a mental killing spree. Joss is fantastic but increasingly predictable. There will never be a happy relationship and people always go mad after death of loved ones. The sex-bot made me cringe because it is obviously a plot device and was stolen from Buffy, granted he was plagiarising himself but still!

If there aren't sequels then these consequences won't take place and there I can see your point. Especially with

Select to view spoiler:

Wash's death

. We shall see though.

I liked your exposition and found it inciteful and intelligent. It is more articulate than many of the negative responses I have seen which concentrate on 'oh now, how could he do that'. These things happen, but debating the reasons they are written and who for, now that is interesting.

Personally, I enjoyed the film but I enjoyed it because of all of the 'fan-led' elements, not the 'cinematic-led' elements. But then, I am a Buffy and Angel addict for exactly the same reasons.

extremely dimensionally transcendental

DUCESTECUM

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 11:44 AM

TO HKCavilier:

Your insight regarding Serenity is totally remarkable and as far as I am concerned right on the money. Someone needs to send Joss a copy. I thought it was extremely thought-provoking and intelligent, so much so that I printed it for a fellow Browncoat here at work. I'm just jealous that I couldn't have said it myself.

"And that's not incense!"

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
In Firefly, character always trumped plot,... But in Serenity there's a thing that trumps character... character driven sci-fi it ain’t.

Very insightful analysis. I agree--partially. As someone else pointed out, the sex-bot was an obvious wink to Buffy fans. As you pointed out, Zoe or anyone else wouldn't have questioned Mal the way they did. I agree that Buffy was mostly fan pleasing and "jumping the shark," as you say. I think Angel was less so, and by Firefly, Joss had enough confidence and clout to move past fan-tweaking and tell an independently creative story.

Then Firefly got cancelled (that's what you get for moving past fandom). He gets one last shot at resurrecting Firefly. The pressure is enormous. I can't blame him for returning to what he knows works--pleasing the fans. There are deeply compelling pragmatic issues here. Maybe he didn't panic. Maybe it was a deliberate move to produce what he knows sells.

I don't think Joss sold out entirely though. That's where the layers come in. He did develop character. Just one--Mal's. If you look past the gratuitous fan throwaways, you see that the whole movie is about Mal. Struggling with his loneliness. Unleashing his bitterness. Finding his faith again. That, in the end, was what this whole story is about.

The way I see it, the fan tickles were just a disguise to sell his character-driven drama to a sci-fi action crowd. Maybe that was the mistake. It was too character driven for the action crowd, and too action driven for the character crowd. Most people seem to be able to see only one layer at a time. Those who see the wrong layer hate it, and those who find the right layer for them love it--that is why the disparate reviews. But I understand why he did it, and I applaud him for being ingenious enough to find a way to squeeze 2 movies onto the same screen.

Quote:
I’m sorry, a couple tired double entendres from Zoe don’t cut it for me. On another thread someone suggested a brief scene of Zoe crying in Mal’s arms.

This is where the fan-fic upsets me most. Instead of River-turned-Buffy at the end, I wanted to see Zoe in that room. I think that would have been more in character for a hardened war veteran who just lost the love of her life.

Chrisisall and HKC, watch the movie again. For me at least, I saw a completely different movie the second time around.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

MITHEL

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 12:56 PM

Unfortunately Serenity was not "Firefly". Good movie, maybe a great movie (at least for some of the fans - but I find it hard to believe a non-fan would think of it as anything more than passing entertainment) but Firefly the series was special.

Never liked Buffy or Angel, but with Firefly it seemed that Joss Whedon showed incredible talent. I'm not sure what went wrong with Serenity but I think it was Joss!

I do also agree that Serenity gets better on repeat viewings. I'm not happy with how Serenity was made but I do hope for more of the Firefly 'verse.

Maybe some of us were holding Joss to too high of a standard by expecting more of Firefly? Maybe Joss let the "BDM" go to his head? Maybe the real Joss (of Buffy) was revealed?

We all love to hate Fox for killing the best series I've ever seen. But it may have been Fox toning down the "darker" side of Joss that actually made Firefly fantastic.

EMMA

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mithel:

We all love to hate Fox for killing the best series I've ever seen. But it may have been Fox toning down the "darker" side of Joss that actually made Firefly fantastic.

You are a brave person for saying so but you might have a point there.

extremely dimensionally transcendental

SAFEAT2ND

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 1:16 PM

HKCAVALIER, Ummm....wow.

You put in words what I think a lot of others have tried AND you did it with being abrasive or confrontational. WELL DONE!

Joss himself said it was the hardest thing he's had to do, write this script. And I think you are bang on the money when you said he reverted back to what he knew. Hell, we've all done that under pressure. And here's an added wrinkle, when was the last time a studio stayed hands off a project and let director do things his own way?

I don't believe for a moment that Serenity was Joss's true vision. Plus, the arguement that Firefly wasn't what Joss had envisioned has me thinking then, that Fox tempered his vision and inadvertently make a good show but were too stupid to realize it. And that's the show I loved.

So HK, I'm with you. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either.

Safeat2nd, Chief Handyman of Destiny

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

For me, Serenity represents the Buffy-fication of Firefly. Still has a diverting plot, still pleases the vast majority of Firefly fans who also adore Buffy, but character driven sci-fi it ain’t. The opening scene with Simon is an exemplum. Forget about the fact that Simon is given info he never had until Ariel, the problem with the scene is his kick-ass portrayal of an Alliance Officer. Acting is pretty hard for non-actors and acting undercover when your life is on the line staggeringly so. But here’s Simon all steely-eyed and balls-to-the-wall cool fooling the feds. Remember Jaynestown? Remember when Mal asked him to pretend to be a buyer, as in the totally unsmooth “I’m a buyer” line? In Firefly, Simon’s steeliness developed slowly, painfully, realistically over many episodes, but he never became a good liar--just look at every dumb thing he ever told Kaylee. The Simon in the Alliance uniform is smoooooooth, and the Simon of Firefly is anything but smooth. As fan-fiction though, Simon’s impersonation is awesome--Go Simon!

Nitpick time. Okay, Simon is informed of the goal of River's treatment -- but not the specifics. The administrator refers to "Stripping" the subject's brain, but Simon needed medical specifics. That's what he was after on Ariel.

Speaking of Ariel, check out Simon's performance there. Within the hospital, he is smooth, professional, and calm -- a good actor. Simon is nervous as "the buyer" because he's out of his element -- but disguise him as an authority figure in a "civilized" context, and he's able to handle it--it's familar turf.

And as to why Simon didn't tell the rest of the crew that River had been trained/tortured to be a human killing machine, it's probably because he didn't want them to toss her off the freaking ship! His goal, as the movie pointed out, was to keep River safe.

And by the time he clocks Mal, he's had a lot more time on the frontier. He's become more confident in his new role.

IMHO.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mithel:
Unfortunately Serenity was not "Firefly".

That's the root of the problem. Serenity was not "Firefly." But I do believe that the special Firefly we know and love is not absent, just hidden. Maybe well hidden, but it's there.

For the record, I am not a Joss apologist or fanboy. I used to think of Joss as an entertaining soap opera writer, nothing more. Even with Firefly, I expected him to unravel the series after a season or two with his three predictable "shockers": 1) turning good people evil, and evil people good; 2) switching sex partners within his little pseudo-incestuous family; and 3) killing off main and auxiliary characters, and resurrecting them again.

But Serenity changed my mind. Underneath all that soap opera is some brilliant playwrighting that tackles moral ambiguities, unconditional love, loyalty, faith, redemption, freedom, identity, pain, vengeance, survival--and relationships. Looking back, these themes were there all along in Buffy and Angel, but I think they found their full, mature voice in Firefly. That Joss could bring that maturity to the big screen when there was so much pressure crank out yet another formulaic movie tells me that maybe Joss isn't just a soap opera writer after all. Sure, he has room to grow. Maybe with Serenity 2, he will drop the fan-pleasing trappings altogether.

Well, that's just me.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

EMMA

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:16 PM

Can I just be very girly and say how fantastic it is that this thread hasn't degenerated into the usual slanging match that seems to happen when Browncoats disagree about the BDM.

extremely dimensionally transcendental

SAFEAT2ND

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Sure, he has room to grow. Maybe with Serenity 2, he will drop the fan-pleasing trappings altogether.

I think for the majority of the people that had a problem with Serenity, you summed it up well. And if they feel the way I do, the same excitement and anticipation won't be there for the second one. Maybe that'll be an advantage. It's akin to being punched or dumped by a loved one, you're wary the second time around, less wide eyed so to speak.

Emma, go right ahead

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

Safeat2nd, Chief Handyman of Destiny

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
...you complain that 'Serenity' was written to please the fans,
but in fact you are complaining that it didn't suit YOUR needs.....

Hey there Em. You might have noticed that my post was getting a little long,

so I really tried to streamline the thing and didn't get to qualify everything near as much as I wanted, but I did think I was pretty clear about what I was calling "fan driven" in art, namely: stuff only fans would care about or even in some cases notice. With Serenity, we're not talking about a couple harmless in-jokes, but major events that are cheated of meaning unless you are in love with the characters before you walk in the theater.

In the pilot of the show, after less than an hour of setting up Kaylee's character, Kaylee nearly dies, might have died, and for a few astonishing moments seems to have died. It was masterfully handled, painful, sudden and real--and would be if you'd never seen the show before. And then, o'course, it was really psychotically funny.

Quote:
...you wanted movie deaths with meaning, and speeches, and time to mourn...
but in RL death is senseless, random, and sudden...
and I think Joss is a fan of the RL arbitary death.

I saw this coming. I honestly don't need you to be schooling me about death, believe me. Didn't we all read Flowers for Algernon? Do we really need to learn these things from Firefly? And besides, you're only half right. IRL death is indead senseless, random, and sudden except when it's not and there is always time to grieve. If you live long enough, you'll learn that without the movies. Sorry to be so blunt, but I've read so much of this hogwash about this kind of "lesson" to be learned from the BDM and it makes me nauseous.

Quote:
And Zoe would NEVER have cried in Mal's arms, she never did during war and there is no way their formal relationship (she always calls him 'Sir') would allow her to do it...
ever

Yeah, I didn't think the Zoe in Mal's arms idea was the best either frankly, but it was exactly the kind of scene I was missing in the BDM. I would have liked just one scene where a character surprised me with their choices, you know what I mean?

Quote:
Movies have to keep to the point.
well, at least action movies do.

And I say the point of Firefly was the characters and the action. Not saying Joss didn't have his work cut out for him, but I don't for a second think it was impossible. As I said, the family that he'd taken 14 episodes to build should have been shared with the general public so non-fans would have a chance of falling in love like the rest of us; he should have had the guts to continue from where he left off with Objects in Space--a new audience doesn't need to get a refresher of the series; they just need to know who these people are now. I think he could have squeezed it in. Serenity is not a movie any stranger is gonna fall in love with--they'll think it kicks ass, that Joss has got guts and style, but they'll never know or care who the BDH's are. The way I see it, the plot alone, with the operative, the reavers, River's climactic action scene was plenty of action for any movie and Joss could have filled up the rest of the movie's running time with heart.

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.

THELURKER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rakarr:
Lost was around 14 eps

Just to be anal and nitpicky (

), Lost had 24 episodes the first season and Season 2 is scheduled for 23 eps.

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:19 PM

*SPOILER FREE*

Good topic, Chrisisall. Serenity was Not our show, Firefly. But that's OK. It wasn't supposed to be.

That's also not saying I didn't love every minute of it. After my first viewing, I was struck by how different the movie was. There was so much happening that there wasn't enough time to emotionally reconnect with any of the characters. I walked in expecting a bigger version of the TV Show. While I was a little disappointed leaving the theater, I felt — assuming other movies aren't made (and I sincerely hope we do get more stories) — it was a good closer to the story. My wife said afterward, "I'm not sure how I feel about that." I said, "I thought it was great." She responded, "I liked it too, but it was so different."

I enjoyed my second viewing better. Got a bigger sense of the scope of it. It IS a movie, and it felt like it. I especially loved Mal's speech in Miranda, "You all got on this boat for different reasons." Felt like he was talking to us Browncoats as well as his crew.

Just thinking about it makes me want to see the movie again. And I plan on it.

I hope all browncoats in every state will work to organize further meetups each weekend to keep Serenity in the top three grossing movies for as long as we can. I can't imagine what Joss has in store for them next.

"You're either in or you're out, and I'm playing to the in."—Greg Dulli.

REAVERMADNESS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:23 PM

HKCAVALIER-
Amen. You put it so well. Thank you.

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

DRROB

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:05 PM

I think it's fair to say that the characters that remained true to the show the most were Wash, Zoe, Mal, Jayne, River and Simon.

Book wasn't there enough to really say if he was 'true to form' but mostly I'd say yes.

Inara definitely wasn't... she seemed more like the 'lost little girl' at the end of "Heart of Gold" rather than the strong character she's always been.

Kaylee really got washed over. She's providing comic relief through nost of the film. That whole "love will keep us together" theme is something near and dear to Kaylee's heart... as expressed through her love of Serenity, before Simon is even an issue.

Honestly though, Joss only has 2 hours to get all this character interaction that we are all used to out to an audience who had never seen the show... I think he did a bang-up job.

Really, launching any feature with an ensemble cast is tough enough... which characters are 'main' which are secondary? Other than Mal, that question was open-ended with Firefly... everyone has their little moments of brilliance.

You can't really do that in a 2 hr movie.

Things they had to change: Simon's breaking River out... for the movie it's simpler to re-write that and show Simon isn't without some guts, where his sis is involved. The safety word. Book provides a Physical 'safe place' in the form of Haven, rather than a philisophical discussion in the galley (a good change I think). Inara being away gives a chance for the Operative to escalate what he will do to get River (Again, plot-wise it works)

Now how it WASN'T Firefly: not as western as the series... ie cows, horses, gritty guitar playing low in the background. Not enough cussin' in Chinese.

How it was cooler: wow those reaver were kinda scary after all. Big special effects. Bigger guns.

How it can continue: That's not the only secret River knows, just one of many... hidden programming even Simon is unaware of. Re-ignition of the Independent movement... but rather than all out civil war with big ships and armies a clandestine 'rebellion' fought by our BDH's.

"Guess you broke into the wrong rec room."

NXOJKT

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:11 PM

I wouldn't agree that either death in the movie was either pointless or random. It has nothing to do with learning lessons, and all to do with storytelling:

Book - Book seems to be the only character (both in the show and the movie) that Mal will talk to on a personal level... about things beyond "ship matters." The conversations that they have in the movie cut directly to the "faith" issue that has been a large part of Mal's character from the first scene in the pilot when he kisses a cross before going in to battle. As Book points out in the movie, though, faith isn't just about God. His last request is that Mal believe in something, anything. Book's death isn't random or pointless. His death is the one death that could center Mal on a purpose. The death of Kaylee or Inara would have damaged Mal on a different emotional level. Book's death focused him on finding a way out of the hole they had been put in... it hammered home that this wasn't going to be something that they could get out of by running away or even standing and fighting. Mal was going to have to be willing to push himself and his crew to the verge of death to avoid them, and all of those that they cared about, being hunted down and killed. The faith thing works on two levels - 1)Mal has to believe that getting the message about the Reavers out is worth dieing for. 2)Mal has to believe enough in himself that he can get it done. There are constant jokes, in both the show and the movie, about how Mal's plans usually don't work out so well. Mal knows this, but he also knows it's up to him to keep coming up with them. He has to believe that he can get it done. Book's death is the only character death that would have driven Mal to the place he had to be in order for the events of the rest of the movie to take place.

Wash - Wash's death is necessary for a different reason. Its purpose is to alert all of us, and all of the characters, that no one is safe. Zoe even asks if they think any of them will make it out alive. After Wash is killed, there is genuine fear from the audience when Zoe is stabbed, Kaylee is hit with darts, Jayne is shot, and especially when Simon is shot. For the uninitiated, it serves notice that Whedon will kill off a central character. If you haven't seen the show, you probably don't know that Book was a central character, and killing side characters is not a big deal. But a central character being killed? That's a different story. For folks who have seen a lot of Joss's work, especially the finale of Angel, there's definite fear that more than 1 of the BDH's will be killed in the final battle. And for those that are veteran Sci-Fi viewers, that know that Firefly is a tip of the cap to Blake's 7, there's a real fear that they all might die. Wash's death hightens the tension and suspense for the rest of the film.

Now, having said all of that... I do agree that there probably was too much catering to the fans. I didn't need to see Simon and Kaylee together at the end of the film. I would guess Joss felt he needed something positive to happen at the end, something to counterbalance the funeral. There were a lot of in-jokes, a lot of things that could have been done better. A lot of that, I think, can be placed squarely on the fact that film is different than television. Could the opening have told a different story? Sure. But that's not the story Whedon wanted to tell. He has said from the beginning that he wanted Firefly to be darker and more grim. I don't think making it so dark that he killed to "family members" was catering to the fans. If Jayne had broken into "The Hero of Canton" while playing guitar in the crew's 1st visit to Haven, that would have been catering to the fans.

Basically, I understand where you're coming from. I think there probably was some catering to the fans, but not to the level that you've asserted. No, the movie isn't as character driven. That's tough to do in a 2-hour span, as a opposed to a 14-hour span. Sure, some movies manage it. Typically those are movies being directed by veteran film makers, not

XEROGRAVITY

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:19 PM

KHCavalier...

I disagree with little of what you've said. Some points are "debateable", but then ALL points are debateable. You're psychoanalyzing the film. Sorry it's just too much to chew on. Kind of like a debate on a religious book (bible, koran, torah, baghavadgida, etc.). It's endlessly involving, and hence endless.

There are political and philosophical dimensions to your entire analysis. You should tear apart each issue and get the point. Get to the point on each separate issue in a separate post. Too few people can wrap their minds around that much information, regardless of how interconnected each issue is.

Just a thought.

XG

No such thing as gravity. The Earth just sucks.

DECLAN

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:20 PM

Still keeping within the subject matter of this thread, I would like to compare the BDM and the TV Series to literary forms.

The BDM is like a novel: it is the story of the single most important thing in the character's life. This is one reason why sequels are hard to do, either in movies or novels, because how many "most important" things can one have in one's life?

Each episode of the TV Series was like a short story. A short story is interesting and important but it is not the most important event in the character's life. We were used to this type of story and the BDM is simply on a bigger scale.

The novella (short-novel, AROUND 20-40,000 words) although very rare in general literature, and increasing rare in SF literature, is considered by some to be the perfect length for SF. It gives you the extra needed space to introduce your SF idea without the extra scale and development needed for a full novel. The TV Pilot Serenity 1 & 2 is the equivalent of a novella. It's running time is between 1:20 and 1:30, compared to :42 of an episode and the 1:59 of the BDM.

The TV Pilot Serenity is one of my favorite episodes and it may be because of the scale: bigger than an ordinary episode but smaller than the BDM. In another thread, I've speculated about the possibilities of Made-for-TV movies if the Serenity box office is not good enough for sequels. How does anyone feel about Made-for-TV movies of our show?

***************
"'Course, there are other schools of thought."

REAVERMADNESS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:21 PM

I wish I could know what Joss is thinking about all of this. (How the movie is doing and what loyal fans are saying.) Is he saying:

1)"Yes! It worked just as I wanted. Some loved the movie some are hurt by it. Just as I planned."

2)"What's wronge with these people? Can't they see what I was doing? If they can't see it then they just don't get it and I don't care."

3)"OMG. I didn't know it would have this sort of impact. Should I start practicing 'Would you like fires with that?'?"

4)"Take that you SOBs!" (Now does he mean the FFFans, Fox, The 'Verse in gerneral?)

5)"I should have stuck to the small screen."

6) a combination of the above.

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

XEROGRAVITY

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:25 PM

err... HKCavalier... sorry for typo

XG

No such thing as gravity. The Earth just sucks.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheLurker:
Quote:
Originally posted by Rakarr:
Lost was around 14 eps

Just to be anal and nitpicky ( ), Lost had 24 episodes the first season and Season 2 is scheduled for 23 eps.

and Jack's "24" had w.... well, 24 eps.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

PATSRULE

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:24 PM

And Prison Break will have 22 episodes this year as well. It may seem like it is close to over, but it isn't. Also, they just announced today that My Name is Earl will have 22 episodes this season, too.

Prison Break and My Name is Earl are the two home runs of the season to me; with reunion being a triple; Threshold and Supernatural being doubles; and Invasion, Surface, and Killer Instinct being singles. None of the other new shows get a hit for me, but Nightstalker is still at the plate.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by XeroGravity:
There are political and philosophical dimensions to your entire analysis. You should tear apart each issue and get the point. Get to the point on each separate issue in a separate post. Too few people can wrap their minds around that much information, regardless of how interconnected each issue is.

Thanks for the compliments, XeroG. Yeah, it was a long post. Having had no idea how it would be received, I really didn't know if I'd have the stumach to split it up and deal with a potential fire storm on each and every point. As my dentist once told me, better to have the whole thing out at once.

But my worries were unfounded, I see. Thanks everyone, for being so decent and understanding. I'm glad it gave voice to some folks' disquiet over the BDM.

I'd like to speak to the idea floating around that we can't expect the BDM to be as character driven as the show. For one thing, Firefly was always an action show--it weren't no Masterpiece Theatre! Of course there are character arcs in t.v. that just aren't possible in a movie, but character arcs aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the story taking it's cue from what the characters know and feel about their world, rather than what we know and feel about their world.

(**Big damn spoilerific example**)

Select to view spoiler:

When Mal finds Book we have no idea how badly hurt he really is. We don't really find out until he dies, because his visible symptoms are consistent with any number of non-leathal though thoroughly debilitating injuries. Mal calls for the doctor whom we seem to have seen mere moments ago maybe 30 yards away. Where the hell was Simon? Answer: exactly the distance it would take for him to get to Mal just as Book passed away. Bad story telling, bad.

Here's my imperfect thumbnail of a character driven version. This is the kind of storytelling I observed in Firefly, episode after episode. The storytelling on that show was tight.

First of all, there are three character's points of view we need to be clear on, not just one. In the film version we only know as much as Mal gleans from the scene; what's really wrong with Book and what's taking Simon so long are distracting holes in the storytelling.

So anyway, here's my version of the scene. First of all, Serenity doesn't go to Book first. They go to, say, Whitefall. Everybody's dead. Then there's the scene with the Operative on the visiphone. That's when Mal realizes that Book could very easily be dead and they race to find out. Now we're worried about Book, wondering if he's okay.

And the next shot answers this with the scene he only describes in the movie. It's terrible, it's Serenity Valley all over again, the sky is black with violence, death is everywhere. Book is mortally wounded and then he shoots his killer out of the sky and falls. (How many times in the show did one shot end with a question that the next shot answered? That's good story telling.)

Now there's a time lapse (of course, the scene with Book is slightly out of sequence, a flash back really, because by the time Mal's talked to the Operative, the damage is done). Whedon magic. Something on the ship, maybe River being psychic, she looks at the captain and he sees in her face what he never wants to see. All she says is, "Mal." (You know, as if Book were saying it, kinda.)

Now we're on the ground with the crew and Mal sends everybody in teams to search for survivors. We're all so worried about Book at this point that the next few minutes are agony.

Then Book calls to Mal and we see him. He's in terrible shape. Mal calls for the Doctor and we know that he's a ways off. Of course, the scene is much shorter and pithier now that the heroic bit was shown instead of told, so we're not stuck with the coincidental timing snafu. Maybe there's a chance to give us a shot of Simon hearing Mal's call and tearing over to him as fast as his legs can carry him. Maybe a shot of him and Jayne running, both. Book dies.

CAPTAINCDC

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:52 PM

Well for starters I could not disagree with you more about Star Trek IV, I loved that movie.

Without getting into spoilers I thought Serenity was very true to the series and the fans. This is a movie not a television series. Certain things have to happen to advance the story along, to get from point A to point B to point C. If you don't have events happening that acts as a motor driving the story along then it comes off as forced and out of character. I think some of the more shocking events in the movie would have happened in the series, but probably more toward the middle to end of the second season.

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

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason!

JONQUILL

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 6:59 PM

Were Firefly and Serenity wildly different?

Abso-friggin-loutely.

I've got to say I miss Firefly as well. The small insular world of that ship just trying to get from today to tomorrow and the simple struggles of that. We were allowed so much time alone with the thoughts of these characters. It was lovely.

Serenity is entirely different, but I don't believe it is so for the sheer benefit of fans.

Just to cover the Simon arc. A few points, first in Serenity the pilot, Simon was pretty slick and controlled, so much so he had Mal fooled into thinking he was the Alliance mole. He's no coward, and with time to prepare, esspecially months, I believe Simon could have pulled that one off. The whole "Stripping" line. That was a mistake. Plain and simple.

Do I believe Simon could crack and haul out to hit Mal? Absolutely Yes. Simon's been trying to hide her forever, and keep her out of danger. Mal throws her out into the spotlight, and puts her within arms reach of reavers, he might just get snippy.

Simon and Kaylee getting together. How is this pandering when they were setting it up for the ENTIRE run of firefly. However inept Simon was at wooing Kaylee, there was no doubt he had a good amount of desire to head that way. He thinks he's going to die, he spews out the one thought he wishes he had expressed. Cliche? Yes. Fan-Driven? Ehh...Did you really want these two to Ross and Rachel it for couple years, masterfully avoiding each others arms?

Still, your main point, I think is true. This movie is plot driven, rather than character driven. Plain and simple.

But i think the reason for that is because it's a movie, not because he tried to placate the fans. If anything, what may have been damaging to the movie was Joss's need to get everyone in. Browncoats would have loved a quiet film with slow revelations and lots of character development, but that wouldn't have been the franchise builder that Universal, and Joss were looking for.

Joss needed an accessable epic for the flick. The stakes got ramped up, and did the revelations. You could claim that Universal nudged Joss in this direction, but he himself said, "Television is about the question. Movies are about the answer." There was no time to set up mysteries, when he had so many answers to make with.

The nature of it being a movie, or at least, this kind of movie, an sci-fi adventure, dictated that there be an immediate problem and a delayed resolution. There isn't as much time available to mull and explore both the situation and the characters, there's just to much exposition and story that needs to come out.

If anything could really be pointed to as the main the source of Serenity's woes it's the fact that it derived from a television show that only went half a season. There are a lot of mysteries out there that needed tending to. River, the Reavers, the Alliance...all were left as open threads, all needing to be tied up in the movie. All this plot, and you need to set up the world, and the characters for the first time viewer. It's a clustermuck of work this movie needed to do. There's a reason why Spiderman 2 is better than the original, and X-Men 2 is better than the original. THese sequels don't have to do as much work. The world is set, the characters familiar. All they need to busy themselves with is a good story.

For another example, look at the Train Job, probably the closest analog to Serenity you will find in Firefly. That episode is rife with rushed characterization, because, well, that's exactly what Joss was at the time...rushed. Rushed to introduce the world, and the characters, and the intangeables, all again, all with a lot of FOX demanded action.

I don't think Joss is a rarified genius, but I do think he's a smart guy. He's also notorious for planning years of his fictional worlds into the future. If Joss is given the chance, another entry the story of the 'Verse will show the consequences of Serenity that I'm sure he's already dreamed up.

Am I a little dissappointed by Serenity

MONGER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Acting is pretty hard for non-actors and acting undercover when your life is on the line staggeringly so. But here’s Simon all steely-eyed and balls-to-the-wall cool fooling the feds. Remember Jaynestown? Remember when Mal asked him to pretend to be a buyer, as in the totally unsmooth “I’m a buyer” line? In Firefly, Simon’s steeliness developed slowly, painfully, realistically over many episodes, but he never became a good liar--just look at every dumb thing he ever told Kaylee. The Simon in the Alliance uniform is smoooooooth, and the Simon of Firefly is anything but smooth. As fan-fiction though, Simon’s impersonation is awesome--Go Simon!

Speaking of Ariel, check out Simon's performance there. Within the hospital, he is smooth, professional, and calm -- a good actor. Simon is nervous as "the buyer" because he's out of his element -- but disguise him as an authority figure in a "civilized" context, and he's able to handle it--it's familar turf.

Simon is definitely in his element, having grown up on Osiris in a seemingly aristocratic family and working as a surgeon in a prestigious Alliance hospital. He would have no problem playing the cold, intimidating authority figure to a sniveling underling because he would have grown up in that environment.

Also, keep in mind that in back story Simon has spent his fortune, and about two years, working to get River back. He had plenty of time to pick up all the skills necessary to do what he did. However, take him outside of the core worlds and he becomes a babe in the woods. That makes plenty of sense to me.

ARAWAEN

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 8:03 PM

Lost was 24 episodes, I have it on DVD.
Battlestar Galactica (remake, 1st season) is 13 episodes but it was essentially a mid-season replacement. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis are usually 22, but Sci-Fi splits them into two sections (one in the summer and the second starting in January), as they don't want to compete with new shows on other networks.

22 episodes is the new standard except for cable networks. Older shows like Star Trek (TNG, DS9 and Voyager) were always 26 (except 2nd season of TNG).

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

REAVERMADNESS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 8:17 PM

HKCavalier -
I wish there were a way to do a phantom edit and see your version of the BDM. I'm sure I'd like it much better.

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

FINNMCKOOL

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 8:19 PM

Mayhap its just me, but I did get a small taste of not quite right with the movie. But the second time I saw it, I figured out what it was missing. It was all high-tension, high-strung moments. We never had a "dinner table", "Uncle Natty story-telling," faux basketball game moment. And really the only spot we could have, because after which and even a bit before everyone was so tense about the Simon/River/Mal fight, was on Haven around the campfire, with Jayne playing guitar of all things. That could have been a good "Hey we're all a family here" moment, which is what the show was missing.

Of course is if there is more Firefly goodness to come it will be interesting to see how the dynamica changes and if the franchise survives that change.

I aim to misbehave.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 8:28 PM

HKCav's nailed it solid, cause that was prettymuch my exact response to the film, but no way no how could I have worded it that well.

That being said...
*Spoilerrific Parts Here*

Select to view spoiler:

Zoe does display a somewhat out of character emotional response to Wash's death, but I am kinda guessin you'd have to be a military type to catch it.

She loses her cool, leaves the defense line and goes berserk on the Reavers - which is a bad, bad idea from their tactical situation, and she very nearly paid for it with her life... normally levelheaded Zoe would have NEVER given up tactical advantage like that if she wasn't really torn up inside over Wash.

That's Zoe's way.. not break down and bawl, but start whuppin serious ass, and she wanted reaver blood right then and it overcame her normal frosty cool.

Anyhow, it's a rockin flick, but it ain't my Firefly.

-Frem

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

But my worries were unfounded, I see. Thanks everyone, for being so decent and understanding. I'm glad it gave voice to some folks' disquiet over the BDM.

Since we're boldly talkin' turkey here, let me let loose an idea I had after seeing the fourth season of Buffy (and take a chance on bein' shot in the process).
The fan-driven idea is a legitimate one, for me, at least. Buffy peaked at season three, and then the whole "Let's do THIS now with her" took over.
Enjoyable, albeit nonsensical storytelling was the name of the game. Firefly seemed to be beyond that, but as we see in the BDM, Joss will always come back to the 'fan tickle', which is okay with me, as long as it's not the point of a scene or a movie. For me, the 'fan tickles' in the BDM were acceptable and amusing. But strung out over years, I'm afraid Firefly might have had Kaylee construct her own Simonbot at some point. And here's where I get ready to duck:
I think it might have been a good thing Firefly was canceled...
Cancelation forced Joss to make a concentrated effort to tell the most powerful story he could all at once, without falling back on the Buffy-like-nonsense and soap opera romance-switching that permeates Buffy and Angel (although I admit that it's way more acceptable for me what he does in those shows, 'cause they're based on fantasy, and in fantasy, everything goes- science fiction demands sticking to the rules of the reality you create, IMHO).
Watching the BDM for me was like watching half a dozen of the most important Joss-written and directed episodes that would've appeared in two or more seasons of Firefly, without the 'filler' episodes that would've ( most probably ) found their way into the series while Joss was working on a new project ( Wonder Woman, for example ), and then encoded for quick download to my brain in a two-hour format such that 119 minutes feels like a mini-series to me! I REALLY liked it!
Yeah, Simon rescuing River was a little over-played (as I understand from FF, he paid someone else to get it done, he did not actually participate), and yeah, having River do a Buffy on the Reavers was a little bit of an easy out at the end, but on the whole, I really loved it.
And Mal's part in it all was the REAL story here, and the main reason for my approval, just as in Return Of The Jedi, where Luke's story is more important to me than fuzzy Ewoks and IMPOSSIBLE forest chases.
Serenity has flaws to be sure, but for me the gold in Serenity is very shiny, and far outweighs the pyrite.
I am wont to read much into films, it's been said. I may be connecting gaps in storytelling, or filling in plot holes, or possibly even excusing poor or easy choices in my mind without even being aware of it because what I like about it, I like so much.
But that's between me and my mind.

HK, you sound so much like I did after seeing Matrix: Revolutions, certainly the resentment's there. It's hard to believe we had such different experiences out of the same movie!

Either way, we'll always have Firefly.

Chrisisall, still processing

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Simon is given info he never had until Ariel, The Simon in the Alliance uniform is smoooooooth, and the Simon of Firefly is anything but smooth. As fan-fiction though, Simon’s impersonation is awesome--Go Simon!

*Chrisisall embraces the fanboy moment*

At the beginning of Serenity we see a computer generated 'assessment' of River's escape from her imprisonment and experimentation, it cannot be actual images taken at the scene, as there cannot be enough cameras to collect enough 'shots' for such a movie-like presentation. And Simon was not present at her liberation, he paid a 'faction' to do it. The computer was just giving it's own account of how it probably happened, and decided Simon must have done it himself (or maybe this version is the one preferred to be played most often by the Operative, as it certainly is more dramatic than the actual events.
Perhaps any real images of how River was taken out of there were destroyed in some sort of...destructive incident....that, destroyed them...
yeah...that's it!

Chrisisall, fanwankin' away

SCIFIGIRL

Thursday, October 6, 2005 1:28 AM

I am going to aplogize in advance. I didn't read everyone's posts, so I am sorry if I repeat what someone else has already said.
I was dissapointed with the movie because to me it didn't feel as much like 'Firefly' as I thought it should. One thing that really jumped out at me was the fact that it really lacked the western side that Firefly was so good as combining. I mean, you saw a little, but not as much as you did in the shows. I understand you can't have everything in a two hour movie; but I think that is what really made it feel like it wasn't Firefly.
I also don't like the sullen, bitter Mal as much as I like the rough-n-ready, this is how its gonna be Mal. I understand why he was bitter, but I like him much better when he was a little more relaxed.
So, basically, what I am saying is no, it did not feel like Firefly. I was very dissapointed in it.

XEROGRAVITY

Thursday, October 6, 2005 3:08 AM

I just got back from seeing the BDM again. I saw it on the first day it was released, and loved it, but also felt the 2X punch of the Book and Wash thing. Strangely, with each additional viewing of the flick, it settles in more. And more subtle elements of the story come into focus. For those of you who are writing it off as a bad turn in the plot, I'd recommend going back and seeing it again (and again and again, after all we want this thing to be a success that spawns a return of the series or sequels). It works. Least it works for me.

As to this issue of Mal's bitter transformation, it all seems sensible to me. Mal says to Simon in the movie he's having to turn down honest work and step twice as fast to stay ahead of the Alliance because of Simon and River (which makes him edgy), Inara has split the scene, thus further aggravating him (obviously because neither her nor Mal can seem to reconcile their feelings for one another), and as the movie progresses the pressure is ramped up from being pursued. I mean c'mon already. He has Book and his flock's bodies strapped to his ship to get thru Reaver space when he obviously was fond of the man in a father-son sort of way. Everything there seems to fall right in line with the plot from the FF series, and doesn't strike me as being out of character, all things considered.

As to this issue of Simon's rescue of River, somehow I just don't see how his statement in the series that a faction helped him smuggle River out from Alliance control in cryo precludes him from having had an active hand in the rescue. Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Everything in the BDM worked for me.

XG

No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-as-it-was" just sucks.

GGREEN29

Thursday, October 6, 2005 8:34 PM

HKCavalier:

I was with you until "The sense of family and intimacy..." paragraph, where you started to invent your own fan fiction as well as some genuinely hallucinatory fiction.

"Zoe never would have questioned Mal's shooting that man..."

She didn't! If you watch the scene that's actually in the movie you will see that that wasn't Zoe's concern; she stated that shooting that man was an act of mercy. Her problem was that Mal wouldn't let the man on the hovercraft. There were three important points in the actual scene that were not in your imaginary scene: 1. Zoe clarifies that shooting the man was an act of mercy; 2. That Mal, by not letting the man on the hovercraft was sinking too far into an unhealthy darkness; and 3. That part of Mal and Zoe's shared humanity was not leaving anyone behind.

This scene that you missed had an effect on Mal. He tries to dismiss it at first by saying "maybe that's why we lost [the war]", but it seems clear to me that he doesn't believe what he said; he's just saying something to end the discussion and pretend that he won it. But in the bar, after River goes super destructo, Mal steps away from the darkness he was descending to and brings River and Simon back, knowing that it is not right to leave them behind.

As for questioning Mal, that was a common occurrence. In the TV ep Serenity Zoe questioned Mal on going to Whitefall. She questioned Mal again in the valley. In the Train Job she expressed concerns about doing the job with the Alliance soldiers on board. In Safe she opines that life would be simpler without Simon and River. She does it all respectfully and tries to do it alone, but she does do it.

"Mal wouldn't have had to do half the yelling..."

Mal was yelling at Zoe and the crew in the first episode. When the discussion about dropping Simon and River off before Whitefall got out of hand Mal yelled to end the discussion. Later, when Zoe suggested that they didn't have to deal with Patience, that they could try their luck elsewhere, Mal yelled at her and the others in the bridge, then turned it into a good leadership pep speech. In Out of Gas Mal threw Wash against the wall when Wash wouldn't leave Zoe and return to the bridge. More yelling when Mal wants the emergency beacon signal extended. During Ariel Mal did far more than yell at Jayne when he concluded that Jayne tries to betray his crew. When it comes to running out of money or someone betraying his crew, TV Mal had established a pattern of yelling and/or hitting.

GGREEN29

Thursday, October 6, 2005 8:41 PM

More response to HKCavalier:

"...War Stories? Every last one of these people would die for him."

Not really. When Wash and Zoe are prepping for battle Jayne is mocking them. When he leaves the scene the impression is pretty clear to me that he's not going to go on a suicide mission. The next scene shows Book, Kaylee and Simon prepping for battle, then we see that Jayne apparently has changed his mind. What caused his change of mind? Not loyalty IMHO, but the odds increasing in his favor. And in Heart of Gold Jayne wasn't going to help Mal and the crew until he found out that whores were involved. Again not much loyalty to Mal.

While Kaylee tried to be brave in War Stories, in the final test she's demonstrated that she won't die for him. When it was just Kaylee and River on the ship Kaylee lost her courage and became a liability. This lack of courage on Kaylee's part also showed up in Objects, where Kaylee turns her back to Early, lets her arms be tied, lies down, and gives Early the location of River's room. Kaylee tried to be loyal but didn't have the courage when alone to deliver her intentions.

In the previous paragraph of your treatise, where you started to lose me, you engaged in your own fan fiction by believing, apparently, that River had already gone on missions before, when it's stated quite clearly in the movie I saw that River had not gone on any missions yet. While five months does seem like a long time before Mal uses River, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. And we also know in the Zoe questioning Mal scene that you missed that the crew was in dire straits financially. We know from TV ep Serenity that when the money gets real low Mal gets tetchy and takes more risks than he otherwise would. This is the setup for the FIRST use of River. Believing that she was used before, while being a sensible idea by itself, is your fan fiction. That Simon would have accepted anyone endangering River is also fan fiction and does not seem to supported by the series.

"When Simon clocked the captain, boyee!"

Well, let's see. When Simon jumped off the catwalk onto Dobson, boyee! When Simon wrestled with Dobson, boyee! When Simon grabbed the gun and pointed it at Dobson, boyee! When Simon, severely outnumbered, tried to fight the townies in Safe, boyee! When Simon fights with the Alliance soldiers in Ariel, boyee! Then when Simon chokes the Alliance soldier with his knee, boyee! When Simon jumps Early, TWICE, boyee! There's a fairly clear pattern in the series...when someone endangers River, boyee! Or was that all fan fiction too?

"Senseless pandering." Simon's feelings and sex with Kaylee.

I agree with the classist assessment of Simon, and this almost certainly will be a doomed relationship if Joss takes it anywhere else. But all during the series Simon was obsessed with protecting and curing his sister, and relationships were almost certainly not on the top of list of things to do. And of all the crew members Kaylee was the only one that seemed to like him. So, in the course of the movie, when Simon's two major problems, River's mental health and running from the Alliance, are solved, who wouldn't be susceptible to a little release? Think of the WW2 photo of sailor kissing the woman that was in Life magazine. Simon's World War was over, he won, and Kaylee's availability and true concern make the connection obvious to me; not deep and meaningful, perhaps for either one, but an attempt at a connection, fulfilling a need and celebrating life a little.

GGREEN29

Thursday, October 6, 2005 8:52 PM

Last part to HKCavalier:

"So why didn't anyone stay on Serenity when they got to Miranda?"

So why didn't anyone stay on Serenity when they got to the moon in Heart of Gold? You seem to be ignoring series precedent. Maybe on Miranda they remembered to lock the ship and leave the key under a rock.

"...little unexpected "out of character" things was part of that--"He's my hewo.""

To quote Simon from the first ep. "I'm confused...no, wait, I think you're confused." So are out of character moments good or bad? Your treatise seems to slam Joss for movie out of character moments, but you praise TV out of character moments. Are the movie out of character moments truly out of character, or just out of sync with your remembered version of the show?

"Neither death was of great consequence."

I agree with you on Wash's death . It was gratuitous, a shock for shock value only. But Book's death was necessary for the transformation of Mal. Just having Haven destroyed wouldn't have been enough for Mal to get belief and a mission, because all those other people at Haven and Whitefall, etc. weren't his crew. Book was a crew member, and was also a respected acquaintance. It was only Book's death, or another death within Mal's very small world that would have made Mal care about the bigger world.

"Zoe crying in Mal's arms...slightly out of character, but so meaningful."

Slightly out of character!? It would have been a full corruption of her character. Zoe was a "stone cold shong si shasho" from The Message. In the movie that I watched Mal, after the Haven slaughter IIRC, walked through some of the passageways of the ship and then paused and leaned on the bulkhead, straining ALONE with the responsibilities he's taken on. That's the most Zoe would've done, though she probably would have done it in her quarters, and maybe just a few sniffles before she brought herself under control again. There'd be no full Willow or Inara sobbing because she's far to disciplined to lose control like that.

All in all my favorite parts of the movie were the quiet parts, because Joss does those parts best. If there's another movie I hope he gets over the idea that it has to be an epic story. I understand his desire to get out the bulk of this story in the event there's no sequel, but I hope he changes track if there is a sequel. Just allow us to soak up the relationships because that's what Firefly came across as and was best at. I think we can agree on that part.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, October 6, 2005 9:14 PM

GGreen, I don't know where to begin with you. You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder with these "refutations" of yours. I'm talking to normal people in a normal way here, what are you about?

When I said "Zoe never would have questioned Mal's shooting that man," folks here understood what I was refering to. Of course you are perfectly right, she didn't question the shooting specifically, so much as the shoving. It's not "fan fiction of my own" it's imprecission or what I'd call conversational metonymy. Kudos for being the only one who caught it, and the only one who misunderstood me.

To be precise, I think Zoe would have understood exactly why Mal didn't let that man on the mule.

And never did I say that Zoe never questions Mal's actions. Interestingly, all the examples you sight are examples of Zoe questioning Mal's actions from the standpoint of safety and prudence, never on moral grounds, never.

And holy-moly, I never said that Mal never yelled at the crew, how out of touch with reality do you think I am? How disingenuous was that "I was with you" line if you imagine I am so unfamiliar with our favorite t.v. show? LOL I felt that the frequency and beligerance of Mal's yelling in the BDM was excessive and presented, particularly to the uninitiated, a generally adversarial relationship with his crew which I found out of keeping with the relationship developed by the end of the 14th episode. I in no way suggested that he should sit them all down to tea and crumpets, only that the ratio of Mal's yelling to everything else in the movie needed adjusting as it felt gratuitous.

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.

REALLYKAYLEE

Thursday, October 6, 2005 9:18 PM

i just read all of that. wow. i am now very satisfied. despite the fact that i loved the movie.
now allow me to totally patriot act on yo' asses- (don't whine where the feds can hear you and they're everywhere but here i thinks.) be sure to encourage others to see the film! just cause you didn't care for it- well- well- tell people to see it so joss can blow you away next time!!!

"yeah- she's gotta renew her license to patriot act. can i use patriot act as a verb?" -wash "ariel"

y'all certainly made some great points and hkcav. summed up the issues i had been pondering quite eloquently. but when all is said and done it really just is what you decided to take from it.

shakespeare: more words than God.

FIREFLYFAN278

Thursday, October 6, 2005 9:32 PM

Someone thinks it was better than any Firefly episode? I don't think it was as good as any one Firefly episode.

Blind worship leads to cult thinking.

Like a cult, many are worshipping the movie in spite of its obvious faults.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, October 6, 2005 9:35 PM

Ach, lordy, more lecturing from my favorite Firefly authority! Where do you get off, GGreen?

You're telling me that I'm wrong about interpretive matters, like there's some objective measure of these things. Sure, Jayne is of course, obviously, the least loyal of Mal's crew. He might die for Mal, he might not, depending on circumstances. And Kaylee wouldn't kill for Mal, is all. You think if the feds got her, she'd rat out on him to save her skin? Maybe so, she's just a frail falible human being like all of us, but to bring us back to the original point, how the heck is constantly brow-beating the entire crew gonna keep these two "loose cannons" in line?

Please, if you're gonna write any more of these rants, GGreen, could you cut back on the smarmy innuendo and sarcasm? Damn! You are constantly, I would say willfully, misunderstanding me for effect here.

Look, I didn't buy Simon's punching the captain in the specific circumstances in the BDM. You refute me by showing that Simon punches people all the time. Not the point. Judging from what I'd seen in Objects in Space, it seemed natural that River would take her place as a member of the crew now. I thought the stage was set for Simon to grow up a little teesny bit. I didn't think it struck the right chord, so early in the BDM's running time. You disagree, that's fine.

G, are you new to this forum? I don't remember your handle. Bottom line, your attacks here are just uncool. I'm serious. I don't think Simon's confession to Kaylee is in any way the equivolent of the sailor kissing the blonde in Times Square. Simon's a little more circumspect than that. But it's just my opinion, dude, you don't have to agree with me.

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.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, October 6, 2005 9:43 PM

Never fear, ReallyKaylee, I want a sequel as badly as anyone here and I've got folks lined up to keep whatever momentum I can going through the second weekend! It's a good movie, just not as good as I was hoping it would be.

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.

REALLYKAYLEE

Thursday, October 6, 2005 9:59 PM

*heart*
ok hkcav! gotta keep momentum!

shakespeare: more words than God.

CAPTAINCDC

Thursday, October 6, 2005 10:58 PM

I want to preface this by saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion and I realize we all have very different tastes.

That being said I think a lot of you are too hung up on what happened in the series. The movie is a stand alone. Joss made this movie so that non-fans can enjoy it along with the fans. I think some of the things we saw in the series were changed by Joss to make the movie more accessible to non-fans. The way I saw the opening with Simon breaking River out is that Joss changed it from the series. Simon did break River out. He didn't hire someone to do it for him, he just hired someone to pick them both up (literally). Joss could not have put in a re-cap of what actually happened in the series, it would have taken up too much time and it would have bogged down the movie before it was even started.

If you people would stop analyzing every detail to see if it meshes with the series you would probably enjoy the movie a whole lot more. And this notion that Joss was lazy and fell back into Buffy Mode is ridiculous. For one thing on Buffy Joss planned the arcs out seasons in advance. He didn't just come up with plots, and arcs, and villains on the fly. He knew what he wanted down to the most meticulous detail. Yes Joss knows what he is doing. Yes Joss knows how to keep the fans interested. But another thing Joss knows how to do is plan the plot way ahead of time. To suggest that Joss just threw out some fan fiction is insulting, not to me but to Joss. This man loved these characters and this story a hell of a lot more than any of us. He didn't have to shop this story around, he didn't have to bust his ass writing and directing this script. He's a creator. He could have just moved on. In case you haven't noticed he has not one but two movie projects in the works and neither one of them has anything to do with firefly.

I'm not telling any of you to not speak your mind if you have an opinion that differs with mine. But if you love firefly as much as you say you do, then what good does rampant criticism do our cause to get a sequel made. I for one loved the movie and would love to see one or two more. Since all of the exposition is out of the way, the second would almost certainly be better than the first because he would have more time to tell the story the way he wants to tell it. I read somewhere in this thread someones idea for how the scenes leading up to and including book's last scene should have been. He/she said it would have only added 5 minutes to the movie. Five minutes can be a lifetime when it comes to editing a movie, especially a studio movie.

Just try to see how lucky we are. We have the series and the movie and hopefully one or two more movies on the way. Try not to get too hung up on what happened in the series. The movie is not perfect, but very, very, very few are perfect. Myself, I enjoyed the hell out of it, and I can't wait to go see it a second time this weekend. In a perfect world fox never would have canned the show prematurely and we would have been able to see Joss's vision unfold before our eyes for several years. But that didn't happen and I for one am very thankful for what we have and I really hope we get to see a sequel.

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

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 6, 2005 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincdc:

Just try to see how lucky we are. We have the series and the movie and hopefully one or two more movies on the way. Try not to get too hung up on what happened in the series. The movie is not perfect, but very, very, very few are perfect. Myself, I enjoyed the hell out of it, and I can't wait to go see it a second time this weekend.

Absolutly, totally agree with you captaincdc!
And I think it was made as good as Joss could have made it under the circumstances. And it was made better than ANYONE ELSE could have made it.
And for one moment, forget the non-fans- don't see Serenity for it's lack of fully explored characterization, that would be like saying there wasn't enough dialogue in the last ten minutes of 'War Stories' or something. Firefly + Serenity = a whole story. We know and love them and see our BDH's through to the end of an amazingly well crafted tale. AND she's still flying.
THAT'S enough for me.

Chrisisall, un-disappointed and incredibly thankful

SAFEAT2ND

Thursday, October 6, 2005 11:56 PM

There has been a lot of talk about how Joss wanted Firefly to be darker and that if the series had of continued, much the same as what happened in the movie would've happened in the series.

First off, how do we know that? I am actually very curious to know when that little tidbit of information was passed on.

Secondly, Yes I'll concede that his original vision was darker. I saw the extras on the DVDs. But he didn't get to do it his way, did he? The much maligned FOX tempered his vision and he in turn tempered theirs. The result was a most excellent...dare I say AWESOME show.

We can all agree on that right?

So, where were people wrong in expecting more of the same?

It wasn't what I expected and to tell the truth, I was put off by that a bit. BUT that's not to say there weren't good parts to the movie, and I am DEFINITELY not turning in my coat.

Everyone is allowed to like or dislike a movie, simple as that. I personally hope more like it than those what don't.

So, here's to the new recruits and the tried and true in both their elation and disappointment. Browncoats stand side by side. It just ain't polite to shoot one of your own. The colour of your coat binds us together regardless of our differences of opinion.

Safeat2nd, Chief Handyman of Destiny

HKCAVALIER

Friday, October 7, 2005 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincdc:
...I think a lot of you are too hung up on what happened in the series. The movie is a stand alone. Joss made this movie so that non-fans can enjoy it along with the fans. I think some of the things we saw in the series were changed by Joss to make the movie more accessible to non-fans.

Oh, if only. I've been reading this kind of justification for Joss's changes and though they're sensible in principle, I really don't think Joss pulled it off.

First of all, I don't think Serenity is a "stand alone." I've read review after review by non-Firefly fans saying it was fun, better than the usual dreck, good popcorn fair, but nothing too amazing, nothing they'll be falling in love with any time soon. I would have been fascinated by a truly stand alone movie in the Firefly universe.

Imagine if Alien were based on a t.v. series with milk blooded androids and a vast conspiracy by the human government to farm the aliens--kinda I, Robot meats the X-Files. And then the movie gets made and in the first twenty minutes what we get is an extensive rehash of the series, full of cute banter between Yaphet Kotto and Sigorney Weaver, Ash being programmed by an evil government, essencially giving all the goodies and all the best plot twists away and then proceeding with the plot. The movie would have been just as scary, but the joy of discovery would have been lost. Audiences like that sense of experiencing something for the first time; they're not so crazy about having to be brought up to speed so they can tag along but never quite catch up with a lot of rabid fans.

I really think Joss could have dispensed with the first twenty minutes entirely and let the backstory unfold with the reaver-centered plot as needed. Think of it. Establish that River is a troubled girl with an over protective brother and then have her go berzerk in that bar. Begin the movie the way they did Our Mrs. Reynolds, establish the robin hood thing and show us some space settlers, the intriguing mix of ultra-high and low tech; give us a full dose of the fascinating charm of the Firefly 'verse, its people and its heroes and then sic the reavers on 'em. Fan's would be nothing but gleeful that they already knew the secret and non-fans would have a proper movie experience. You wanna make a stand alone movie, first trust that it can stand on its own.

I really think the central error in judgement here, was that Joss even tried to please the fans at all, really. Seriously, we fans would be pleased just to have the movie made. More than anything else, we fans want the franchize to succeed. Period.

The other implication of this kind of justification is that Joss needed to "dumb down" the show for general audiences, to make it more "accessible." Make it more jokey and never ever let up on the action. You know, like a two hour long trailer! Grrrr. Arrrgh.

In a word, no. That kind of talk in the face of the phenomenal success of the real Firefly makes me just want to cry. Firefly was something no one had seen before, and a whole lot of people liked it so gorram much, it got made into a movie in spite of being cancelled. Trust that. Trust that there's an actual audience for Firefly just waiting to find out what all the fuss is about. The recent success of Batman Begins revitalized a franchize that was virtually dead in the water and did it with very mature themes, extensive character developement, one hella dark leading man and still worked in the wizbang.

Quote:
Joss could not have put in a re-cap of what actually happened in the series, it would have taken up too much time and it would have bogged down the movie before it was even started.

I agree, the whole thing is unnecessary. Leave the backstory untold, except where it arises out of the main plot and let people buy the DVD if they really want to know the whole story.

Quote:
I'm not telling any of you to not speak your mind if you have an opinion that differs with mine. But if you love firefly as much as you

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

CLEANER

Friday, October 7, 2005 5:00 PM

Too me it felt like watching the highlights of 2 or 3 seasons of Firefly.

The strange part was I only really laughed at one part of the movie. That was the bit in the background where River was sniffing Inara's bed. That felt like Firefly to me, the rest of it was just highlights of what should have been.

"If wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak!!!"

TALLGRRL

Friday, October 7, 2005 5:32 PM

So...I'm thinking that you missed the interview where Joss said (and I'm kind of paraphrasing here): "This ain't 'Firefly', y'all."

Firefly was a TV show. That got prematurely killed. He was trying not to tie that to the movie so people would actually want to see the movie and not go "Firefly? What was that? I never saw it." until after they saw Serenity and would then beat a hasty retreat to Amazon or their local store and buy the DVD set of the Little Show That Should've.
What happened to your show?
Your show got canceled.
Then people got together and decided to make a movie based on that show.
The result was our BDHeroes, 6 months later.
Serenity: Bigger, badder, darker....and sublime.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe

TALLGRRL

Friday, October 7, 2005 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Simon is given info he never had until Ariel, The Simon in the Alliance uniform is smoooooooth, and the Simon of Firefly is anything but smooth. As fan-fiction though, Simon’s impersonation is awesome--Go Simon!
*Chrisisall embraces the fanboy moment*

At the beginning of Serenity we see a computer generated 'assessment' of River's escape from her imprisonment and experimentation, it cannot be actual images taken at the scene, as there cannot be enough cameras to collect enough 'shots' for such a movie-like presentation. And Simon was not present at her liberation, he paid a 'faction' to do it. The computer was just giving it's own account of how it probably happened, and decided Simon must have done it himself (or maybe this version is the one preferred to be played most often by the Operative, as it certainly is more dramatic than the actual events.
Perhaps any real images of how River was taken out of there were destroyed in some sort of...destructive incident....that, destroyed them...
yeah...that's it!

Chrisisall, fanwankin' away

Be "fan boy" and wank to yer heart's content. But have enough sense to know that the Operative was seeing the "security cameras" versions of what we saw. He most likely saw the out put of all of the security cameras in the facility.
We saw the actual happenings because...well...IT'S A MOVIE fer chrissakes.
Ease up a little, will ya's?

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe

RODASH

Friday, October 7, 2005 8:10 PM

********SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN**************

Well said HK!! I agree with you on every level. Except, I still would not want to have seen Wash die - even after several seasons (or maybe I just cannot comprehend it at this moment in time).

For me, the show ended when Fox cancelled Firefly - end of story.

Thanks for your story; it helps to know that I am not the only one that felt this way about "Serenity".

Rodash

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 7, 2005 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

We saw the actual happenings because...well...IT'S A MOVIE fer chrissakes.
Ease up a little, will ya's?

Agreed, Tallgrrl, just attempting to defend our BDM, my mistake is, it needs no defense.
HK's right on a lot of points, but that still doesn't keep it from being one of my favourite movies OF ALL TIME!!!

Chrisisall

ERASERHEAD

Friday, October 7, 2005 10:32 PM

(Long Post ahead. Just warning you now.)

The movie is completely an extension of the show. It was never intended to be exactly like the show.

I'm assuming that a majority of the people posting that they didn't like the movie were Firefly fans and have been following the events that led up to getting this movie made from day one.

I'm assuming you were the same as me and reading every little bit of information posted on this site or on some other Firefly site about the movie being made and the countless little blurbs that included quotes from Joss. From the moment it was announced that the movie was a go, Joss has said that the movie is not Firefly. Has everyone just forgotten about that or did people just choose not to listen to what Joss was saying. It was one of the first things he said in a statement that was posted somewhere on this site last year when the movie was green lit. There was also an interview where he was asked if the theme song to Firefly was going to be in the movie and Joss answered something to the effect of, "No. This is Serenity and not Firefly".

The people who are that upset by this movie are all upset because they assumed things going in to this movie that they shouldn't have assumed. We all know the saying about what happens when you assume. You weren't guaranteed Firefly as it was on TV. You weren't told that no characters would die. You weren't told that it wouldn't be darker than the show. You assumed all of these things, and in the end, it's up to you to get over them.

And the characters were all themselves. Mal was a bit darker, as we were told he would be. Book is off the ship. He was a big part of Mal's conscience. What happens when you take away Mal's conscience, the woman he obvioulsy feels something for and put him at a point where they are getting less work and less money than ever? You get the Mal we have in the movie. Simon was a little bit more sure of himself. Given what he's been through with the crew, that's not a stretch to think that he's tougher and a bit more jaded at this point. Seriously people, where's the 'out of character' stuff that everyone is talking about? I've seen the movie several times and I have yet to see what you are talking about.

In my opinion, this was a brilliant movie. I too was a little thrown when I first saw it back in May, but I am a fan of Joss Whedon's other shows too and should have known better as to not know what to expect with his stories. It's exactly why he has a fan base like he does. He knows how to make a story interesting and tense and likes to throw people for a loop. That's good writing. If you want stale, predictable, boring crap, watch some cheesy mega-budget Jerry Bruckheimer film or something like that. Especially being fans of Firefly the show, you should have already known that Joss Whedon is different. It was an original show that threw curve balls at you and it only had half a season of to do it. Why would you expect the movie not to do the same and shock and surprise you?

The only thing you should have in your mind when you see this movie is that it is a movie by Joss Whedon that is a spin off from Firefly. You get to spend 2 more hours than you ever should have had with these characters in this universe. I'm thankful for what we have gotten. We all should be. You don't have to like the movie. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that this movie is a gift and you should think of it as such. There are and were no guarantees that there ever will be or would be a sequel, especially back when Joss wrote this. He made a movie that offers up closure to a story where there was none. And at the same time, it was left with many, many possibilites and unanswered questions for a sequel if we are lucky enough to get one. If we don't get one, I'll be disappointed, but I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to a bunch of fans whine about the movie not being the same as the show. We were told it wouldn't be. We got a gift.

We should still be together in wanting this movie to do well whether you liked the movie or not. W

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 7, 2005 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eraserhead:
I know I am not alone in my appreciation for what you did to get this movie made and the incredible love that is clearly visible in every frame of this movie. It's a great story with humor, action, drama, horror and some serious gut wrenching tension. The best movie I've seen in years and a completely worthy addition to the Firefly 'Verse. I hope you get to keep flying.

Yep.
Double yep.

Chrisisall, a yepman

MALI

Friday, October 7, 2005 10:53 PM

HK, I'm glad you put your stuff on the table, but damn, I couldn't disagree with you more. On many points, but I'll stick to one: Buffy as fan-driven? No character development?
Buffy's adjustment to college, then being a dropout and burger-flipper, learning to parent her sister, deal with her mom's death, ultimate sacrifice to save her sister, then learning to be human again, her dialogic relationship with Faith, her crazy relationship with Spike? and so on...
Anya's ongoing quest to learn to be human?
Willow's managing her powers after they spiral out of control? And especially after Tara's death?
Xander's ongoing struggle to be the less-capable good guy around a bunch of powerful women?

With all due respect, dude (and I'm betting you're a dude), maybe you need to look a lot closer, think about identifying with female characters, think about how you're defining "character driven." I would suggest that your definition of "fan-driven" is almost insulting.

More generally, now that I'm thinking about Buffy, a key comparison that emerged for me after the second viewing, was Wash's final heroic piloting that delivered the crew safely to ground / and Buffy's final monologue before her death that saved her sister. NOT meaningless, but martyrs, going out doing what they do best.

Best,
m.

p.s. if one more person writes that Zoe needed to cry like a girly-girl, i'm going to be ill....she is a SOLDIER, people!

~ Soupcatcher is a hottie ~

MALI

Friday, October 7, 2005 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincdc:
...I think a lot of you are too hung up on what happened in the series. The movie is a stand alone. Joss made this movie so that non-fans can enjoy it along with the fans. I think some of the things we saw in the series were changed by Joss to make the movie more accessible to non-fans... (like) Simon breaking River out...

If you people would stop analyzing every detail to see if it meshes with the series you would probably enjoy the movie a whole lot more. And this notion that Joss was lazy and fell back into Buffy Mode is ridiculous.... To suggest that Joss just threw out some fan fiction is insulting, not to me but to Joss....

uh-huh. totally.

sorry to do an annoying re-post, but i think dccap makes a really really good point.

~ Soupcatcher is a hottie ~

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, October 8, 2005 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mali:
HK, I'm glad you put your stuff on the table, but damn, I couldn't disagree with you more. On many points, but I'll stick to one: Buffy as fan-driven? No character development? ...With all due respect, dude (and I'm betting you're a dude), maybe you need to look a lot closer, think about identifying with female characters, think about how you're defining "character driven." I would suggest that your definition of "fan-driven" is almost insulting.

Mali, look. It gives me no pleasure to dis this movie. I'm just trying to clarify my feelings when folks try to tell me what I meant. I knew Serenity was gonna be different, but that in no way prepared me for exactly how it ended up being different. I went in expecting brilliant storytelling, deft character work and a powerful experience and what I got was less than that. For me. You and Chrisisall and a lot of folk seem to have gotten all those things and more. I'm not trying to convince you of anything about the movie. Chrisisall started this thread to hear from folks like me. I'm grateful to him for that.

Please, disabuse yourself of any idea that my dislike of Buffy is evidence of gender-bias. Communicating over the internet is difficult enough without putting that wall up. If I have a bias, it's toward crying. I think everyone could afford to do a good deal more of it in their lives, men and women both. How 'bout Mal crying in Zoe's arms? That would be kinda great, actually...

I'm getting a lot of all or nothing arguments against my post today. I didn't like Simon's punching the Captain, I must therefore object to Simon hitting anyone and that's just not true to the series; I don't like the way Zoe questions Mal's decission not to let that poor man on the mule, I must therefore object to Zoe ever questioning the captain, etc. I don't like the way Serenity veered away from Firefly in the direction of what I don't like about Buffy, I must therefore believe Buffy has no character development.

Nope. Just deeply disappointed in the movie, Serenity, for the reasons I stated.

Quote:
p.s. if one more person writes that Zoe needed to cry like a girly-girl, i'm going to be ill....she is a SOLDIER, people!

I'm very sorry for having extended the life of that unfortunate image for everyone here. I read the suggestion just before writing my original post and felt it was the kind of scene in terms of tone and intimacy, that I was missing from the BDM. Upon reflection, as I said above, that specific image was not right, exactly for the reason you state. I do however, stick by my feeling that a terse exchange between Zoe and Mal in the cargo bay wrapped things up a little too neatly for my taste.

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.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 8, 2005 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You and Chrisisall and a lot of folk seem to gotten all those things and more.

I admit though, it's not without a lot of reading-into, and the bringin' of all the emotional baggage over from the show...

Porter Chrisisall

BLINKER

Saturday, October 8, 2005 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Fan fiction is not so much about compelling plot or coherent characters; it’s about putting already beloved characters, about whom we need no further information, in situations which will be uniquely harrowing or gratifying to fans. To non-fans of Firefly, a story about Jayne and Kaylee having sex would be pretty meaningless, but to the fan it can be anything from sublime to obscene, if not both--anything but meaningless. It’s hard to imagine a plot which a Jayne/Kaylee liaison would serve, and in the light of day, it ain’t exactly in character, but fans eat this stuff up nonetheless.

As I think about it, really, most popular television gets this way eventually, but then we call it “jumping the shark.” To a hardcore fan of “Fonzie” jumping the shark had intrinsic value, “Whoa, man! The Fonz just jumped a shark! I knew the Fonz was cool, but I didn’t know he was that cool!” We tend to see it as a result of the writers running out of fresh material, but I think it may be more a matter of the writers bowing to the fan drive and giving the people what they want.

I’ve never been fond of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and now I know why. Buffy is fan fiction. If you don’t love Buffy, the stories are pretty arbitrary and often silly. The grounded realities of characters, even the coherent metaphysics of the universe they inhabit, take a back seat to the gratification of seeing Buffy & co. in amazing situations. Buffy is a quip-fest; it’s just so cool to see our favorite characters say the coolest things.

It might surprise you to learn that Joss has not only diagnosed exactly this trend in his work, but admitted it unapologetically:

http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/s/serenity-2005.shtml

I am -- and always will be -- the biggest fanboy. I write from a fanboy place: what would it be great to see this character do?
—- Joss Whedon, New York Times (25 September 2005)

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

MALI

Saturday, October 8, 2005 3:19 AM

Quote:
I'm getting a lot of all or nothing arguments against my post today..... I must therefore believe Buffy has no character development.

I hope I didn't come across all or nothing.... I'm enjoying this discussion very much. I do sympathize though--i think sometimes we have kneejerk defensive responses. This conversation--or a close facsimile--is going on in at at least three or four other threads, and I think they're all pretty good--more buzz is good buzz.

On the other hand, when you put stuff out there, you should be able to back it up:

Quote:
If you don’t love Buffy, the stories are pretty arbitrary and often silly. The grounded realities of characters, even the coherent metaphysics of the universe they inhabit, take a back seat to the gratification of seeing Buffy...

Ouch. I just think you're wrong here. Maybe an occasional episode, but generally? No way. Funny to me too--I generally cannot stand SciFi or Westerns or action movies, but Buffy and Firefly drew me in like a moth, precisely because of the character development. I do think you have a point about less character development in Serenity, and I like your rewrite of the Book death.... I'm just guessing Joss had to make some hard choices about what he could and couldn't include in a 2-hr movie.

Anyway, have a good weekend all.

~ Soupcatcher is a hottie ~

JASONZZZ

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mali:

p.s. if one more person writes that Zoe needed to cry like a girly-girl, i'm going to be ill....she is a SOLDIER, people!

~ Soupcatcher is a hottie ~

For crying out loud! Soldiers don't cry? It might not be the image that we see, but lots of soldiers, guys and gals cry a lot. It's a normal human response.

and if you put it in a movie for the right reason, it can serve to illustrate something...

Or are we really just looking for a caricature?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

GGREEN29

Saturday, October 8, 2005 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
When I said "Zoe never would have questioned Mal's shooting that man," folks here understood what I was refering to. Of course you are perfectly right, she didn't question the shooting specifically, so much as the shoving. It's not "fan fiction of my own" it's imprecission or what I'd call conversational metonymy. Kudos for being the only one who caught it, and the only one who misunderstood me.

It's hard to see how Zoe disagreeing with Mal is metonymic with Zoe agreeing with Mal. To quote Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride: "I do not think [the word] means, what you think it means." Imprecision and metonymy are not synonymous. I tenderly suggest that you see dictionary.com.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And never did I say that Zoe never questions Mal's actions. Interestingly, all the examples you sight are examples of Zoe questioning Mal's actions from the standpoint of safety and prudence, never on moral grounds, never.

Interesting point, but I think you're selling her short. She doesn't seem like an amoral person to me at all, which is what she'd have to be to follow tactically sound but immoral orders. But I'll keep that in mind as I rewatch the eps.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And holy-moly, I never said that Mal never yelled at the crew, how out of touch with reality do you think I am?

Based on your complete reversal of reality in your Zoe questioning Mal example I thought you completely out of touch with reality, though only temporarily, but perhaps not infrequently. I had no idea the problem was due to imprecise typing.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
LOL I felt that the frequency and beligerance of Mal's yelling in the BDM was excessive and presented, particularly to the uninitiated, a generally adversarial relationship with his crew which I found out of keeping with the relationship developed by the end of the 14th episode. I in no way suggested that he should sit them all down to tea and crumpets, only that the ratio of Mal's yelling to everything else in the movie needed adjusting as it felt gratuitous.

An interesting point about the uninitiated, but I now can't think of Mal doing much yelling out of anger in the movie. When you mentioned yelling the first scene I thought of was the lounge scene where, it now occurs to me, Jayne does almost all of the yelling. I now can think only of Mal yelling at Simon after Simon punched Mal and again after the bar fight, and both seem natural and understandable. What scenes are you thinking of?

There definitely were adversarial moments from time to time, maybe even frequently, but I think you're discounting the dire financial straits that Mal was in and the reaction he has in those situations based on his behavior in the series.

GGREEN29

Saturday, October 8, 2005 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Ach, lordy, more lecturing from my favorite Firefly authority!

You're such a tease!

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You're telling me that I'm wrong about interpretive matters, like there's some objective measure of these things. Sure, Jayne is of course, obviously, the least loyal of Mal's crew. He might die for Mal, he might not, depending on circumstances...how the heck is constantly brow-beating the entire crew gonna keep these two "loose cannons" in line?

When you said "Every last one of these people would die for him" I assumed you meant every last one of these people would die for him. My apologies for misinterpreting that. And I think it's an important misinterpretation, because loyalty to Mal was not a given, but something Mal had to earn and re-earn on a regular basis. Because the crew's services are not contracted, as in enlistments, Mal has to get the crew to want to follow him; true leadership. (My favorite defn of leadership is from Harry Truman: Getting people to do what they don't want to do and getting them to like it.) Sometimes Mal used morality, other times he used intimidation, but this again is consistent with the series. Obviously if Mal relies on intimidation too long he will lose the crew, as Kaylee points out when cleaning the cargo bay with Jayne. And Kaylee is hardly a loose cannon; just someone with a big heart but a small reservoir of courage.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Please, if you're gonna write any more of these rants, GGreen, could you cut back on the smarmy innuendo and sarcasm? Damn! You are constantly, I would say willfully, misunderstanding me for effect here.

Sorry. When you accused Joss of "senseless pandering", I assumed tenderness was unimportant to you, thus I went for brevity and clarity. Again my apologies. But why are your largely unsupported assertions about Joss not a rant whereas my supported rebuttals are?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I didn't like Simon's punching the Captain...

If you'd've said that at the beginning things would've been different. I could've said "Yes, many people didn't like that: Kaylee, Zoe, the Captain, and probably even Simon after he realized what he'd done." But rather than merely stating an opinion you claimed that the act was fan driven and therefore inconsistent with TV Simon's actions. My point, with examples, was that this behavior is consistent with TV Simon and therefore not fan driven. I see no flaw with your not liking the punch, it's your reason for not liking the punch that I feel is unsupported by the series.

I'll conclude my comments by saying that, in my humble and tender (I hope) opinion, if there was any dilution of Joss, or pandering, it was in Firefly not Serenity. Joss has said repeatedly that the tv execs expected something other than the first episode, so Joss moderated Firefly to try to appease the concerns of the execs. From what Joss has said of the movie making experience, there was no interference from the execs on the story line or the characters. So what we got in the series was Blended Joss, while what we got in the movie was Single Malt Joss. While Single Malt Joss is better than most movie experiences, and I hope for a sequel, I prefer the warmth, charm, spaciousness, and music of Blended Joss.

GGREEN29

Saturday, October 8, 2005 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
For crying out loud! Soldiers don't cry? It might not be the image that we see, but lots of soldiers, guys and gals cry a lot. It's a normal human response.

True, but Mal and Zoe don't cry, at least not yet. I would wager that Mal and Zoe are more professional friends than deep personal friends. They are mutually loyal and respect and trust each other completely. They wouldn't burden each other with their personal problems because it's just not professional. They would die for each other but they won't cry for each other; they've seen too much death already, especially of friends, to open themselves to that again.

This maybe one of the reasons Mal doesn't express his feelings or commit to Inara, because he doesn't want to risk the loss (plus there's that whoring thing). Interestingly this would mean that Zoe is more whole than Mal, since Zoe did establish and maintain a deep personal commitment to Wash.

Anyway, I'm sure that in the near future I'll watch the series again and I'll try to remember to watch for Mal and Zoe sharing deep personal feelings rather than just professional assessments. I'm betting they're not there.

MALI

Saturday, October 8, 2005 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:For crying out loud! Soldiers don't cry?

Sure, absolutely. But from the very first images of her in the Battle of Serenity, Joss has made it crystal clear that Zoe is an absolutely solid military leader, cool as steel under the worst kind of pressure. I think her mini-battle-freakout with the reavers was about as emotional as she was going to get, in keeping with her portrayal so far. Also, as Soupcatcher pointed out in another thread:

Quote:
...back to the scene on Haven when Mal explains his plan. None of the other people there know what war is like except Zoe. And she also has the most to lose from declaring war on the Alliance. Whereas Mal decided to not die after Serenity Valley Zoe chose to live and part of that was falling in love and marrying Wash. She knows that all of them could die and she still chooses to go along with the plan. It says something to me about her strength that she, of all the crew, makes a fully informed decision. And she also pays the highest price of any of the survivors.

I like the point about how Zoe is the only one who really has a sense of what they're in for. Again, consistent with her character so far.

I just really enjoy Zoe's very nonstereotypical female character (yay Joss), and to say she needs to be either crying or pregnant immediately puts her back to the most cliched, overdone roles for women in film. Sure, it's possible, but it's just been SO done already. Joss's writing is much better than that...

m.
p.s. On the other hand, my only real beef with Zoe in Serenity was that she always had her hair down, ramping up the gorgeous factor in a thoroughly impractical way....as any longhaired person can tell you...

~ Scootch over, Wash! ~

JASONZZZ

Saturday, October 8, 2005 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ggreen29:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
For crying out loud! Soldiers don't cry? It might not be the image that we see, but lots of soldiers, guys and gals cry a lot. It's a normal human response.

True, but Mal and Zoe don't cry, at least not yet. I would wager that Mal and Zoe are more professional friends than deep personal friends. They are mutually loyal and respect and trust each other completely. They wouldn't burden each other with their personal problems because it's just not professional. They would die for each other but they won't cry for each other; they've seen too much death already, especially of friends, to open themselves to that again.

This maybe one of the reasons Mal doesn't express his feelings or commit to Inara, because he doesn't want to risk the loss (plus there's that whoring thing). Interestingly this would mean that Zoe is more whole than Mal, since Zoe did establish and maintain a deep personal commitment to Wash.

Anyway, I'm sure that in the near future I'll watch the series again and I'll try to remember to watch for Mal and Zoe sharing deep personal feelings rather than just professional assessments. I'm betting they're not there.

Professional? Just how professional?
"Take me sir, take me hard?" That's pretty darn by the numbers "Professional". What side of Professional would a Professional serve to do that? I don't have to count out the scenes to you. It's just not right to paint a mere caricature of these folks when they were set up to be a bit more than "Zoe - professional soldier, loyal to the bone. End of story"...

Thanks for summing it all up for me in 3 words though... Guess don't need to watch anymore since everything is summed up, done with, completely predictable and analysis free.

Woot!

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, October 8, 2005 7:28 PM

Er, are we talking about Zoe, the character, or are we just talking about "she's a SOLDIER people"? Me thinks you are still painting a caricature of "absolutely solid military leader, cool as stelel under the worst kind of pressure" not capable of one minutae of feelings and crying? I didn't realize she was some sort of tinm-man cum robot deal. Maybe now we are doing some sort of crossover with Andromeda or something - weird Universe this is...

And we maintain this kind of caricature, I think now we are going to hop from one sort of stereotypical chracter (I assumer it's the blubbering woman melting under the slightest incident) over to another one (the I am so the super perfect Rambo professional soldier/killer that I don't waste time with emotions). urp. No thanks, I think I'll just still with the normal "Oh, I am a so deeply flawed human character that I can exhibit a practically completely professional exterior while also display some humanity and emotions at the most disquieting times."

Sorry, what you've proposed just seem so "one-dimensional".

Quote:
Originally posted by mali:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:For crying out loud! Soldiers don't cry?

Sure, absolutely. But from the very first images of her in the Battle of Serenity, Joss has made it crystal clear that Zoe is an absolutely solid military leader, cool as steel under the worst kind of pressure. I think her mini-battle-freakout with the reavers was about as emotional as she was going to get, in keeping with her portrayal so far. Also, as Soupcatcher pointed out in another thread:
Quote:
...back to the scene on Haven when Mal explains his plan. None of the other people there know what war is like except Zoe. And she also has the most to lose from declaring war on the Alliance. Whereas Mal decided to not die after Serenity Valley Zoe chose to live and part of that was falling in love and marrying Wash. She knows that all of them could die and she still chooses to go along with the plan. It says something to me about her strength that she, of all the crew, makes a fully informed decision. And she also pays the highest price of any of the survivors.

I like the point about how Zoe is the only one who really has a sense of what they're in for. Again, consistent with her character so far.

I just really enjoy Zoe's very nonstereotypical female character (yay Joss), and to say she needs to be either crying or pregnant immediately puts her back to the most cliched, overdone roles for women in film. Sure, it's possible, but it's just been SO done already. Joss's writing is much better than that...

m.
p.s. On the other hand, my only real beef with Zoe in Serenity was that she always had her hair down, ramping up the gorgeous factor in a thoroughly impractical way....as any longhaired person can tell you...

~ Scootch over, Wash! ~

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

MALI

Saturday, October 8, 2005 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
this kind of caricature, I think now we are going to hop from one sort of stereotypical chracter (I assumer it's the blubbering woman melting under the slightest incident) over to another one

Granted, you have a point. But you're the only one here insisting Zoe has no emotions. I'm just saying she shows her emotions in nonstereotypic ways, in _action_. Consider her portrayal in "War Stories." She collects money, launches a plan--the scenes where she cuts off Gepetto's rant by choosing Wash, cooly putting Mal's ear in her vest--this is a person who reacts immediately, makes hard decisions. She's a lot like Mal that way.

Or consider her conversation with Wash in Heart of Gold, where she insists that they might have a child. She doesn't get all mushy about it, but just says it like fact, so you know she's been thinking about it. She is very much a human, _normal_ character, she's just not "girly".

It reminds me of something Roseanne Barr said about Joss from when he worked on her show--"How'd he know so much about what it's like to be a middle-aged white working mom?"

Joss's characters are different--that's not caricature--it's just different.

m.

~ Scootch over, Wash! ~

MALI

Saturday, October 8, 2005 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ggreen29:
True, but Mal and Zoe don't cry, at least not yet.

Exactly.

Quote:
Zoe is more whole than Mal, since Zoe did establish and maintain a deep personal commitment to Wash.

Yes, I really think so.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "Professional, not personal" thang. I always thought it was a key combination of both. My favorite episode (today--it changes daily) was War Stories because it told us so much about the relationship between Zoe & Wash, Zoe & Mal, via the relationship between Mal & Wash. "There's obeying going on right under my nose!"

This kills me, because I think there is so much potential development here--when Zoe questions Mal, when she doesn't. The way the camera always flashes to Zoe listening to Mal's decision, and _thinking_...the way Wash always begged her to talk to Mal on some particular point, and she never did unless _she_ wanted to.

Damn, I can't believe the show was cancelled.

m.

~ Scootch over, Wash! ~

MITHEL

Saturday, October 8, 2005 8:09 PM

"Serenity" does get better the more times you watch it. Still it's not Firefly and Firefly the series was significantly better. Serenity is good, Firefly is/was great!

I mourned the loss of Firefly when I watched Serenity the first couple times and could not believe the foolish choice to kill off Wash and Book. The more I watch Serenity though the more it shines as something good on it's own. At the end of Serenity we are left with a smaller crew that is even more bonded to each other.

It would have been better if Joss had kept "Firefly" as it was and just made some great movies (and a return as a TV series). But I have hope that the "new" Serenity can still bring a good future of excellent entertainment for us.

This last time watching Serenity I tried to view it as if I'd never watched Firefly. And I think maybe it does succeed in being a "good" movie for non-fans (who hopefully are now fans). Sure they miss a ton of the details because they don't know the background of the characters like those who've watched the series a few times, but still it seems like it works.

Perhaps the future is brighter than we think? Maybe Joss has gotten this foolish notion of killing off beloved characters out of his system? Maybe now that he's made a good "BDM" perhaps he can realize the real potential is back as a series? (and pull enough of the right strings to get it back on the air as a series)

PIZMOBEACH

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

And where do we Firefly fans go from here? Just curious what you think.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.net

IAMALEAFONTHEWIND

Sunday, October 9, 2005 6:09 AM

Howdy. Let me first say that I'm totally new here. Tonight is the first time I've ever been here. I came because I love the show and the movie as well but was very aware of how different they were and was curious to see what other fans thought. I see that I've come to the right place.

I have really enjoyed this discussion even though it has gotten a little ugly. It's been informative and well thought out... and a little emotional. At least the emotions are because everyone cares so much. That's a great thing.

That being said, I'll get into my two cents on things. I think I'm in a position that is a little out of the norm for what you find here. I had never seen Firefly until two months ago. The ower of my local comic book store loaned me his DVD set of the series and I was hooked in the first ten minutes in a way that I never have been hooked before. I've never watched Buffy so Firefly was my introduction to Joss Whedon. Anyway, I was immediately struck by how amazingly good the show was: great concept, great characters, great dialogue, great stories, on and on and on. I had time to watch the series once, buy my own copy, watch them a second time, then loan the set to a friend (can't stop the signal, right?) and wait two weeks for the film to open. I think that puts me out of the norm because 1) I wasn't new to the world of Serenity for the movie, but 2) I haven't been waiting three years for the movie either.

So to me the series and the movie are much closer together as an overall experience. That being said I think they mesh together flawlessly. Are they different? You bet. Does that mean they don't fit together? Absolutely not.

I lot of what I've read in this thread, although well thought out and reasoned - and truthfully heartfelt - sounds like expectations borne of having to wait three years. In that time it is almost impossible for a brain to NOT come up with ideas about what you want/hope for something to be. And any expectations at all will have an immediate effect on a person's opinion of something. I'm sure this is something that we all are rather familiar with at this point. Star Wars to point out the most obvious example. There are plenty of others. I think that that is an unfortunate thing though and luckily I was spared that.

Some of those expectations however have lead to some harsh critisims. I am not opposed to critisism, but I also think that the delivery of such critisisms is important. Semantics? Yes. I know a lot of people hate semantics, but they're a real and important part of human communication, however subjective they are. I believe that no one should ever be above constructive critism but at the same time I'm not a fan of back seat drivers. And that's really tough because these two things contradict themselves. I have had a lot of mixed emotions reading these posts. At some points I wanted to tell people to put their money where their mouths were - if you don't think the film was done well, then show us something better. But then again I think the suggestion that critisism is important is not wrong. Lord knows that George Lucas desparately needed this while doing the new Star Wars trilogy (and I'm saying this as one of the few that was actually able to enjoy the new stuff). I don't necessarily think that Joss is in that same cocoon as Lucas, but I don't know; maybe he is. The skill with which he executed this movie to me speaks otherwise, but who knows - FOX's tampering making the series better may show evidence otherwise. Either way, that's information I don't know, so...

So long as the critisisms are respectful of the talent and effort that went into the creation, it's not a bad thing. It's food for thought; stuff that can be heard and then taken or discarded. And respect for the talent doesn't make anyone a blind follower. Those comments were made out of an emotional response and I'm sure that the person who made the comments knows that.

Anyway...

I have seen it twice now and will see it at least once or twice more. I agree with the sentiment that it gets better w

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by iamaleafonthewind:
I see this whole thing as one big story and I love it through and though. I myself eagerly await whatever comes next for Mal and crew.

Wow, welcome Mike! Thanks for the unique perspective- I totally agree, It's all one story- but you said it best!

Chrisisall

SPIKESPIEGEL

Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:28 PM

Hey all,

Some thoughts on the movie's flaws. Running long.

* Killing two characters was a good tactical move for Joss, because this is expected to go one of two ways: A) there are no sequels and we're done here, so he might as well go for broke, or 2) there IS a sequel, and now he has a smaller and more manageable cast to squeeze into a two-hour ride. (Not sayin' I LIKE the deaths, just that it leaves Joss in a good position either way.)

* If this movie fails with first-timers, it will be because, with the oversized cast, there were not enough true character moments. By which I mean, Wash and Book died. How much had Joss given us to make us care about these two by this point? Wash made fun of Jayne getting beaten by a 90-pound girl. What else? Yeah, he flew the ship, but why would a first-timer LIKE him all that much, so as to be as stunned as us old-timers were when he got spiked?
And Inara ... The wave comes through, and we're told she and Mal have a history, and we need to have the whole crew sittin' on the bridge telling us what this interaction is supposed to mean. Just as we need the Op to tell us how deep and moving is Simon's love for River. How much better were those Simon/River moments in the series, when they'd DO something, or he'd look at her, and you'd be touched by how much he loves her without having to think, "Oh, yeah, there's that love the creepy badguy warned us to watch out for."
Nine's a lot of people to fall in love with in the ninety minutes before we have to worry that they all might die.

* To that point, I say that with all the action, and great action it was, there weren't enough quiet and family scenes. The sittin'-round-the-dinner-table stuff. Wash and Zoe in each other's arms around the campfire (because when Gina Torres smiles, you feel it in your toes).

* I see Simon's rescue of River as a rewrite. It's not quite the Simon we knew, and not quite the rescue he described. The No Prize solution is that he was disingenuous in the show and didn't tell the crew how directly he participated in River's rescue. For some reason. But I say, "This ain't Firefly" is right. Joss retconned a bit for dramatic and expositional needs. I can live with that.

* I missed Jayne's stupidity. He was not as comical a character in the BDM as he was on the show.

* I think that the up-front exposition could've been dispensed with (was that HK's idea, above?) but if needed, an opening crawl or voice-over about Earth That Was would've sufficed, and felt less forced than entire scenes of exposition, which really serve to remind the newcomers that they're a step behind on something that the rest of us are all insidery about.

* While I think it was a good choice for the film to just provide the answer -- River's psychic -- I liked the Firefly approach where she SEEMED psychic, especially from the viewers', rather than crew's, perspective, much better.

* Slightly off-topic, but: I can see how the Firefly theme song didn't belong in the movie, but how could it NOT be on the soundtrack? I checked the track listing, so now I'll have to pay attention to the music in the film to see whether I like it enough to buy. But the show theme would've sold it to me instantly. Silly, silly Joss.

Anecdote: I just got back from a vacation, so saw the movie for the first time this weekend. With a friend. Who suggested seeing it with me himself, even though for two years I have not been able to get him to watch the DVD because he saw one broadcast ep of Firefly and didn't get it (he HATED Buffy for similar reasons, but eventually his wife got hooked, and then they BOTH worked through my full DVD set. So he's just slow). Why'd he want to go see the BDM? 80% on Rotten Tomatoes is why.

But now that he's seen it, what did he say? Yeah, pretty good. But he's not in love with it. Didn't ask to borrow my DVDs now, either. And I think that's because the movie didn't do enough to establish the characters for newcomers. Yes, Mal has a journey, but the show took quiet moment

AVE

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:30 PM

I considered taking a chunk of time out of my to post a more poetic response than the one that is about to follow. But in the end, I realized that many have said what I want to say and that I have a lot of work to do today.

So...
My one observation that sums up my feelings is as follows:

I was a bit thrown off by the opening scene, as were a number of fans. Then we see the Firefly and hear the opening theme of the film. It was not the theme from the show. I realized from that point on that the pacing was going to be different, the characters would not be treated equally, the story was going to be more focused, etc.

This was not a bad thing, in my opinion (Something important to remember, these are opinions). This was a grander story than the show was ever forced to tell, and it was done in two hours. These things require a different set of rules and produce a different finished product.

Once I understood this, I loved the film.

I have more points on the subject, but don't feel they will add much to the conversation. Unless they are called for, I think I will leave them to myself.

Ave

-I don't care 'cause I'm still free.

IAMALEAFONTHEWIND

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:32 PM

Interesting thoughts Spike. I think most of us are aware, however, that Joss was in a really tricky place with this movie. He's got to make it work for newcomers while not making it a complete repeat for all the established fans. That would be an incredibly difficult task for anyone. The movie starts with a half finished story, so he's got to make sure it's a continuation and yet make it feel like it's starting from the beginning at the same time. I wouldn't want to face that challenge. I would be banging my head against the wall trying to figure it out. That being said, even though most fans seem to be annoyed by the beginning of the film, I liked it a lot. He knows he's gonna have to do some exposition and rehash so he decided to just get it out of the way right at the beginning so we can all move on with the story.

And knowing that that was what he was gonna do, he decided to be as creative about it as possible. HKCAVALIER complained about bad storytelling in an earlier post, so this is a good time to show an example of fantastic storytelling: the beginning of the film. It starts with the voice over which becomes the voice of River's teacher. That's nice transition #1. Then River talks about meddling (a little moment that I liked a lot) and the teacher comes up and, quite unexpectedly, stabs her in the head with her pencil (or whatever that was), which segues right into the scene of River in the hands of the allience. Nice transition #2. Then we have that scene stop in it's tracks to become the Operator looking over the materials so that he's familiar with his prey. Nice transition #3. He ends his scene by asking the projection of River where she is. That segues right to... well, the opening titles, which morphs into the symbol on the side of the ship. The camera pulls around and we venture all the way through the ship, ending up on River. That is not only nice transition #4 but also a great bit of writing - he shows us the answer to the Operator's question. River is in the cargo bay of Serenity. That's great craft right there. And it shows that even when it comes to simple (and possibly repetitive) exposition he still gives it his all.

Sure I was familiar with most of this as a fan of the show, but I was immediately hooked in by the great storytelling to start off the film. I know that he's stuck with this task of being new and yet a continuation at the same time, so at least he made sure that the recap was interesting and well executed. And really, what more could you ask?

Could there have been more quiet moments? Sure. And I agree that they would have been really nice, but this is a story with a lot to tell. Someone mentioned earlier that this is a plot driven story rather than a character driven story and I agree. So knowing that, when it comes to issues of running time in the film, everything has to be sacrificed for plot. Maybe it makes for less than an ideal film in a lot of fans minds, but remember, the show was cancelled and THEN Universal was nice enough to give Joss the money to actually continue the story! If Universal's only requirement was that the running time had to come in under two hours, then that's a real blessing. Joss showed himself to be very flexible with the people at Foxx. Universal was nice enough to not only give him the money but to leave him alone as well, so if Joss had to lose some nice quiet moments in order to grant Universal their one and only request, then so be it. A Firefly movie missing some quiet moments is still a world better than no Firefly movie at all in my opinion.

It's easy for viewer to look at a story and critic it from an ideal place, but that's not reality. In reality making a film is a business. There are budget constraints, time constraints (both in running time of a film and in production time limitations), production constraints (as in someone else gave you the money to make the film, so you have to be willing to work with others and be flexible), etc...

I think that knowing the realities that he was faced with, including the whole fan/new people

MALI

Sunday, October 9, 2005 7:28 PM

Quote:
HKCavalier: A character driven story is very different, primarily on an emotional level. Compelling characters bring us into the story on their terms. We’re not watching “a gun fight” we’re watching the Alliance mole panic and shoot Kaylee in the gut. We’re not thinking, “Youch, that musta hurt!” so much as we’re thinking, “Simon wouldn’t really let Kaylee die, he’s bluffing!”...(five pages deleted)

Just came across this quote from Joss that seems relevant to the whole discussion of character-driven, plot-driven....
From an Edinburgh interview at
http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/feature.jsp?id=149341&page=1

"Through all the restructuring, it ended up being quite different from the original show," says Whedon. "It became more about taking these tiny people in this tiny ship who meant nothing and weren't a part of history, putting them in the most epic situation I could and seeing if they folded under the pressure."

~ Scootch over, Wash! ~

ROCKETJOCK

Sunday, October 9, 2005 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FinnMcKool:
We never had a "dinner table", "Uncle Natty story-telling," faux basketball game moment. And really the only spot we could have, because after which and even a bit before everyone was so tense about the Simon/River/Mal fight, was on Haven around the campfire, with Jayne playing guitar of all things. That could have been a good "Hey we're all a family here" moment, which is what the show was missing.

Umm. And notice, amost before it's even begun, Joss moves from that family campfire moment out to Mal and Book conversing privately.

(Not sure if we're still policing spoilers on this thread, but here goes.)

Select to view spoiler:

This scene emphasises the loneliness and alienation Mal is feeling due to his conflicting responsibilities (for his ship and crew in general, towards River in particular), and the slight distancing of Book from his former crewmates.

Notice also, that Book is still trying to distance himself from his mysterious past -- but it's not that past that eventually kills him. It's the more recent past he shares with the crew. The past he wouldn't disown if he could.

Book chose to walk towards the good, and it is because of this that his past, in the form of the Operative, comes to take him.

Y'all gotta admit, Joss is damn good at multi-layered storytelling.

"If you can't do something smart, do something right." -- Shepherd Deria Book

MRSMACK

Sunday, October 9, 2005 9:44 PM

Two thoughts or things I noticed.

I think that maybe Book's past was that of an operative. They don't ever say his name. He tends to know more than anyone rightfully should. Lot's of things that make sense with this, if you manage to look.

Secondly at the end, after it all Mal asks Zoe if the ship is going to make it. She replies that she's shaky, but she'll pull through. Something to that effect at least. I believe more than the ship, that they are talking about her, Zoe. These are the quiet moments to me, not exactly the quiet moments we are used to, but one that we can appreciate.

At my second viewing, I managed to see more of the crew that I loved. Maybe because I knew what was coming and could pay more attention to details.

RUE

Sunday, October 9, 2005 11:09 PM

I have a different take on the movie. I thought it had much more explication than the series. There was more 'backstory', more explanatory dialogue, more commentary by the characters. I took this as an effort to bring non-fans into the Firefly 'verse and get them up to speed within the span of one short film. I didn't find it particularly geared toward fandom, I thought it went more the other way.

It was also more epic and less intimate, which happens in movies - bigger screen, bigger effects, bigger themes.

And many things get neatly wrapped-up in the end, unlike the series which left loose ends hanging all over the place.

Most of this I put to the fact that it is a movie rather than a series, and of necessity it has a different format.

It was not, from my perspective, as satisfying as the series, but I know I'm a sucker for the unexplained and unexplored, so that is just my personal gotcha.

All in all, though, it was a satisfying movie, which has to explain, move, and wrap up its story quickly.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE