Anyone else disappointed?

POSTED BY: sagrilarus
UPDATED: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:05
VIEWED: 41806
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SAGRILARUS

Saturday, October 8, 2005 4:20 PM

At the risk of having a hit called out on me, I'll keep the details of my opinions quiet. But I was very disappointed with the movie. With any luck, I am the only one. No one else here seems to be expressing that feeling. Just thought I'd toss it out and see if I'm alone or not.

LEAFY

Saturday, October 8, 2005 4:39 PM

Yes, yes I was. If we use "Firefly" as the benchmark, a perfect 10, "Serenity" compares at about 7.2. "Firefly" was character driven, but "Serenity" was author ego driven, and it showed.

From the box office numbers shown here, I don't think we are alone.

HOTHERSALE

Saturday, October 8, 2005 4:52 PM

Have you seen it more than once? Personally, I found it so disturbing that it was hard to really enjoy the movie the first time round. I enjoyed it MUCH more on subsequent viewings. If you haven't already, I suggest watching it again to see if it's the same for you.

________________________

Live life with Blue Sun!

SAGRILARUS

Saturday, October 8, 2005 4:57 PM

Sorry, I'm not going to spend another nine dollars on it.

Select to view spoiler:

It wasn't the death of anybody that bothered me. Frankly, given the script, they should have been down to two SURVIVING at the end of the film. Not sure how Mal survives after being run through with a sword, especially after walking around and fighting for about 20 minutes afterwards. Zoe deserved to be dead, River absolutely should not have survived, the others holding the line pretty much had to survive on awesome-plot-power and deadly-hero-guns -- not a typical crutch for Whedon.

I was far more effected by very contrived dialogue (Jayne uses the phrase "in earnest" for godsake), and a real muddying up of the characters. I made the mistake of watching Our Mrs Reynolds at home before heading to the theater, which just made the contrast that much more stark.

Sag.

JADEHAND

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:01 PM

I was spoiled on these facts way before I saw the movie. Had time to process. Loved the movie. Best Movie Ever. I think if those who are upset on these 2 facts take time to process, they may enjoy it more the second time 'round. At least I hope so. Maybe not. Either way won't stop my enjoyment of it.

Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live
"Dreaming the dream that only the sleepless know."

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:02 PM

Don't worry, Sagrilarus, nobody's gonna put a hit out on you. The board's just been so busy in the past couple days, two of the major threads on the subject have been archived already. You can still find a discussion here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13444
I wrote a huge post on the subject over there. Many people posted to thank me for putting their feelings into words. I'm sure you'd find others who felt as you do if you went into more detail about your feelings.

I was very disappointed as well. Serenity felt like a two hour long trailer to me. Serenity felt like the show Fox wanted out of Joss three years ago, when he first shopped it to them: Buffy in Space. And even upon reflection, the second of the big damn spoilers still feels like a lame stunt--not that it couldn't have worked, but as it happened in the BDM, it really felt like a throw away.

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.

MER

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:09 PM

I'm not highly disappointed, just upset of certain things that happen in it. I'll just have to deal b/c there's nothing I can do about it...besides bitch.

I still have questions regarding River. If they were indeed answered, I'll have to dissect the movie on DVD (so I can do replays and etc)

DUCESTECUM

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
At the risk of having a hit called out on me, I'll keep the details of my opinions quiet. But I was very disappointed with the movie. With any luck, I am the only one. No one else here seems to be expressing that feeling. Just thought I'd toss it out and see if I'm alone or not.

Where have you been the last few days? Read the post by HKCavilier although it is long it is well worth reading because he told the absolute truth. The flick is a huge disappointment in so many ways and we can all kiss Firefly goodbye.

"And that's not incense!"

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
Sorry, I'm not going to spend another nine dollars on it.
Select to view spoiler:
It wasn't the death of anybody that bothered me. Frankly, given the script, they should have been down to two SURVIVING at the end of the film. Not sure how Mal survives after being run through with a sword, especially after walking around and fighting for about 20 minutes afterwards. Zoe deserved to be dead, River absolutely should not have survived, the others holding the line pretty much had to survive on awesome-plot-power and deadly-hero-guns -- not a typical crutch for Whedon.

I was far more effected by very contrived dialogue (Jayne uses the phrase "in earnest" for godsake), and a real muddying up of the characters. I made the mistake of watching Our Mrs Reynolds at home before heading to the theater, which just made the contrast that much more stark.

When you put it that way, it almost feels like an Emperor's New Clothes type o' deal, don'it? I've been watching the DVD's since last weekend and how anyone could mistake this movie for the gritty, nuanced, adult, down to earth reality of Firefly is hard to fathom. Folk's tell me, "Joss said it was gonna be different!" I can handle different. I just have a hard time with shallower and more contrived.

Select to view spoiler:

The non-lethal nature of the reavers reminded me of the shift from Alien to Aliens. In Alien, a single beast was walking death, but in the sequel they faught crowds of the things at a time. Really lowered the stakes a bit. Realism is such a fragile thing in speculative fiction, just a couple extra punches while Mal's still standing and it goes all out of wack for me. People will say, "But didn't you see the punishment Mal took in War Stories?" And I say, first that Mal was in some kind of altered state on the other side of death, and second that he was fighting mere sadists and bullies, not some ninja trained operative who knew how to work pressure points--Mal should have gone down and gone down hard well before the Op got to his special ganglia trick. A single breach of naturalism (like Mal's being able to even move by the end of War Stories) can be forgiven, but when it becomes the norm, I really start to lose interest.

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.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:32 PM

specifically this post,

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13444#186501

But there are a billion other postings expressing some bits and pieces of the same type of sentiment in various different lines of reasoning and analysis scattered all over in different threads...

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.

GIANTEVILHEAD

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
Sorry, I'm not going to spend another nine dollars on it.
Select to view spoiler:
It wasn't the death of anybody that bothered me. Frankly, given the script, they should have been down to two SURVIVING at the end of the film. Not sure how Mal survives after being run through with a sword, especially after walking around and fighting for about 20 minutes afterwards. Zoe deserved to be dead, River absolutely should not have survived, the others holding the line pretty much had to survive on awesome-plot-power and deadly-hero-guns -- not a typical crutch for Whedon.

I was far more effected by very contrived dialogue (Jayne uses the phrase "in earnest" for godsake), and a real muddying up of the characters. I made the mistake of watching Our Mrs Reynolds at home before heading to the theater, which just made the contrast that much more stark.

Sag.

Suspension of disbelief. In "Out of Gas" Mal had been shot and he was suffocating and freezing to death and yet he survived. In "War Stories" Wash and Mal were able to get back into action only minutes after getting tortured by Niska, Mal's heart even stopped and yet he was able to fight after that.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, October 8, 2005 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
Suspension of disbelief. In "Out of Gas" Mal had been shot and he was suffocating and freezing to death and yet he survived. In "War Stories" Wash and Mal were able to get back into action only minutes after getting tortured by Niska, Mal's heart even stopped and yet he was able to fight after that.

What does the high school english lesson serve? Is Sag s'posed to feel dumb, and realize that he actually enjoyed Serenity? I've read this line of reasoning before, and it really seems absurd in context. For me, Firefly came to the edge of believability plenty of times, but it always came back at the last moment. Serenity, not so much.

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.

CS

Saturday, October 8, 2005 6:07 PM

Firstly, no I wasn't disappointed at all, its everything I could have hoped for.

The deaths did make the film a bit hard to take in first time round. If it wasn't for the fact that the first time was special (prescreening, hence room full of browncoats, Joss message and Nathan & Morena) I would have enjoyed the second time more.

I just got back from my 3rd viewing (not bad seeing as it came out here yesterday) and I didn't enjoy this one quite as much. The heart-aching suspense which I got the 1st and 2nd times wasn't so much. And the 'middle bit' seemed to drag on. I think I'll be waiting till the DVD till I see it again.

Yeh so my advice is see it twice, then wait till the DVD.

GIANTEVILHEAD

Saturday, October 8, 2005 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:What does the high school english lesson serve? Is Sag s'posed to feel dumb, and realize that he actually enjoyed Serenity? I've read this line of reasoning before, and it really seems absurd in context. For me, Firefly came to the edge of believability plenty of times, but it always came back at the last moment. Serenity, not so much.

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.

How is this line of reasoning absurd? If you can believe that someone who has used up all of the body’s adrenaline, glucocorticoid, and probably dopamine as well, suffered cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, and who knows how much damage to the CNS, and is still remain lucid or even conscious, let alone able to stand or fight, and suffers from no long lasting psychological or physical effects, then most of the stuff in Serenity should not be that hard to believe, they’re probably easier to believe than the whole Niska incident.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, October 8, 2005 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13444

Thanks for that. You picked out many points that I've missed.

When I left the theater, I was mad. Then I processed and got enraged. Then I calmed down.

After that, yesterday I watched the first disk of the DVD set and welcome back rage. I'm very happy I didn't have time to re-watch the entire series before the movie; very happy.

A short analysis from me:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=12689#186383
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=12689#188083

I really hope that this isn't the end. I really hope that sales are going to be good enough to justify another movie or getting something back on the air. Really hope.

Because, I don't want it to end this way.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

SAGRILARUS

Saturday, October 8, 2005 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
Suspension of disbelief. In "Out of Gas" Mal had been shot and he was suffocating and freezing to death and yet he survived. In "War Stories" Wash and Mal were able to get back into action only minutes after getting tortured by Niska, Mal's heart even stopped and yet he was able to fight after that.

I think you missed my entire point. The dying (or the lack of it) wasn't what put me off really, it was the complete revision of the characters, and the dialogue that seemed so contrived.

In the TV episodes, the dialogue can be described using one word: "tight." People said what they needed to and were witty without getting speechy. I live for Whedon's dialogue in other projects too. Serenity seemed to just babble on, putting words in the character's mouths that just didn't make sense. Kaylee's line about not having gotten any from anything but a machine was just so contrived, and so COMPLETELY out of character. How many farm girls do you know that talk like that? In the series, that line would never have survived to production. Or it would have been fixed. I fear this film is going to be the target of a dozen phantom edits.

Just never would have thought Whedon would boot the dialogue. Of all things, I thought the dialogue would have been right.

And the character definitions are just so screwed now. Not sure how they'd fix that in the now-very-remote chance that a sequel does indeed get made.

On a completely shallow P.S., do you think it was Kaylee or Zoe that gave Jayne the perm?

Sags.

"Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."

SLOWSMURF

Saturday, October 8, 2005 8:50 PM

Keylee's line is certainly not one I would peg as being out of character.

She's always been completely open about such things, I don't see why it's strange that she would say such a thing.(remember her introduction in out of gas? Or "Have good sex!"?)

BELASERA

Saturday, October 8, 2005 8:54 PM

Kaylee isn't a 'farmgirl'. She is a mechanic, and as such it seems perfectly reasonable for her to be talking about machines. As for her use of said machines being in character, have you forgotten how she got her job?
I honestly did not see anything out of character in the movie, but maybe that's just me.

"I'll be in my bunk."

BELASERA

Saturday, October 8, 2005 8:57 PM

Oh, but to answer the original question.
No. Not at all.

"I'll be in my bunk."

GIANTEVILHEAD

Saturday, October 8, 2005 9:03 PM

SAGRILARUS, I wasn't responding to your complaints about the characters, which are pretty vague, except for the example about Kaylee and the vibrator. I was responding about your inability to suspend disbelief while watching the movie.

As for the dialogue, the show had 14 episodes. Although the characters were well established, they weren't that well established and they do have some personality “fluctuations” between episodes. Plus Kaylee’s line about the vibrator wasn’t that out of character, do you remember how she got discovered by Mal?

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

SAGRILARUS

Saturday, October 8, 2005 9:05 PM

Kaylee is indeed a farm girl, and it's not the nature of the comment that bothered me. It's the way it took eight seconds to spit out something that sounded like it was out of a bad Shakespeare ad lib. The joke is there, the concept is fine, but the actual line,

"Been more'n a year since I had anything twixt my nethers didn't run on batteries."

I just cannot imagine that Jewel was happy when she was reading that on the page. "Joss is boss" got that one onto the screen. I just can't get over the fact that the dialogue was wrong. Joss is legendary for his dialogue.

Sag.

GIANTEVILHEAD

Saturday, October 8, 2005 9:11 PM

"She likes engines, they make her hot."
"Gravboot ain't your trouble. I seen the trouble plain as day when I was down there on my back before."
"Have good sex."

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

SAGRILARUS

Saturday, October 8, 2005 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
SAGRILARUS, I wasn't responding to your complaints about the characters, which are pretty vague, except for the example about Kaylee and the vibrator. I was responding about your inability to suspend disbelief while watching the movie.

I suspended my disbelief just fine. I have no concerns with the plot. The characters have been irreversibly changed. Watch the episodes again -- the characters have MAGNIFICENT definition. By the end of the pilot you really have an insight into who they are; you want to know them better. They are clear, concise. They have mysterious aspects, but they are consistent. The film just ignored all that. Pretty vague? I sure am. I have no idea how to describe the fact that the same actors seemed to be playing different people, with different motivations and actions.
Vague is an excellent choice of terms. In the series, the characters weren't vague. Now they are. I have no idea what they would be like if a sequel were to be made. I don't know these people anymore. They are undefinable.

Sag.

BELASERA

Saturday, October 8, 2005 9:13 PM

I love that line! I've seen the movie 5 times and it gets big laughs in the theatre every time.
I mean, 'Twixt my nethers'! That is exactly why I loved Firefly's lingo, and why I think it carried into Serenity. It's all musical and such.
I really thought the whole thing was darling, and executed with that sort of frankness and humor that make a line like that work for a girl like Kaylee.

"I'll be in my bunk."

GIANTEVILHEAD

Saturday, October 8, 2005 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
I suspended my disbelief just fine. I have no concerns with the plot. The characters have been irreversibly changed. Watch the episodes again -- the characters have MAGNIFICENT definition. By the end of the pilot you really have an insight into who they are; you want to know them better. They are clear, concise. They have mysterious aspects, but they are consistent. The film just ignored all that. Pretty vague? I sure am. I have no idea how to describe the fact that the same actors seemed to be playing different people, with different motivations and actions.
Vague is an excellent choice of terms. In the series, the characters weren't vague. Now they are. I have no idea what they would be like if a sequel were to be made. I don't know these people anymore. They are undefinable.

Sag.

Your comments are still pretty vague; you still haven’t given any specific examples. Yes, Mal was darker in the movie and he was more concerned with surviving than protecting the feelings of the crew. Zoe was the same, following orders even if it conflicted with her personal beliefs. Jayne was the same, more concerned with survival than anything else. Kaylee was the same, although less spunky that she used to be. Simon was a bit more aggressive but otherwise unchanged, very protective of River just like in the show. River, she’s probably the character that changed the most, she’s much more lucid and less insane. Unfortunately, Wash, Book, and Inara really didn’t get enough scenes for me to get a reading of their characters, and Inara did seem kind of out of place.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

SLOWSMURF

Saturday, October 8, 2005 10:44 PM

The movie WAS different, why can't people grasp that? Liberties were taken when he chose to. Mal/Simon being the most obviously changed.

BASED ON, not a direct continuation.

For example, there's no way in hell Mal from the show would resort to telling the doctor to basically go to hell as he does at the start of Serenity. Once he uttered the words(on the series), "You're on my crew", that remains. I highly doubt Mal would ever take that back except by the other person choosing to leave or Mal himself killing said person. Jayne flatout betrays him on the series, he remains crew.

HOWARD

Saturday, October 8, 2005 11:53 PM

Well I have only thus far seen the 9 minute on-line trailer and my worst fears were confirmed.
In the show Simon was a nice wuss and that is how he should be. He had members of an underground resistance get River out to him then they got out together. Furthermore while Simon is pretending to be an official the doctor/torturer/spawn of Donald Rumsfeld tells Simon that the subject is being prepared for military applications. In the series he had to learn this information by deduction.

I have had a bad feeling all along about this movie project because I have seen how the system works. The X-files movie was awful and STNG which on TV had drama of depth became dumbed down in their films. The more money the more CGI the less character the less drama the weaker ideas the more absent opinions. The absence of opinion is what the corporate regime wants. It is their condom against political dissent.

The Studios are like the Alliance. There is a policy across all studios against ideas and opinions in big films this is acheived by dumbing down character exposition. I shall wait for the DVD in hope that some of the character exposition especially relating to Inara that was in the early cuts will be put back into the movie.
Deleted scenes I don't want. Just look at the series box set there is an outstanding speech that Zoe has to Simon about war and history that was cut from the pilot. This is all part of high complex of censorship and defacto censorship in a very sophisticated, dictatorial, American capitalist corporate complex. The pressure felt by talent is so strong that the powers that be know they can count on the talent giving it up without even being asked. Sometimes it is demanded while often the fences are staked clear so the talent does not even dare to go there.

It is time that people like Joss Whedon and Marti Noxon understood that they could achieved independence by developing a fresh concept for a DVD series financed in the same way that indie movies are financed. Free from television networks and movie studios today's technology makes this possible along with the independent financing available from the finance sector espcecially for people with well established career credentials. It is not capital that is the problem the problem is capital controlled by a corporate complex.

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:04 AM

The line is good and typical of Kaylee.

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:04 AM

The line is good and typical of Kaylee.

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:06 AM

I agree once Mal says "YOU'RE ON MY CREW" its not a fair weather thing its an all weather thing!

GIANTEVILHEAD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:36 AM

Simon wasn't a wuss when it came to protecting River. He knocked down the two guys in "Safe," he thought up of the plan to infiltrate the hospital in "Ariel," and he tried to fight Jubal Early even though he knew that he had no chance.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:59 AM

I was not knocking Simon I was using the term with affection he was gentle not Jayne!!

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:01 AM

I was not knocking Simon I was using the term with affection he was gentle not Jayne!!

Thinking up the Aerial plan proves he was a thinker not muscle!

SCIFINUT

Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:35 AM

I was only disappointed in the deaths, but not the movie in general. I loved the movie! Of course, being a movie, it had to have a certain amount of extra action and conflict. So, in that respect, some of the actions of the characters were a litle more pronounced, maybe a little more aggressive, than they would be in one of the tv episodes. Like Mal threatening to shoot everybody if they didn't put the bodies on the hull of the ship, ahd the aggressive scenes between him and Simon were a little much. But I looked past those little things and I found the characters to be true to their tv counterparts. Loved Jayne! Loved Kaylie's comments! Of course, the best part of the firefly series for me was the relationships between the characters and the comedy, but sci-fi movies don't tend to do well with too much of that. So if the extra action and conflict brings more people to the theater, and helps ressurect this show somehow, I'm all for it!
Please, oh please let there be a sequel!

SCIFINUT

Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SlowSmurf:
The movie WAS different, why can't people grasp that? Liberties were taken when he chose to. Mal/Simon being the most obviously changed.

BASED ON, not a direct continuation.

For example, there's no way in hell Mal from the show would resort to telling the doctor to basically go to hell as he does at the start of Serenity. Once he uttered the words(on the series), "You're on my crew", that remains. I highly doubt Mal would ever take that back except by the other person choosing to leave or Mal himself killing said person. Jayne flatout betrays him on the series, he remains crew.

You are right. It was a little different. I just don't think, being that the characters had only been developed over one season, that anything I saw was completely out of character. Yes, Mal was a little aggressive with the Doctor, but remember, Inara had been gone for 8 months or something? There may be some back story in those 8 months that would explain the tension between them. Thank goodnes Jayne was as rougish and predictable as ever!

SCIFINUT

Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
SAGRILARUS, I wasn't responding to your complaints about the characters, which are pretty vague, except for the example about Kaylee and the vibrator. I was responding about your inability to suspend disbelief while watching the movie.

I suspended my disbelief just fine. I have no concerns with the plot. The characters have been irreversibly changed. Watch the episodes again -- the characters have MAGNIFICENT definition. By the end of the pilot you really have an insight into who they are; you want to know them better. They are clear, concise. They have mysterious aspects, but they are consistent. The film just ignored all that. Pretty vague? I sure am. I have no idea how to describe the fact that the same actors seemed to be playing different people, with different motivations and actions.
Vague is an excellent choice of terms. In the series, the characters weren't vague. Now they are. I have no idea what they would be like if a sequel were to be made. I don't know these people anymore. They are undefinable.

Sag.

I watched the whole series over the past couple weeks, and the only thing that disappoined me a little in the characters was that he made it all about Mal, Simon, and River. For each character there either seemed to be an overabundance or a lack of dialogue. Because of this change in dynamic, it made characters seem different because you expected them to say something at certain points in the movie, but they didn't. I personally found, that what they DID say, however, was completely in character. They just didn't say enough, so it may have seemed contrived in certain circumstances. Am I making any sense? It's late here......

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Your comments are still pretty vague; you still haven’t given any specific examples. Yes, Mal was darker in the movie and he was more concerned with surviving than protecting the feelings of the crew.

Mal was most certainly different. Just ask yourself, if Simon would have hit Mal in the series, would Mal have just taken it, or would he have fought back? Truth is, Simon would have gotten somewhat bruised in series Mal.

I'd also like to know what your definition of darker is. Mal was a coward. Mal was angry. That is pretty much it for his emotional range for the movie.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Zoe was the same, following orders even if it conflicted with her personal beliefs.

Not really. If Zoe was the same she would've backed up Mal with his decision to not take on the extra man on the Mule. It wasn't worth the risk when absolute death is involved. Mal had already done his best to save the man when he told them all to get into the vault. Zoe would've known this in the series. But in the movie, she questioned his decision/morality/etc for doing it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Jayne was the same, more concerned with survival than anything else.

How? When they were planning on going into Reaver territory Jayne didn't protest. But, in the series, just have a Reaver ship pass by scared him enough to start to shake. Plus, he was made far more stupid in the movie than the show.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Kaylee was the same, although less spunky that she used to be.

Kaylee was almost the same. So, we pretty much agree here. She should've played more of a part though.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Simon was a bit more aggressive but otherwise unchanged, very protective of River just like in the show.

LOL. Simon was completely changed. He went from the bumbling fool, remember Jaynes Town when he played the part of the buyer and completely screwed it up. How about whenever he attempted to talk to Kaylee?

But in the movie he went to, I'm so smooth and great under pressure, that I can infltrate one of the most secure military falcilities in the 'verse and pull off an rescue.

Bullshit.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

River, she’s probably the character that changed the most, she’s much more lucid and less insane.

Nah, Mal and Simon where the most changed. She just had her story progress too quickly. I don't know what was in the comics (yet), but in the series there were definitly hints at military apps for her. Plus we don't know what Simon might have done for her in the months, show end to movie begin. etc. It is plausible for her to have become that lucid in the time frame given.

I just don't like, how military they made her.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Unfortunately, Wash, Book, and Inara really didn’t get enough scenes for me to get a reading of their characters, and Inara did seem kind of out of place.

Wash and Book were both pretty much footnotes. That pissed me off.

But Inara, entering a fight between Mal and The Operative?!?! Whenever there was a fight in the series, she always just got out of the way (and pulled Kaylee out of the way with her ie the train job). Not to mention, where the hell did she get that flash thingy and know when to use it. Can we say, out of character/not realistic.

Seriously

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

GIANTEVILHEAD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:13 AM

Quote:
Mal was most certainly different. Just ask yourself, if Simon would have hit Mal in the series, would Mal have just taken it, or would he have fought back? Truth is, Simon would have gotten somewhat bruised in series Mal.

I'd also like to know what your definition of darker is. Mal was a coward. Mal was angry. That is pretty much it for his emotional range for the movie.

Mal did put River’s life at risk and he knows how protective of River Simon is, plus he did threaten to kill Simon. By dark I mean morbid and detached. Mal was angry a lot but how was he a coward?

Quote:
Not really. If Zoe was the same she would've backed up Mal with his decision to not take on the extra man on the Mule. It wasn't worth the risk when absolute death is involved. Mal had already done his best to save the man when he told them all to get into the vault. Zoe would've known this in the series. But in the movie, she questioned his decision/morality/etc for doing it.

She questioned Mal’s choice to leave Simon and River behind although it wasn’t as direct as the way she questioned Mal in the movie. Plus she probably feels more responsible for the man’s death considering how she was the one who disarmed him.

Quote:
How? When they were planning on going into Reaver territory Jayne didn't protest. But, in the series, just have a Reaver ship pass by scared him enough to start to shake. Plus, he was made far more stupid in the movie than the show.

Jayne does have some decency; look at the end of “Jaynestown,” if given the choice he probably would have sacrificed himself to save that kid’s life and he probably does still have some lingering fear of Mal from the Ariel incident. How did they make Jayne dumber? There was only one Jayne is stupid joke in the movie.

Quote:
LOL. Simon was completely changed. He went from the bumbling fool, remember Jaynes Town when he played the part of the buyer and completely screwed it up. How about whenever he attempted to talk to Kaylee?

But in the movie he went to, I'm so smooth and great under pressure, that I can infltrate one of the most secure military falcilities in the 'verse and pull off an rescue.

Bullshit.

Simon isn’t a bumbling fool when he has to help River.

Quote:
Wash and Book were both pretty much footnotes. That pissed me off.

But Inara, entering a fight between Mal and The Operative?!?! Whenever there was a fight in the series, she always just got out of the way (and pulled Kaylee out of the way with her ie the train job). Not to mention, where the hell did she get that flash thingy and know when to use it. Can we say, out of character/not realistic.

Inara trained Mal to fence, she knows how to fight. Plus she spent a year with Mal; she must have learned something from him, like how to fight dirty.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

FIREFLYGAL

Sunday, October 9, 2005 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
At the risk of having a hit called out on me, I'll keep the details of my opinions quiet. But I was very disappointed with the movie. With any luck, I am the only one. No one else here seems to be expressing that feeling. Just thought I'd toss it out and see if I'm alone or not.

You obviously haven't seen my post about Major Spoiler and I'm calling Joss out. Course, my post covers only 2 specific details.

I aim to misbehave!

Firefly items:
For lapel pins and badge holder lanyards
e-mail FireflyGal1@hotmail.com
www.cafepress.com/fillies
www.cafepress.com/fireflyflan

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Mal did put River’s life at risk and he knows how protective of River Simon is, plus he did threaten to kill Simon. By dark I mean morbid and detached. Mal was angry a lot but how was he a coward?

Have you seen the movie? He kept running and running and running. That is until Book got killed. That was pretty much at the end.

He backed down from Simon. I'll say that again. HE BACKED DOWN FROM SIMON.

How much more do you need it spelled out for you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

She questioned Mal’s choice to leave Simon and River behind although it wasn’t as direct as the way she questioned Mal in the movie. Plus she probably feels more responsible for the man’s death considering how she was the one who disarmed him.

There's a difference between, directly questioning him, which is out of character for her.

And you might want to think about this. Here's my opinion but whatever you decide I'll back you.

The fomer is the movie, the latter the series. They are distinctly different.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Jayne does have some decency; look at the end of “Jaynestown,” if given the choice he probably would have sacrificed himself to save that kid’s life and he probably does still have some lingering fear of Mal from the Ariel incident. How did they make Jayne dumber? There was only one Jayne is stupid joke in the movie.

Funny you should mention Jaynestown. I just watched it literally, 4 hrs ago.

So, you're conjecture about him sacrificing himself is no, he wouldn't be willing to do that. There is a difference between being sad or fustrated with something that happened and willing to do something that drastic to change it. You are seeing a kindness that doesn't exist in him.

You do realize that from the same ep you mention, it gets known that he tossed his own partner out of a hovercraft at 20-30 feet out for the sake of profit, right?

Jayne also wouldn't be scared of any reprocussions that long after that incident. 1) It is at least questionable to say that he even thinks about it anymore 2) Everyone already knows what he did; at least Simon, River and Mal knows. It'd be hard to keep something like that a secret.

And how would him objecting to something that Mal proposed be oooo so scary for him? Mal might kill him if he said anything.

Mal: What happens when the money is good enough?
Jayne: Well, that'll be an interesting day.

That ring a bell?

About him being stupid. Next time you see it, just listen to his dialog. There is a difference between making fun of someone that is stupid and being stupid. Of course for the former to hold weight the latter must be true. But, just because the latter is true, doesn't make the former a necessity.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Simon isn’t a bumbling fool when he has to help River.

Actually he is. Remember when he jumped over the railing in Serenity (ep not movie) while the fed was hauling her out? Rather hasty and screwed it up. If Mal hadn't come along there would've been a rather nasty situation.

What about when he tried to help River in Objects in Space?

He is a bumbling fool when he has to help River. Just because he's willing to put himself in danger doesn't change this.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:

Inara trained Mal to fence, she knows how to fight. Plus she spent a year with Mal; she must have learned something from him, like how to fight dirty.

You are making the leap from trained to fence to knowing how to fight which is completely unjustified.

Just because someone is trained to use a blade in principle, does not mean that you were trained to use it in combat. Ask anyone that's taken a martial arts course. If you are going into a tournament, you are pulled aside for "extra" training. You can read that last part as, ok, we've taught

GIANTEVILHEAD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Have you seen the movie? He kept running and running and running. That is until Book got killed. That was pretty much at the end.

He ran twice, once from the Reavers at the beginning, and then from the Operative. What was he supposed to do? Try to save the town from the Reavers? Take on the entire Alliance by himself?

Quote:
He backed down from Simon. I'll say that again. HE BACKED DOWN FROM SIMON.

How much more do you need it spelled out for you?

Maybe it was because Mal knew that Simon was justified in punching him, not to mention the fact that River was there.

Quote:
There's a difference between, directly questioning him, which is out of character for her.

And you might want to think about this. Here's my opinion but whatever you decide I'll back you.

The fomer is the movie, the latter the series. They are distinctly different.

There is a difference but not a huge one. The movie takes place months after the show, it is possible that some incidents took place during that time strained their relationship and since Mal has become grimmer during the months, he may have simply become unresponsive to Zoe’s passive questioning of his actions.

Quote:
Funny you should mention Jaynestown. I just watched it literally, 4 hrs ago.

So, you're conjecture about him sacrificing himself is no, he wouldn't be willing to do that. There is a difference between being sad or fustrated with something that happened and willing to do something that drastic to change it. You are seeing a kindness that doesn't exist in him.

You do realize that from the same ep you mention, it gets known that he tossed his own partner out of a hovercraft at 20-30 feet out for the sake of profit, right?

The people at Haven were his friends, or at least Book was, and he does care about his friends. He did look quite concerned when Kaylee was shot in the show’s pilot. Somehow I doubt that he was friends with the guy he dumped out of the plane 4 years ago.

Quote:
Jayne also wouldn't be scared of any reprocussions that long after that incident. 1) It is at least questionable to say that he even thinks about it anymore 2) Everyone already knows what he did; at least Simon, River and Mal knows. It'd be hard to keep something like that a secret.

Assuming that another incident didn’t take place during the months between the show and the movie.

Quote:
And how would him objecting to something that Mal proposed be oooo so scary for him? Mal might kill him if he said anything.

Mal: What happens when the money is good enough?
Jayne: Well, that'll be an interesting day.

That ring a bell?

That was months before the movie, it is possible for a person to change, plus that was before Ariel.

Quote:
About him being stupid. Next time you see it, just listen to his dialog. There is a difference between making fun of someone that is stupid and being stupid. Of course for the former to hold weight the latter must be true. But, just because the latter is true, doesn't make the former a necessity.

Give an example of Jayne’s “stupid” dialogue in the movie.

Quote:
Actually he is. Remember when he jumped over the railing in Serenity (ep not movie) while the fed was hauling her out? Rather hasty and screwed it up. If Mal hadn't come along there would've been a rather nasty situation.

What about when he tried to help River in Objects in Space?

He is a bumbling fool when he has to help River. Just because he's willing to put himself in danger doesn't change this.

Not knowing how to fight is not the same as being a bumbling fool. He kept it cool on Ariel and didn’t make any mistakes; he even saved a man’s life without screwing up the mission.

Quote:
You are making the leap from trained to fence to knowing how to fight which is completely unjustified.

Just because someone is trained to use a blade in principle, does not mean that you were trained to use it in co

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

MINIME

Sunday, October 9, 2005 10:50 AM

In answer to the original question... I was fairly determined to be positive about the BDM but... well, I don't know if I'm disappointed, but I am definitely in a kind of mourning.
I've just got back from 6 months in rural Papua New Guinea; I had my firefly DVDs with me and made 1 family of fans (!), I was keeping a distant eye on FFFn, it was a story that spoke to me and my situation.
I stepped off the plane and within 4 hours was in a movie theatre (family not real impressed!). Maybe I need to see it a few more times to truly appreciate it, but it just feels like something that was very precious and important to me is... lost.
This is a personal response and is in no way intended to be a review of the movie; as I said to my brother, I'm suspending judgment until I've seen it 5 times.
Cheers all.

WREN

Sunday, October 9, 2005 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by minime:
Maybe I need to see it a few more times to truly appreciate it, but it just feels like something that was very precious and important to me is... lost.

I felt exactly the same way when I first saw Serenity. Then I realised I was comparing it to Firefly and that really was not fair. On my second viewing I really enjoyed the film in its own right.

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:06 PM

I agree. I am pissed off with Joss for not adhering to character and narrative consistancy. There is no excuse for not writing a script that retained the facts established in the series.

WREN

Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But Inara, entering a fight between Mal and The Operative?!?! Whenever there was a fight in the series, she always just got out of the way (and pulled Kaylee out of the way with her ie the train job). Not to mention, where the hell did she get that flash thingy and know when to use it. Can we say, out of character/not realistic.

It would be foolish of the guild to send their women out without some form of protection. What are they suppose to do if one of their clients decides to beat them? I had always assumed that they had self defense classes, so had no problem with Inara entering the fight. It's not as though she was a superwoman, the operative took her down in seconds.

It would equally make sense for them to be trained in archery (I would think the rich still hunt), how to use a gun and fencing. They have to be able to fit in any social situation.

In Firefly Mal was generally on equal ground with the person he was fighting, so she left him to it. However, in Shindig he was outclassed, so she stepped into help. It's the same situation with the operative.

There is a cut scene that shows a bit about academy life. The girls are shown learning how to 'pleasure' their client, taking archery lessons, and calligraphy lessons. Personally I think the scene should have been left in because it gives new people a better idea of who Inara is and what she does. The scene is described in the visual companion.

MINGHUSCHUTNEY

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:10 PM

My general experience has been that the people I have encouraged to go see the film (i.e. people who don't even know what Firefly is)enjoyed it a lot more than I have. I suspect the dissappointment is all about expectation and a degree of anti-climax. We have all been waiting for this film for so long and now the verse could be dead to us all be over again. I certainly have not stopped thinking about it since I saw it 3 days ago so some of it must have got under my skin. I agree that for the fan it probably takes a second look to relax enough to enjoy it for what it is.

Firefly blew me away. Its briliant in so many ways. I'm sure I will be watching and enjoying those DVDs for the rest of my life. This film had a lot to live up to. I don't think its fair to expect the same entity that the TV show was to transfer without change to the big screen. This is a film that had to have mass appeal. My experience is that people who see it fresh think its a great night out, so I'd call that a success.

You have to give Joss Whedon a lot of credit for squeezing a story arc that he planned to develop over 50 or so episodes into a quality film that's a couple of hours long. The result isn't exactly Firefly but then Firefly as we know and love it died the minute Fox pulled the plug on it. I hope the film does well. I hope it gives Joss the opportunity to continue to entertain me in ever new and interesting ways, even if that's not in the form of Firefly, Serenity or the BDH's. Having said that I would straight down the multiplex to see Serenity II.

ARAMINA

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:12 PM

Those talking about Inara attempting to fight the Operative.

I also assumed that Inara would have had some self defence training for being a companion - most of her clients may have been 'gentlemen' but that's not to say they all were. I don't see her trying to intervene in the fight as out of character at all.

Plus, there is also a lot about Inara's history that we don't know - what was she running from in Firefly?

Plus, Inara knew she was in danger, there was no reason for her not to think that she would have been killed by the Operative, she was cleary terrified of her so had nothing to lose by doing her best to help Mal.

When I think of an interesting signature you'll be the first to know.

RIVERBIRCH

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
At the risk of having a hit called out on me, I'll keep the details of my opinions quiet. But I was very disappointed with the movie. With any luck, I am the only one. No one else here seems to be expressing that feeling. Just thought I'd toss it out and see if I'm alone or not.

First time I saw it, yes. The times after that, no. I love it more each time.

* I swallowed a bug *

STOWAWAY

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
The Studios are like the Alliance. There is a policy across all studios against ideas and opinions in big films this is acheived by dumbing down character exposition. I shall wait for the DVD in hope that some of the character exposition especially relating to Inara that was in the early cuts will be put back into the movie.

Whenever I read stuff like the above, I have the same reaction. Which is that I think you're giving them (in this case, "The Studios") WAY too much credit.

People are stupid and scared. Period. I don't know what you do for a living, but in my work I sometimes have to give presentations at big companies. I always get a little nervous beforehand...I wonder "Do I really know what I think know? Will people see that?"

Then I get to the meeting, often with people who make 10 times as much / year as I do, and I realize that nobody really knows what they're doing. And that I do much more than I was worried about.

People are, for the most part, playing adult...doing and saying things they think they're supposed to. Sure, there are many, many exceptions to this, but again, the point is that people get scared when they don't understand things.

And when that happens, they bring the things in question down to their level so that they can understand them.

And then the people who understood them in the first place are disappointed, and typically point to some type of conspiracy (no offense) because it really does feel like somebody's out to get you. I just don't buy it.

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:52 PM

What I said was not a conspiracy but an analysis of how the culture works.

REVAER

Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:56 PM

I guess I live my life more simply than some, as I peruse this thread. When I ride a roller coaster, at the end, my satisfaction is based on the whole of the ride. I don't think, "Geez, that incline on the second hill completely did not mesh with the theme of the ride! This is the Anaconda, dangit! They coil, and don't rear up like a cobra! This ride is ruined."
Sometimes for the sake of argument, I get carried away when someone points out my flaws, but it's not the whole me. Sometimes I do things out of character, especially when stressed. Maybe fictional characters do too.
Peace to you all, and may Joss continue to create and make right what was wrong for the upset, and maintain the happiness for the content.

STOWAWAY

Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
What I said was not a conspiracy but an analysis of how the culture works.

Well actually it was conspiracy...you said...

Quote:
The Studios are like the Alliance. There is a policy across all studios against ideas and opinions in big films this is acheived by dumbing down character exposition

Not criticizing you in the least, but that was a pretty matter of fact statement about choice of action / intent (and an actual policy) on the part of 'all' studios rather than a more casual analysis of how the culture works (IMHO).

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:21 PM

I finally saw the movie- went with four people, three of whom know and like FF and one newbie- and I was the only one who was disappointed. I hope that's the approximate percetange because I really think Whedon deserves another shot at FF/Serenity, and the FF 'verse has a lot of stories to be told.

I was put off from the very beginning, with Mal acting as if Simon was NOT a part of the crew. Where is that famous "Mal loyalty"?? THAT was always constant if nothing else. And Simon personally rescuing his sister? I always imagined that "they" would spring her and that his part was to spirit her away. Although my brain was telling me that Joss needed to compress the story, my gut was telling me that these weren't the people I'd come to know from the series. After that, I had a hard time finding my footing and the movie only caught fire for me a couple of times.

Although I'm not as sure of the cause as HK (I don't think it's fan-driven movie) I pretty much agree with everything he says. And here's a couple of inconsistencies w/in the movie itself:

To think that everyone including the Operative will rise up... or at least wake up... from a one-time airing of damning evidence shows a political naivete that I don't expect from Joss. After all, look at how many intelligent fans on this board STILL think that Bush is doing a good job. They haven't woke up yet! Again, I know he had to compress the story into movie-length, but that sort of trivial resolution just doesn't match the weight of the issues that he raises.

Why would Reavers pack so tightly together in space? I know it makes it pellucidly clear for audience that "Here be Reavers" but you'd think that they'd leave a LITTLE parking room between ships. In fact, why would Reavers be such a big problem anyway.? Sure they're smelly and nasty, but they're also scavengers and can't possibly reproduce the technology that's keeping them alive... quite frankly, they would die out on their own in just a few years given the radiation that they expose themselves to.

As a MOVIE, Serenity prolly succeeded for the average audience... but then, we aren't the average audience.

Please don't think they give a shit.

CLJOHNSTON108

Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:25 PM

I think everyone here has made valid points.
TV and Film are very different mediums, so Firefly & Serenity are separate entities for me.
We'll always have our Firefly DVDs (as well as Sci-Fi channel & downloadable episodes), so I don't feel that anything's been lost (Well, other than two beloved characters).

Serenity needed to grab an audience outside of us Whedonites, and I think it's been doing an amazing job of punching holes through that barrier!

Just look at what this guy posted on a board that I frequent...
http://orbit.m6.net/v2/read.asp?id=26990

Quote:
posted by jax6213jax6213
I've never even heard of the show firefly and I used to be a big science fiction fan.

Yesterday I was bored with work and the people there, so I left early and walked around downtown Seattle. I went into a movie theater without even bothering to see what kind of movie was playing. I bought the usual popcorn and drink and went in and sat down.

After what seemed like about a year of coming attractions, the movie started; It caught my interest right from the opening scene, and I was on the edge of my chair throughout whole movie.

Later after I got home, I googled Serenity and found out that it had been on television, and it had been a series, but after 14 episodes it got yanked off the air.

I got into my car and went to the mall and purchased Firefly, the complete series. I got home and watched all of them, and I just finished the last one this morning.

My 1st impressions of the series is that its kind of a cheesy, spagetti western with space and frontier planets as its back drop, but its a likeable kind of cheesy.

The characters are all likeable, and they grow on you fast. I also have to admit, the woman who plays the ships "high class prostitute" is so beautiful. I have a thing for women with long dark hair, dark eyes and elfin features.

Anyway, I liked all the actors in the show; I liked how they interacted with each other, and I really liked the guy who played the captain, plus that cute engineer chick.

The stories were all good and well balanced, matter of fact, the stories were very engaging despite the (obviously) low budget of the show, so I'm really confused as to why it was yanked off the air??!!!

Everytime a series comes along thats really great, it gets cancelled and replaced with stupid crap like Buffy the vampire Slayer.

This world is being fedex to hell in a handbasket

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

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for the good man to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

HOWARD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:07 PM

On the Reavers as soon as I heard that cast members were eating lunch with extras dressed in scary REAVERS costume...my heart sank!!
The whole point of the REAVERS in FIREFLY was the fear and terror of the unknown. Macho Jayne freaked out at the mere mention of them. Again this is so common in movies today and another element of corporate consumerist dumbing down. Everything has to be physical and "in ya face" instead of the psychological terror that can be so much more dramatic and longer lasting.

I also agree very much that Joss is SO naive in politIcal terms.

The idea that truth out generates change among the masses is fool-hardy especially in a society like the USA or the Alliance where material goodies and financial debt keeps people towing the line. Yes it is true that truth revealed gives activists and resisters fresh fire and motivation and boosts morale. But not among the mass of people. Then there is the naive idea that a corporatist information or media complex that is tied to the regime (IE GENERAL ELECTRIC they build nukes for the Pentagon and own NBC) is going to distribute truth out of the goodness of its own heart or that a regime like the ALLIANCE is not going to have technology to stop info from a source getting to people's "Wave" receivers.
Joss like many people in Hollywood are so naive that they believe if you have evidence of a war crime and take it to the NY TIMES that they are sure to print it. History has taught us this is far from so. The NY TIMES was in possession of hard evidence of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people by the US military in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in the 60's and 70's but never printed 90% of it. The so-called Pentagon Papers were mere crumbs off the table.
The same is true today with torture by American soldiers and CIA agents of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and GITMO. Only a fraction of the story is out in the big media and they pretend it is a past tense as if it does not continue while it does continue.

SAGRILARUS

Sunday, October 9, 2005 6:49 PM

Quote:
Just look at what this guy posted on a board that I frequent...

Note that he is reviewing the series, not the film.

It appears I've really stirred the pot a bit. The good news that I take from the whole thing is that the guy I brought with me, essentially new to Firefly, loved it. With any luck this will be the general impression. I am hoping that people that see the movie first and then go to the series will get the material in the right order and enjoy all of it.
I personally am just going to have to realize that catching lightning in a bottle twice is a pretty tough trick. Given how Joss left things, I think any sequel would be pretty contrived. Given the sales so far, I don't think that will be a problem. Either way I think Joss will do well, as the DVD sales for the series are bound to increase because of the movie.

One last question, and this is a big one -- hundreds if not thousands of dedicated, rabid fans such as us (including some of the people reading this) saw this thing in previews months ago. Why did not one of you speak up in any way about this? Based on the word on the street, this film was all that and a bag of chips. The reviews were just obscenely good. Did not one person in any of these showings question the very different characters that were presented? How did I get hit with such a curveball without warning?

Sag.

GIANTEVILHEAD

Sunday, October 9, 2005 10:46 PM

I think that some of the disappointed fans are not taking into considering the fact that the length of time between the show and the movie is greater than the length of time between the beginning of the show and the end of the show. So basically the crew probably had more adventures/misadventures during the time between the show and the movie than during the show and I would say that it is highly unlikely for them not to change during that time. The characters in the movie are probably what they would have been like in season 2 or 3 of the show.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

SAGRILARUS

Monday, October 10, 2005 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
I think that some of the disappointed fans are not taking into considering the fact that the length of time between the show and the movie is greater than the length of time between the beginning of the show and the end of the show. So basically the crew probably had more adventures/misadventures during the time between the show and the movie than during the show and I would say that it is highly unlikely for them not to change during that time. The characters in the movie are probably what they would have been like in season 2 or 3 of the show.

[Sag shrugs and moves on. Time to find a new hobbie.]

RUE

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:27 AM

Just a reiteration from another thread - I didn't like the movie as much as the series b/c I have a personal weakness for the unexplained. I thought the movie explained too much, resolved too much, for my taste.

I thought it was geared toward the non-fan. It had to get the back-story in, outline the characters, set the plot in motion and conclude itself in a short time. And as a movie, it had to be bigger and tighter than a TV series. There just isn't time for quirky, intimate, indefinite plot-lines and character development. I see those as the drawbacks of movies per se.

I thought it made the transition to 'movie' about as well as could be expected. Along those lines, it satisfied.

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

SCIFINUT

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
On the Reavers as soon as I heard that cast members were eating lunch with extras dressed in scary REAVERS costume...my heart sank!!
The whole point of the REAVERS in FIREFLY was the fear and terror of the unknown. Macho Jayne freaked out at the mere mention of them. Again this is so common in movies today and another element of corporate consumerist dumbing down. Everything has to be physical and "in ya face" instead of the psychological terror that can be so much more dramatic and longer lasting.

I also agree very much that Joss is SO naive in politIcal terms.

The idea that truth out generates change among the masses is fool-hardy especially in a society like the USA or the Alliance where material goodies and financial debt keeps people towing the line. Yes it is true that truth revealed gives activists and resisters fresh fire and motivation and boosts morale. But not among the mass of people. Then there is the naive idea that a corporatist information or media complex that is tied to the regime (IE GENERAL ELECTRIC they build nukes for the Pentagon and own NBC) is going to distribute truth out of the goodness of its own heart or that a regime like the ALLIANCE is not going to have technology to stop info from a source getting to people's "Wave" receivers.
Joss like many people in Hollywood are so naive that they believe if you have evidence of a war crime and take it to the NY TIMES that they are sure to print it. History has taught us this is far from so. The NY TIMES was in possession of hard evidence of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people by the US military in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in the 60's and 70's but never printed 90% of it. The so-called Pentagon Papers were mere crumbs off the table.
The same is true today with torture by American soldiers and CIA agents of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and GITMO. Only a fraction of the story is out in the big media and they pretend it is a past tense as if it does not continue while it does continue.

I thought this forum was about Serenity/Firefly, not anti-American, anti-military propaganda?

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:39 AM

@Rue:
Hi Been awhile.

@Rue and SignyM:
I think you guys were interested in knowing about my honours project thing. Check my blog. Been busy

@GiantEvilHead:
"""
He ran twice, once from the Reavers at the beginning, and then from the Operative. What was he supposed to do? Try to save the town from the Reavers? Take on the entire Alliance by himself?
"""

Actually, there were numerous comments in the movie that stated that he was running constantly.

"""
Maybe it was because Mal knew that Simon was justified in punching him, not to mention the fact that River was there.
"""

Simon was most certainly not justified in punching Mal. They had a job and in which something unpredictable happened and they made it out.

Today while watching disk 3, I remember hearing Mal state that just once he would like for a plan to go smoothly. Hear that, just once.

So, River was in danger, ooooo, big surprise. They were basically doing a bank robbery. Tell me if I'm wrong, but that typically involves some sort of danger, right?

"""
There is a difference but not a huge one. The movie takes place months after the show, it is possible that some incidents took place during that time strained their relationship and since Mal has become grimmer during the months, he may have simply become unresponsive to Zoes passive questioning of his actions.
"""

And what are you basing this on? This is plain conjecture and you are now grasping at straws to hold onto this unsupported claim.

Also, Mal hasn't become grimmer, he has become a pissy coward. The character is a mere 1 dimensional shadow of its original glory. Shame on Joss.

And you're going to have to explain how it isn't a huge difference, because it is. It shows a distinct, significant shift in personality.

"""
The people at Haven were his friends, or at least Book was, and he does care about his friends. He did look quite concerned when Kaylee was shot in the shows pilot. Somehow I doubt that he was friends with the guy he dumped out of the plane 4 years ago.
"""

Again with the "Somehow I doubt that". Can we say conjecture.

Concern and willing to volenteer to die for something are two very different things.

And they were partners for, what was it, 6 months. How long was he on Serenity up to that point? Oh yah, we don't know. So, it is rather silly to start to say what Jayne is willing to do or not.

More like, he will do something if it'll look bad on him if he doesn't.

Remember when Wash and Mal got kidnapped by Niska? Jayne was dead set against it. But, since everyone else was going to do it, he went along with it. This (and other decisions he's made) is consistent with him wanting people to think that he wasn't a complete prick. Also, this was directly after Ariel, so he might have thought it pay back of sorts. ie Mal spared his life, so Jayne will help save his.

"""
Assuming that another incident didnt take place during the months between the show and the movie.
"""

And what proof do you have that something did happen?

"""
That was months before the movie, it is possible for a person to change, plus that was before Ariel.
"""

And consistent with Ariel. The money was good enough, it was an interesting day. Just like that man said.

Also, what in Jaynes personality suggests to you that capability to change that much in only a year or so. Because that is the time frame we're talking about. No-one changes that fast.

"""
Give an example of Jaynes stupid dialogue in the movie.
"""

Give me an example of Jaynes typical dialogue in the movie. ie Neither of us have memorized the dialogue of the move (I know I've seen it only once) so why go in this direction. It is rediculous to bring this up. Nice try though.

"""
Not knowing how to fight is not the same as being a bumbling fool. He kept it cool on Ariel and didnt make any mistakes; he even saved a mans life without screwing up the mission.
"""

But we aren't talking a

GIANTEVILHEAD

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:13 AM

SigmaNunki, you’re not getting my point, we have to make assumption. We only had 14 episodes, 10 hours out of a year of their lives (thanks for making my point more valid) and the movie takes place months after the show. The things that happened during the show were not everything that happened in their lives during that time and it doesn't show every facet of the characters' personalities. It is not unreasonable to assume that Inara learned a few dirty tricks from Mal, or even Jayne or Book. It’s true that she didn’t spend that time with those people during the show but multiply that by a couple hundred and you’ll get a rough estimate of how much she spent with them during the time she was on the ship. Plus Inara didn’t have to actually ask Mal for a lesson in dirty fighting, she could have learned then when she saw Mal use them or heard him teach someone else about them. I also don’t think that it’s unreasonable to assume that River caused a lot of trouble during the months between the show and movie and that the crew had a lot of resentment against River, resentment that they either repressed or channeled into other things but not towards River because they know it’s not her fault, it’s the same way that some parents repress or channel hidden resentment against their children towards each other.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

HOWARD

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:17 AM

A fellow contributor raised the issue of Joss being naive in his political notions. I was merely addressing this with depth and intelligence.

I find it reveals a sad truth about you my fellow FIREFLY fan if you think that speaking openly with depth and accuracy about historical and contempary events is to you "anti-American" a phrase that in itself is pure totalitarian.

Why is it that you are more offended by the messenger than by the actions of those who committed the crimes mentioned by the messenger?

As for your use of the phrase "anti-military" it makes me deduct that in the face of a fourteen year old Iraqi boy being tortured by American soldiers, you would side with the thugs in your military.

You are surely a good little Alliance poodle aren't you now?

CLJOHNSTON108

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
Note that he is reviewing the series, not the film.

Note that he discovered the series through seeing the film.

SAGRILARUS

Monday, October 10, 2005 12:42 PM

Quote:
Note that he discovered the series through seeing the film.

With any luck others will as well. In my opinion, people coming to the series from the film will be simply knocked out of their socks. The movie plays better with people who don't know the series.

I still have the question standing though -- how come nobody that saw the pre-viewings of the film brought up these issues?

Sag.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, October 10, 2005 1:02 PM

Short answer :

NO

Long answer :

I loved every minute of SERENITY It is simply the most entertaining and wonderfully scripted film to come along in decades. It advanced the characters just enough for the big screen, but kept them grounded sufficiently so that they all remained familiar with the characters we'd come to know and love.

Every frame that had a beam of light shining though it , and being projected up on the screen was utterly mesmerizing.

It was rich with narrative and brilliant with imagintation.Every flicker of celluloid was pure Joss Whedon and it was a thrill to sit through it. I will be waiting with eager anticipation, the DVD release so that I may be privy to the Directors comments.

Well done Joss.

Thanks
The Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

KHIMBAR

Monday, October 10, 2005 1:49 PM

I was disappointed by the deus ex machina moments.

Other than that, no. I'm upset Wash and Book died, but it's not like they were real people (like the 20,000 in the earthquake).

It was a damn fine movie.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:07 PM

khimbar wrote:

Quote:
I was disappointed by the deus ex machina moments.

Which ones in particular Khimbar?

I'm just curious

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

KHIMBAR

Monday, October 10, 2005 2:36 PM

The one that rankles most of all is the way the Operative 'Mortal Kombat' fatality special move fails on Mal because of 'shrapnel'.

I didn't like that. I wanted Mal to win because he was cleverer, or more willing to die for his cause, or just through sheer bloody minded determination. I can't remember which book it's in but Han Solo thinks something like 'Luke and Leia might have the Force, but I can outdo the pair of them when it comes to chicanery'. I wanted Mal to chicane, to win through his strengths and intelligence, not through dumb luck.

The 'River becomes Buffy' bit I can live with the more I think about it.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:05 PM

My friend and I actually laughed out loud at that point. I thought it was hilarious...

Thing is because Mal pretended he was paralysed he kinda won through chicanery anyhow. Because he knew what the assassin was doing (old assassin's trick I guess, of whom Mal would have had many an encounter with during the war perhaps)

But I know what you mean. However these conveniences are there you're right, I guess maybe I didn't mind them so much.

Actually now I'm wondering did he even have a scar there? You know the shot of when he's lying on his bunk, the camera is on his back did they illustrate a scar there at that point? Because if they did then that'll work better.....

...guess I'm going to have to watch it again :)

Cheers
the
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

KHIMBAR

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
My friend and I actually laughed out loud at that point. ]

Hell I laughed my ass off too. So did my gf. And I love the elbow to the face, made me think 'Mal knows Muay Thai!'. I'm not saying I sat there stoney faced and it ruined the movie, I'm just musing and a wonderin'.

It's only in the cold light of day I think I'd rather Mal had won by 'Malness' than by plot device.

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Monday, October 10, 2005 3:53 PM

The movie certainly keeps people talking, doesn't it? Great flick for sure. I wasn't all that hot on it after my first viewing, enjoyed it but didn't realize all the subtleties in it. Check Zoe's expression when Mal doesn't let the guy on their um, landspeeder.

And I absolutely love the analogy of the ship falling apart at the beginning with the show's cancellation. And having to glue it back together at the end of the movie. Sheer genuis. See the movie a second time if you have the guts. There's more to it than you know.

"You're either in or you're out, and I'm playing to the in."—Greg Dulli. Get with the "in" and check out his new album Amber Headlights, on sale now.

URAJZED

Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM

I think many of the points made here in criticizing the movie are valid, and they stand in relief when other points are dimmed or overlooked: Serenity is a movie that has to reach a broad audience, it has to bring newbies up to speed, and it sometimes takes tweaking of character to get the entire thing made. There is always compromise in these sorts of deals. In comparison to the dreck Star Trek became, and even Star Wars which one man had complete editorial control over, Serenity is a mitigated success at worst.
Splitting hairs over whether a person might have really said this or that is just that, because no one really knows these characters. We saw them over ten plus hours, through a camera. Think about people you know in real life. There are people you think you know after a long time and they can surprise you. There is so much that the viewer has to do for him or herself.
I felt Mal didn't hit Simon back because it would only be a cheap shot: everyone knows Mal could do it if he needed to. It wasn't needed. Instead, he hit harder: he suggested Simon and River detach and move on, if I remember. But that's my feeling: it isn't canon. Others may agree or disagree, but none of us are copyright holders of the series Bible.
It reminds of some criticism I've been reading of the show House, by certain doctors and others in the know: the show is full of medical inaccuracies. But other doctors say they like watching the show, and turn off their inner doctor and just become a viewer watching the show, because it does have entertainment to offer.

Okay, so I will put a few of my quibbles:

More Jayne. On the "Jayne seems more stupid" thread, even in the series he's uneven: in Out of Gas in the flashback he's talking like a downright half-wit, ironic given that Mal seems to respect that he does have some smarts to him. But that's what I like about Jayne, he's an enigma: he might never have been to school, and in some ways he is not too bright, but circumstance forces him to think a little deeper on occasion.

We didn't need to see the Simon/Kaylee mush. Of course in the series it would have played out a lot longer. We only needed to see a glance and a few spare words, like in Out of Gas when Jayne says, "Well." to Mal and turns away to the shuttle without a bunch of throat-lumping. In a sequel I agree that Kaylee and Simon should not work out.

And I did think Mal held out a little too long against the Operative. It would have been more believable if he would have won by some wile earlier on, as in Shindig. However, what Mal had (others were criticizing that he didn't have the fighting prowess that the Operative did) was pure grit: he was no stranger to pain and apparently mortal wounds.

I watched the movie after only seeing the first 3 eps, so it was as a fledgling fan I went to see the movie, and not the Talmudic scholars that others have become. I felt there were a few sour notes, but I didn't feel betrayed. I had a good movie experience. At least they made a movie. And they did it in large part for the fans. Put my name in the thank you column.

Well, I've yet to see the last three episodes. Anyone jealous?

u

Insert quote by Jayne here.

LADYBLUE

Monday, October 10, 2005 6:16 PM

I for one was also disappointed.

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

First, let me start by saying that I have been a fan of Firefly since the beginning. I watched it every Friday night on Fox and was pissed when Fox cancelled it. I wrote to Fox, and later to Sci-Fi and UPN to pick up our beloved Firefly. I bought the DVD set when it came out and also bought some for friends and family so that I could share this wonderful experience. I was ecstatic when I found out that Universal was making the Serenity movie. I brought my converted Firefly friends and family with me on opening night; and was prepared to see it as many times as I could. I say all of this so that maybe you will not take lightly what I am about to say next. I think that the movie was a huge disappointment – I do not say that glibly but rather with all the heartfelt angst I can muster. Here are my reasons for not liking it: I apologize ahead of time for the length of this posting but I needed to get it all out.

****LAST WARNING – SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN************

1) They killed Wash. Okay, okay, I have read all the message boards about how this made the film more real and how it upped the ante for everyone else. Well, let me just comment on that argument for a minute.

If Wash dying did make it more “real” then I could maybe buy that up to the point where River goes running, unarmed, into a pack of Reavers that had just about killed the rest of the crew (including her brother who was shot, by a Reaver, from quite a distance mind you). She not only obliterated all of them, but came away unscathed. Is this in line with reality? I cannot buy into reality at one point and then totally disregard it elsewhere. There are other reality problems I have but that would be the main one.

Also, the argument that Joss was going to kill him off after season 2 anyway does nothing for me.

Please do not tell me to get over losing Wash. That’s like telling Mal to get over losing the war.

2) Mal’s character going dark. Again, I have heard the arguments that after everything Mal went through in the movie that it changed his character to where we see this darkness in him. If I accept this argument then I have to find fault with it later in the film. Why doesn’t Mal kill the operative? I mean the man was responsible for killing women and children, two of his crew, and countless others…..and he leaves him alive? Mal killed for lesser reasons in Firefly. He kicked Niska’s henchman through the engine, he shot the Alliance mole in the head – all without thinking twice and no questions asked. I think that by Mal not killing the operative that it cheapened Wash and Books deaths even more. Of course, it was convenient that he was alive so that he could call off the alliance soldiers in the end; but Mal had no way of knowing that.

Oh, and I know that Joss had always wanted Mal’s character to be dark but Fox would not let him. That is fine, but you have to logically get me from A to B.

3) Zoe’s emotional response to Wash dying – or should I say lack of. I have read that she did not have time to grieve; that she had to go to warrior mode and kick some Reaver ass. I did see a little bit of a response in how she fought the Reavers with an “I don’t care if I live or die” attitude – but that wasn’t enough for me. I wanted to see a melt down or at least some grieving. This might have made my emotional response one of grief rather than one of just plain pissed off. And, you can’t tell me she is not capable of it. I have never seen more tender moments between married characters then I did with Wash & Zoe. For example, in “War Stories” after she pays Niska to get Wash back and they are in the shuttle, the vulnerability she displays in just her physical actions alone is amazing. By not showing Zoe grieving I just feel as though it invalidated all of those loving moments that they had on Firefly. Oh, and in the end by showing Zoe fixing the window panel that was broken when Wash was killed was a kick in th

SAGRILARUS

Monday, October 10, 2005 6:53 PM

Quote:
If Wash dying did make it more “real” then I could maybe buy that up to the point where River goes running, unarmed, into a pack of Reavers that had just about killed the rest of the crew (including her brother who was shot, by a Reaver, from quite a distance mind you).

This was the one part of the plot that I thought fell down a bit. River should not have survived, no way, no how. Bullets kill from a distance -- they are the bane of every karate movie ever made.

But if River is to survive, I would have had Kaylee run in to close the door and save the rest (would have worked nicely for her character), and River follow to save her. That would have made it more intense. Practically, with the Doc down, Kaylee down, Inara essentially a bystander, and Zoe and Jayne both running out of bullets, they were pretty much toast. But I suppose you can't kill everyone, and hey -- I've seen SO MUCH WORSE in other movies. So I'm comfortable with that part of it.

I'm more disappointed with the change in the character profiles. People are responding here that "it's been a few months, people change!" Well, it doesn't work that way in fiction. Writing 101 dwells on character development and motivation for good reason. Characters don't survive arbitrary changes. Readers (or viewers) need to be comfortable that they understand why something is happening in the text, or they start looking for BS crap in the background like a gun looking different between one scene and the next. To hold the viewer, they have to understand the character. They have to be able to put themselves in that character's place and understand the WHY and the BECAUSE of the situation. The characters in the film are just different. Different different different. Not the same people. Confused the hell out of me. Made it very hard to step into the scene.
Shame really. The movie starts off so well with that piece of the ship peeling off. Wash and Mal were their old selves. Just entertaining as hell. Then things start to unravel.

Sag.

LADYBLUE

Monday, October 10, 2005 7:39 PM

Sag,

I know what you mean. Not only are Mal & Zoe out of character but so is the rest of the crew (except for maybe Wash). Sometimes, I think it would have been better to watch this movie without the prior knowledge of Firefly; then my expectations would not have been so high.

Regards,

INIRE

Monday, October 10, 2005 7:43 PM

I for one LOVED the movie. Even if it winds up being the only movie we get, it is a gift and a blessing.

and frankly, if it takes 'Author Ego' to move a story forward, I'll take that over fan-fear and stagnation ANY day of the year.

URAJZED

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LadyBlue:
1) They killed Wash. Okay, okay, I have read all the message boards about how this made the film more real and how it upped the ante for everyone else. Well, let me just comment on that argument for a minute.

If Wash dying did make it more “real” then I could maybe buy that up to the point where River goes running, unarmed, into a pack of Reavers that had just about killed the rest of the crew (including her brother who was shot, by a Reaver, from quite a distance mind you). She not only obliterated all of them, but came away unscathed. Is this in line with reality? I cannot buy into reality at one point and then totally disregard it elsewhere. There are other reality problems I have but that would be the main one.

I can understand the storytelling choices. Shepherd died to bring home the reality of the evil that the Alliance will go to achieve their aims. Wash died to accentuate the danger the reavers posed to the crew. The show and the movie constantly has the crew suffering quite serious wounds to show how dangerous the situation is. If we believe that the crew will make it anyway, there is no sense of sacrifice. They can no longer run and hide from the dangers of the civilization they stay at the edge of. The danger has to feel real. This is a conscious choice away from having a redshirt death.

Also, I never thought the Reavers were any kind of coordinated fighting force, just a mob with sharp edges. It was made pretty clear early on that River's prowess was nearly superhuman. Now, had she killed thousands in this manner it might be not as believable, but she held off a couple of dozen in a cramped space. So you wanted River to sustain damage - it was demonstrated early on that if the Reavers are in hand to hand range that you're toast. What would it have added to the story if we took time out to show a knife cutting her? The movie was running close to 2 hrs at this point, the story decision was made that she was not going to die, and maybe Joss wasn't thinking that River needed to get cut more to make Wash's death seem more real. Rather, she had to wait until her brother, Zoe, who else was cut up before she went into action.

Quote:

2) Mal’s character going dark. Again, I have heard the arguments that after everything Mal went through in the movie that it changed his character to where we see this darkness in him. If I accept this argument then I have to find fault with it later in the film. Why doesn’t Mal kill the operative? I mean the man was responsible for killing women and children, two of his crew, and countless others…..and he leaves him alive? Mal killed for lesser reasons in Firefly. He kicked Niska’s henchman through the engine, he shot the Alliance mole in the head – all without thinking twice and no questions asked. I think that by Mal not killing the operative that it cheapened Wash and Books deaths even more. Of course, it was convenient that he was alive so that he could call off the alliance soldiers in the end; but Mal had no way of knowing that.

The Operative represented the Alliance to Mal, but he wanted the Operative to witness what he was responsible for. The Operative claimed to be evil for a greater good, but I think Mal wanted the Operative to see an even deeper, senseless evil, because the Operative in his Manichaen way beleived that evil has a place and purpose. Mal knew the Operative's brand of evil, and he knew of the nihilistic nature of the Reavers. It was an argument, a duel on a mental plane as well.

Mal killed the Alliance Mole who was armed, threw Niska's man through the engine because he said he would never rest in trying to kill Mal. Mal has explicitly and implicity demonstrated throughout the series that he will not kill unless he believes his own life is in danger, or in the one case of the man in town beset by Reavers. The Operative's arms were broken, he was disabled.

Quote:

Oh, and I know that Joss had always wanted Mal’s character to be dark but Fox woul

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

PHOEBE

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:

I still have the question standing though -- how come nobody that saw the pre-viewings of the film brought up these issues?

Sag.

Perhaps nobody who saw the pre-screenings of the film agreed with you. I saw it in London in January, and in Nottingham and Birmingham in August/September. The first time I saw it I was blown away and thought it was the best film I ever saw in my life. The second and third times I saw it, I thought it was even better. Each time I see it (a total of eight times now) I notice little things that I didn't before, and it seemed better.

And you should have noticed that over the course of the series, Mal had become a little more bitter. He expresses in the opening shot of the BDHs in Serenity that conditions are worse for the members of the crew now. When times are harder, people's personalities tend to change a little. Skew in a direction that is often negative.

Inara fighting, I don't know why we're making such a big deal of. She attempted a grand total of about three semi-clumsy blows. Inara was hardly portrayed as a deadly weapon (i.e. River, for whom a viable explanation was given), nor did she manage to land a blow on The Operative and was taken down in seconds, as someone mentioned above. I see nothing out of character in attempting to help Mal from getting killed, and attempting to probably save her own life and the lives of the crew in the process.

Additionally, Jewel stated that she LOVED the nethers line.

GGOTCH

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:53 PM

I thought that Serenity substituted some of the charm of Firefly for action scenes.

But I strongly had expected that because of the nature of the world of "feature film".

With all that a studio/producer/screenwriter/director has to contend with, I believe Serenity did work. I enjoyed the film immensely, but will allow that it wasn't Firefly. We should, however, never have expected the TV show per se. The economics of the motion picture industry would never allow it. That is why it is so hard to present a throughly entertaining (up to original series/next generation standards) motion picture of Star Trek.

I do believe that Universal failed miserably, in promoting this film.

BREATHINGSTORY

Monday, October 10, 2005 8:59 PM

Wow, I am surprised it took me so long to find this website. Hey everyone :)

I loved the movie. The only problems I had were that there was so much left open after the series ended (damn you FOX!) And that there were more questions I would have like answered, as far as Book's past. And at least there was a bit of closure!

As far as the whole Wash ordeal. It upset me alot. Not even so much that he killed off my character. Characters die, it happens and I understand that. When it comes down to it, had Serenity been a movie first before the Series of Firefly it obviously wouldn't have been AS dramatic. But for fans of the show, who had invested weeks (or years for those of you who may have recorded each episode off your tv.. and watched them 5,000 times over) into these characters, and to have such an abruptness to the death, it felt more like a bad horror movie whose only purpose in even having an ensemble is to pick them off.

I will continue to be a fan of this show, obviously, because I do believe in Joss, and I do believe that Serenity has SO much potential to become the "Next Big Sci Fi Adventure" as I read somewhere.

SO overall was I disapointed? Not at all. I think its a great movie. Did some things really suck. Absolutely. But I guess thats why it IS such a great movie. Obviously if youre fired up about it, it got the job done. I know I was emotional, It was funny, the action rocked, and Now I'm even more interested to see other installments, be a movie, continuation of the series, whatever.

We gotta go to the crappy town where I'm a hero. - Wash

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, October 10, 2005 10:09 PM

@GiantEvilHead:
Ok, I read the first 2 sentences of your post and stopped. You, aren't getting the point.

You can make all the assumptions that you want. But, if they completely contradict prior knowledge, established norms, for the character. Then they are acting out of character. Period.

Your assumptions are and contrary to known facts.

Just go back and look at how many times you've used the terms, "I assume", "I think", etc. Look at how many times I've brought up actual events that happened. Actual known peronality norms. Actual behaviour.

I am basing what I think on prior knowledge and you are basing yours on fabrications.

Continue in this way and you're not going to convince me of anything.

I highly recommend (again) that you re-watch the series. Then and only then, will you realize the error of your ways. Because, it is clear, you have forgotten what is in the series.

Accept it, deal with it, move on.

P.S. If you aren't going to actually bring up actual events that happened in the Firefly 'verse then don't bother replying to this post. I have not interest in invaidating your baseless conjectures anymore, nor do I have the time.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

SIGNYM

Monday, October 10, 2005 10:11 PM

BTW- I don't think I was disappointed as much as thrown off-balance. I knew enought not to expect Firefly, but Serenity was off my personal radar. I'll prolly have to watch again to view the movie on its own merits, not in comparison to FF.

Please don't think they give a shit.

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:05 AM

Hey Signy, good to hear from you.

I have this image in my head of all of us who were disappointed in the BDM quarantined in some cyber-spatial infirmary. I see you walk through the door and I'm both happy to see you and sad that "it" has claimed yet another in our ranks.

Glad you brought up the issue of political naïveté. I kept thinking that Mr. Universe's real name would be Noam Chomsky. The whole "can't stop the signal" plot is like something out of 80's cyber-punk. And for most people, the catastrophe itself would never be a problem, it was an experiment gone awry is all; the only thing most good Alliance citizens might have a problem with is the cover up, but affluent citizens everywhere tend to relish their ignorance when it comes to their government's dirty secrets. I can easily see the general public feeling sorry for the "poor scientists" and the "poor government" that had to deal with the aftermath of a disaster "no one could have seen coming."

"If I was the Parliament, I'd cover it up too, who wants to know about such a tragedy when the damage is done?"

"But the reavers kill thousands of people on the outer rim every year."

"There's a lot more than reavers out there can kill a man, kid. It's a tough life on the rim."

Or to paraphrase ScifiNut's reply to Howard on this thread, "That's just anti-Alliance propaganda!" And Howard was talking about the pentagon papers where the genocide was intentional, not just an unforseen side-effect of an onstensibly harmless drug.

In short: no scandal, no political upheaval.

T'other thing about the River plot that bugged me right off the bat was how slipshod the Alliance psi-ops department would have to be not to keep their psychic subjects away from anyone with sensitive info. How lame was that? Made me wonder for a second if Joss was telling us that River's psychic power was a fluke or something (the only possible way the Alliance wouldn't have kept her quarantined). Another unanswered question: was she psychic to begin with and the Alliance was enhancing her gift, or were they "making" her psychic? And whether they were enhancing it or inducing it, why would they do such a thing? What exactly are the applications of psychic sensitivity to being an assassin? On the face of it, seems a secret government would want to render their assassins less sensitive, not more. Seems it would create more problems than it solves for a secret government agency unless they had proven methods of mind control. So many plot holes, gonna have to close the road!

So, River Tam's psychic power amounts to nothing more than being the wrong girl in the wrong place at the wrong time. I agree with Signy, seemed the series was building to something slightly more significant. The Operative killed hundreds, maybe thousands of people just to shut up a witness--a witness to a scandal that would have had less impact on the Alliance than East Timor has had on the USA. Grrr. Arrgh.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To think that everyone including the Operative will rise up... or at least wake up... from a one-time airing of damning evidence shows a political naivete that I don't expect from Joss. After all, look at how many intelligent fans on this board STILL think that Bush is doing a good job. They haven't woke up yet! Again, I know he had to compress the story into movie-length, but that sort of trivial resolution just doesn't match the weight of the issues that he raises.

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.

ROCKETJOCK

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Thing is because Mal pretended he was paralysed he kinda won through chicanery anyhow.

Notice that he knew the effect a hit on that cluster was supposed to have; there's a lot of Eastern culture in the 'Verse, and odd are this particular tactic has become, if not widely know, at least familiar to someone with combat experience.

On the main point of this thread: No, I was not disappointed. To my mind, and allowing for several months of poor luck and worse paydays, everyone's characterization was dead on.

Specific points:

Simon wasn't an incompetent. Check out "Ariel" if you doubt; his plan is smooth and well thought out, and he sells it with panache. What he is in the series is a fish out of water. Simon Templar in Mayberry. By the BDM's timeframe, he's gotten a bit more seasoned to the frontier -- and good enough to clock Mal with a sucker punch.

Kaylee's vibrator line was perfectly in character, IIMHO, and brought down the house all four times I've seen the film.

Jayne's willingness to go in harms way despite the risk and lack of profit: this is the part of Jayne that tried to make itself known when the mudder boy died for him, the part that helped storm Niska's Skyplex for Mal's sake. (It's well forshadowed in the Comic story, too, in his reaction to a similar scene of random, large-scale death.) Quite simply, it takes a lot to make Jayne take the moral high ground--but Minerva qualified.

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

KESTREL

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:49 AM

"Disappointed" isn't the word... "disgusted" is. I originally posted this over on Browncoats in a thread called, "To Joss the Firefly Slayer"

I'll start on a positive note... this movie got two things right:

- Inara is back aboard, where she belongs.
- The Miranda / Reaver / River backstory was excellent, though not without flaws (I'll get to that).

Unfortunately, in every other way this movie got it completely wrong. Let's start by working backward, from the least to the greatest of offences:

THE MUSIC

The opening theme... yeah, not bad... I can definitely live with it. It had a FIREFLY-ish feel to it. Unfortunately, that's where it ended. Now, I'm NOT a fan of country music, but the odd country-western/asian blending we had in FIREFLY *REALLY* worked for me. There was just nothing special about the SERENITY soundtrack. Like the visuals, it was cold, flat, generic and unimpressive.

REWRITING HISTORY

What can I say? The character of Simon was simply not the character from FIREFLY. Too bold, too brash, too aggressive. Worse, the account of River's escape directly contradicted what we saw in the series pilot. Revisionist history is a horrible way to tell the story you want to tell... it may seem to be only events and happenings but when it is so integral to our understanding of, not one, but two characters, it's a fatal mistake.

SERENITY

Serenity herself... there are things I like and dislike. I'm glad the ship didn't change radically. Kaylee's stenciled flowers in the kitchen were there, the mish-mash of chairs and the worn table were there. The problem was that while the Serenity of FIREFLY had warm brown, yellow and rust tones, the Serenity of SERENITY had cold blues and greys. One thing I *DID* like was the rebuilding of the bridge -- the bridge of FIREFLY always seemed a little TOO beaten up to be functional. The bridge in SERENITY was clearly functional, but again... in cold blues and greys... I know this is a small thing but it changed the whole feel of the ship from one of being a comfortable and welcoming coccoon to being a cold and sterile container. This touches on the whole sci-fi/western element. The cold sci-fi element was present in spades but the warm western element was gone...

RIVER THE REAVER SLAYER

This was one of the truly low points of the movie... why do American TV and movies insist on producing pulpy shows and movies where a 90lb waif of a girl can easily defeat wave after wave of 200lb males intent of savagely killing her? Let's be honest, this was a cow-tow to the BUFFY fans with the Reavers in the part of Vampires and River in the part of Buffy. This is such an overplayed and ludicrous idea that it cheapens the end product. Even if this had not been in the movie, there's still a serious flaw in making River into an ASSASSIN !?!?! What were you thinking? Anyone with a steady hand can squeeze a trigger and kill someone. Someone with River's intellect and ability to read minds would be WASTED in the role of an assassin... she'd be SO much more useful in a diplomatic environment where she could simply walk around a room reading minds and reporting information back to her handlers.

KILLING MAJOR CHARACTERS

First of all, I am *NOT* averse to killing characters. In some situations it works very well. Some of the most memorable shows I've seen have done it at some point or another.

When your show is story-driven, killing characters has the effect of furthering the story you want to tell. The characters are a function of the story. FIREFLY, though, was NOT story-driven... it was CHARACTER-driven. When you kill characters in a character-driven show, you change the dynamic, disrupting the balance you sought to achieve in the first place. The ensemble of characters in FIREFLY had some of the greatest on-screen chemistry ever filmed. Killing Book and Wash has destroyed a significant portion of that chemistry. So much so, in fact, that it can not be recovered and the show itself ceases to be.

I've seen people argue that the character deaths made the re

TERAPH

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To think that everyone including the Operative will rise up... or at least wake up... from a one-time airing of damning evidence shows a political naivete that I don't expect from Joss. After all, look at how many intelligent fans on this board STILL think that Bush is doing a good job. They haven't woke up yet! Again, I know he had to compress the story into movie-length, but that sort of trivial resolution just doesn't match the weight of the issues that he raises.

I don't think there was anything politically naive from Joss. That airing is gonna run way more than once. Every man and woman who wants a seat on Parliment but needs to weaken their opponent will make sure it does. There will be protests, hearings, scapegoats, news reports, political infighting, and then everyone will slowly forget. Nothing in the movie suggests otherwise. Even the Operative says that Parliment is weak right now, but that they may come at them later. That's how it works. People lose power from scandals, and they they either fall away or rebuild.

It would have been nice, however, to have seen these lines that were in the script but not in the movie:

(from the last scene with the Operative and Mal)

OPERATIVE
Do you know the uproar you've caused? Protests, riots -- cries for the recall or Parliment.

MAL
We've seen the broadwaves.

OPERATIVE
You must be pleased.

MAL
'Verse wakes up for a spell. Won't be long 'fore she rolls right over and falls back asleep. T'aint my worry.

Wish that had been there, 'cause that's exactly how it works. There is outrage, politicians do their spin (maybe a couple lose their jobs), and then everyone rolls over and falls back asleep.

Of course, 30 million died, so it'll be a bigger scandal than some, but it'll run its course...

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:36 AM

@Kestrel:
Bang on!

And as Rue wrote, there was no "quirky, intimate, indefinite plot-lines and character development."

That was what Firefly was. It was all about the characters. And Joss took that away.

I weep for what we have lost.

But, at least we still have the DVD set.

EDIT: Why aren't people questioning that the Operative is still alive at the end of the movie? He went through the entire thing speaking about falling on ones sword when one screws up, etc. But, at the end of the movie, he has failed to do so himself.

Even if you consider him not being allied with the Alliance anymore, it's still his code. Why wouldn't he fall on it for just having failed to see the truth for so long?

Grrr.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

TERAPH

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why aren't people questioning that the Operative is still alive at the end of the movie? He went through the entire thing speaking about falling on ones sword when one screws up, etc. But, at the end of the movie, he has failed to do so himself.

I have two competing theories on this.

The first is that he intends to kill himself once he sees off Serenity. When he tells Mal "you won't, there is nothing left to see" in reference to the possibility of Mal seeing him again, my first impression was that he was going to kill himself since he had nothing left. (The only reason to see them off first is because they were wronged by the thing the Operative once believed in so deeply. Helping them is an act of contrition.)

The second theory is that now that he's turned away from the Alliance, he doesn't see failing them as a something worth dying over. His belief in falling on the sword is not for any screw up, but for failing the institution to which he had unwavering faith. He no longer has the level of devotion to the Alliance that would warrant that sacrifice. In this case, "nothing left to see" is a way of saying "the man you met no longer exists" and may not be the precurser to a suicide. He may be leaving to find a new path.

I tend to lean toward the second theory because of the other dialogue in that scene. Mal suggests the Alliance may try to kill the Operative and the Operative seems to accept it as a possibility, which wouldn't be a concern to a man planning to kill himself.

(Lines from the script that didn't make the screen also have the Operative asking Mal how he carried on after losing everything in the battle of Serenity -- which suggests to me a man looking for a new path.)

RODASH

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:44 AM

Kestrel: Right on!

LADYBLUE

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:18 PM

Way to say it Kestrel!!

A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth

SAGRILARUS

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:32 PM

Looks like you're getting the last word, Kestrel. And I think you summed it up nicely. Not short, but nice. Worth the read.

Sag.

THANATUS

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:26 PM

Here, here Kestrel! Trust me, you and others have put voice to the frustrations of legions of Firefly (not Serenity!) fans!

Than

LOZORDS

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hothersale:
Have you seen it more than once? Personally, I found the ARROW'D so upsetting that it was hard to really enjoy the movie the first time round. I enjoyed it MUCH more on subsequent viewings. If you haven't already, I suggest watching it again to see if it's the same for you.

________________________

Live life with Blue Sun!

Cheers for spoiling the movie, asshat.

SEP7IMUS

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:32 PM

Hello. I'm new here. I'm one of those longtime Firefly fans (well, at least a year) who has gotten more involved given the advent of the movie and my hopes for it.

I wasn't all that disappointed. I felt like there were some medium-specific changes (some things work better on movies than on TV and vice versa) and some simplification for people unfamiliar with the Firefly saga before the movie, but overall it felt like a BDEpisode of Firefly.

In particular, I wanted to address the idea that Mal is more of a coward now than in the show. I REALLY don't see that being the case. He was always running away on the show. IT's kidn of what he does:

In "Heart of Gold" his first idea is for them all to run.
In "Shindig" he says "I never back down from a fight" to which Innara replies, "You do it all the time!"
And, overall, his basic mode is evade the Alliance, keep moving, run from place to place.

I don't think this makes him a coward, but he doesn't get into conflict when he doesn't have to.

(It's interesting to compare Mal's attitude about avoiding conflict to Jayne's. For Mal, the things that force him to fight are matters of doing what's right. For Jayne, it's personal gain (though that gets called into question at times when he seems a little more noble). Neither of them, though, fight for the sake of fighting, or against overwhelming odds, unless they have to,)

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:44 PM

I liked it. I think there were weakpoints, flaws even, but overall it didn't suck. I was caught by surprise when Wash and Book died, but neither bothered me. I figure the show is about Simon and River more than it is about Mal and Zoe, and outside of that Jayne and Kaylee are the only characters I care about particularly, so an awful lot of characters are pretty much expendable to the story. I suspect death of Simon or River would through the storyline into chaos, as possibly would the death of Mal. The death of everyone else wouldn't kill it, and I knew some characters were going to die and was just glad it wasn't Kaylee or Jayne.

Overall the film wasn't completely clean, some things definitely fail to add up the way the trolls on IMDb say, but that is often true in the show, and no other sci fi show has ever really been free of this problem. It's worth seeing.

HOTHERSALE

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:00 PM

Sorry. A week after the NA debut, I forget that people elsewhere may not have seen it yet. Anyway, I've edited my post. I suggest you do too, lest you be guilty of the same sin.

________________________

Live life with Blue Sun!

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:39 PM

@Lozords:
And what did you expect from a thread titled "Anyone else disappointed?" Seriously, if you wanted to avoid spoilers then you should really avoid threads titled like these as they will tend to discuss the movie by definition. In fact, you might want to avoid such forums altogether until you see the movie to negate the possibility of being spoiled. Many have, myself included. So, unless you're will to do that, I'd expect to be spoiled. So, don't bitch at us because you haven't be careful.

@Teraph:
I thought of the second one you brought up but thought that it wasn't possible due to a philosophy like this being independent of whom one works for.

I don't know about the second one. Interesting idea, but...

I also don't remember the line being exactly that. Maybe when it comes out on DVD I'll get to hear it again. Because if it is the quote you say, it does change things. Can anyone else confirm? (No offense, just the human mind is a tricky thing and the more people say it is something the more confident I'll be in that it is indeed true.)

I'm just having trouble with the whole thing as I know too much about Oriental history/culture/etc. It's my burden, I know that. Just having trouble with it.

Do you have a link to the script?

@Sep7IMus:
Mal has run away when the odds are not in his favour before. But from the dialogue, etc from the movie, I got the feel that it was running for reasons of a coward and not for reasons like before.

Just like any reference from the show, you must provide proper context is there. And from what I've seen, your examples don't hold up to that.

Mal, I think is more along the lines of fighing for profit and if it is for good as well, the super. But, if push comes to shove, then he'll do it for the right thing. Friends are different though. He'll fight for a friend to the death if need be.

Jayne, does it for profit clear and simple. It has always been his guiding light. There are times in the show when he did things not for profit, but there has been other circumstances that provide adequate motivation for this to happen.

ie When Jayne goes to save Mal from Niska. First off, this is right after he almost got sucked out into space because of screwing Mal and knows that he exists at that point by the grace of Mal and no other. Plus I think that he will attempt to avoid such non-profit endeavors (remember him calling what they were doing "suicide" while Zoe and Wash were preparing?) but will go along if it will make him look bad. He seems to care about what the others think of him to some degree.

@RocketJock:
Simon was out of character. Remember when he was supposed to play a rich guy going to buy mud (rather akin to him growing up as a rich kid, right?), but completely messing it up?

I would gather that he was more calm in Ariel because he was educated and trained to be calm in a hospital for many years of his life and he was one of the best. You don't act weak and such when you had the experience of being king of the hill for years.

I agree that Kaylee's vibrator line of in character. Perhaps a little more vulgar than she would've done it, but in character none-the-less.

Your analysis of Jayne is flawed in that it doesn't take into context the situation that motivated him to do those things. Everything has context, lets stay there. Not to mention that Jayne would never go on a mission that was almost guaranteed to kill him just to get some knowledge. Just isn't Jayne.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

SEP7IMUS

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
@Sep7IMus:
Mal has run away when the odds are not in his favour before. But from the dialogue, etc from the movie, I got the feel that it was running for reasons of a coward and not for reasons like before.

Just like any reference from the show, you must provide proper context is there. And from what I've seen, your examples don't hold up to that.

Why not, exactly? I don't think I see the distinction you're making. I figured we all knew the context. How does it change the fact that he ran (with, I think, good reason)?

Quote:

Mal, I think is more along the lines of fighing for profit and if it is for good as well, the super. But, if push comes to shove, then he'll do it for the right thing. Friends are different though. He'll fight for a friend to the death if need be.

Okay, I agree with that characterization of Mal. How are his actions in the movie any different? I don't remember him running when there was a profit to be made, when fighting would be for the right thing, or when fighting would be for friends/crew. Does he run in any of those instances in the movie? If so, that would seem out of character to me.

Quote:

Jayne, does it for profit clear and simple. It has always been his guiding light. There are times in the show when he did things not for profit, but there has been other circumstances that provide adequate motivation for this to happen.

ie When Jayne goes to save Mal from Niska. First off, this is right after he almost got sucked out into space because of screwing Mal and knows that he exists at that point by the grace of Mal and no other. Plus I think that he will attempt to avoid such non-profit endeavors (remember him calling what they were doing "suicide" while Zoe and Wash were preparing?) but will go along if it will make him look bad. He seems to care about what the others think of him to some degree.

Yeah, I agree with this, too. Though, I might be a little more sympathetic to Jayne than you are, and I might attribute a little more of his eventual helping out in nonprofit fights to some hidden goodness in him rather than just on a desire to look good (though I do think that's there, too).

SAGRILARUS

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:53 AM

In the future, when referring to characters and their traits, can we please refer to them as from the movie or the series, like "Series Mal" or "Movie Jayne." Due to the vast changes in the characters, this distinction will be necessary to understand where someone is coming from.

Hey -- it's my thread. I just couldn't resist saying that.

Sag.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE