BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Serenity: The Firefly Movie (spoilers within)

  
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)891011

 
 
Spaniel
12:36 / 18.10.05
I never meant to give the impression that I thought Kovacs was wrong - that would be silly. As you say, perhaps the series just didn't push his buttons. But, I think it is possible (though far from certain) that he would have enjoyed it more if he had seen the episodes in their intended order.

I was also slightly concerned that, in reference to certain aspects of the show, he was making judgements before he had seen enough of the series to know what he was talking about.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
14:27 / 18.10.05
This discussion shouldn't be about whether I'm right or wrong, of course -- but maybe it is interesting in that I'm one of the few people on this thread coming to Firefly after Serenity. So I'll try not to take anything personal from the more critical comments about my viewing practice.


Um, why didn't you just look on the internet, find the correct order and watch 'em in sequence? I'm not saying you would have enjoyed the series any more than you did, but it is a real possibility.

As I said above, I did know the "correct" order when I started picking and choosing. Watching them out of sequence was probably due to me trying to follow people's recommendations of the best episodes: hence "Objects in Space", "Out of Gas" and "Heart of Gold" first. I didn't get the impression that "Shindig", "Mrs Reynolds" and "Jaynestown" would be as good, and suppose I was thinking I might as well watch the most promising ones if I was going to be selective.

think its interesting that many of the things Kovacs appears to dislike about firefly are actually features/constraints of pretty much *all* ongoing television series ie the production values, the reliance on recurring sets, the need to reiterate key plot points every episode or so and delay gratification through the series run...

Fair point, and to be honest I don't watch much television anymore -- what I do watch, I don't much enjoy. I was disappointed after schlepping through the whole run of Lost, for instance. It may be the case that, at the moment at least, I like the self-contained, more intense and complete pleasures of the average 90-120 minute movie than I do the very different pleasures (for some at least) of the more sprawling, soapy TV series, where character arcs take their time to develop and plots may even be planned organically as the series evolves. (One of the factors that made me throw Lost down in disgust was my realisation that the creators simply didn't seem to have a coherent grand plan, and were making it up as they went along. Other people seem to relish this).


There are also certain things inherant in the concept that doesn't appeal to him. It's a Western in space, but its tropes are more western than space opera. It's about living on the fringes of civilization. Set-piece space battles aren't in the remit. Nor is spectacular cities-in-the-sky eye candy. Its about heists and outlaws, something that kind of forces the narative down a certain route if the show is to remained focused. If you are looking for straight space opera then firefly ain't going to be it - just as if you were looking for something that wasn't a highschool drama then the first few seasons of buffy really were not going to be for you...


Also interesting observations: though I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea and think that overall I didn't like Firefly. I was really keen on it after maybe the first 4 episodes I watched. I like Westerns and I enjoyed a lot of the planet-based plots -- I could have done with some more space operatics and sfx for variety.

In general I think my waning of interest was indeed due to aspects of the show that were inevitable due to its TV series format: repetition, apparently similar episodic stories, familiar banter, a kind of unrelentingly consistent visual tone (deserts, plains, metal hangars).

I didn't mean to slag off Firefly. I think it's mostly the case that I just prefer that (intriguing, warm, complex) mythos in a film rather than a TV series.
 
 
Spaniel
15:12 / 18.10.05
As I said above, I did know the "correct" order when I started picking and choosing..

So you did. My bad.

I like a bit of repetition in my soapy telly as it helps to cultivate a feeling of familiarity with the characters and context, which can lead to real warmth if handled properly. Also, whilst it's possible to see how shows relate to each other when watched in an unintended sequence, it's not quite as easy to capture the intended dramatic flow.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:27 / 18.10.05
I think watching a film is like going to visit people (or meeting people) whereas watching a TV series it's like living with them. Watching Serenity was like visiting people I used to live with- nice, but in a different way.
 
 
Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown
20:53 / 18.10.05
I have converted another person into the legions of Browncoats.

My good friend Alexander, at my urging, picked up the Firefly DVD set. Despite having a defective first disc, he watched it all the way through and has been well and truly converted.

...I just thought people might like to know.

Thanks for the link to The Signal, BTW. I'm downloading all their stuff right now. Hopefully will get to listen to it over the next few days (I unfortunatly don't have time to load it all onto my iPod before class).
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
21:31 / 18.10.05
People who like Firefly really don't need a group name other than "people who like Firefly".
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:23 / 18.10.05
Yes. I think we need a thread to discuss what we should call people who don't watch Firefly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:06 / 19.10.05
The anti-Firefly brigade?
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
02:40 / 19.10.05
The Butt-Snuffers? You know, with the fireflies and the lit up rears and the...nevermind.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:32 / 19.10.05
'Browncoats' is the term used for people who consider themselves part of the fandom/fan community, not just "people who like Firefly". Bearing in mind the us-against-the-world mentality that this required for several years before Serenity was finally greenlit, I've got no problem with them calling themselves whatever they like. Why the fuck would you?

Have now seen the movie, finally. Utterly awesome. The only minor caveats I have are such embarrassingly tiny smidgeons of fanwank and nitpickery that I don't consider them relevant to any adult discussion of the film.

Apparently if it makes £80m they'll consider greenlighting a sequel... Wonder how's it's doing so far?
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:33 / 19.10.05
Oh, and 'reavers' is an archaic term synonymous with 'pirate', not simply a reference to Scottish history, surely?
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
11:21 / 19.10.05
I've got a brown coat. Three, actually.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:27 / 19.10.05
Why the fuck would you?

Because I don't think the automatic Trekkiefication/self-ghettoisation of science fiction television fans is a good thing, basically.

Besides, I think it's clear that Bard was using the term to describe "people who like Firefly" in the post I was replying to. Unless he really did convert his friend into such a hardcore fan that said friend is already writing fanfic, helping to organise conventions, petitioning film studios, and so on.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:32 / 19.10.05
Apparently if it makes £80m they'll consider greenlighting a sequel... Wonder how's it's doing so far?

Not great - nudging $30m.

Oh, and "reiver" is a dialect form, I think - originally it's Anglo-Saxon reven, which gives us "reaver" - which describes a participant in acts of pillage.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
14:12 / 19.10.05
Is that £80 million in the box office, or including DVD sales?
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
15:49 / 19.10.05
I was sure I'd read there was a stipulation in he contract that said that sequels were a cert so as long as the film made $50-80 million.
 
 
Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown
17:58 / 19.10.05
said friend is already writing fanfic, helping to organise conventions, petitioning film studios, and so on.

Nah. But he's been converting stuff into at least two different RPGs. That's getting into fandom, not just "really likes the series".

...why he's so fixated on Vera...I will never know.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:14 / 20.10.05
Besides, I think it's clear that Bard was using the term to describe "people who like Firefly" in the post I was replying to. Unless he really did convert his friend into such a hardcore fan that said friend is already writing fanfic, helping to organise conventions, petitioning film studios, and so on.

See Bard's post above. Not at all 'clear' from his post, then, and 'clearly' just an assumption on your part.

[Because] I don't think the automatic Trekkiefication/self-ghettoisation of science fiction television fans is a good thing, basically.

So... they shouldn't give their community a name because you don't think it's a good thing that they even consider themselves a community? Well, it's a good thing you spoke up. Now we can all rearrange our lives and live in peace again. Well, either that or you can take your condescending, alarmingly reactionary opinion and fuck off.

You don't like the concept of fandom, you think it's all a bit wanky, whatever, that's your problem. Don't spew your prejudices onto us.
 
 
Cat Chant
10:44 / 20.10.05
Seen this movie now. It was really good: well-paced, relatively well-characterized with some great set-pieces and decent dialogue. Furthermore, it didn't piss me off in any major ways. All these qualities are pretty rare in the mainstream movies I've seen lately. But I think my opinion of it is a little closer to this review - which is absolutely spot-on about the apolitical, existential, one-man-agin-the-gummint milieu of the film (though it didn't piss me off as much as it did Temeres) - and this one by Orson Scott Card, which claims that this movie might be too strong for you. Or, just maybe, it's the movie that is finally strong enough that you feel like there's something there. Which is ludicrous: it was a very good, very successful, very enjoyable movie, but it didn't have any ideas, characters, or moments in it I hadn't seen before elsewhere, and (as the first reviewer I link to points out), it doesn't have any convincing political analysis/context, which is a bit striking for a movie about rebels against an evil empire.

Also, River annoys me a lot. If she was in my form, I tell you, she'd learn the use of a kirby grip. And I'm not surprised she swallowed a bug when she leaves her mouth hanging open all the time. She's not Fred (Kaylee is Fred, surely? Except without the excuse of having been enslaved in a Hell dimension for years) - she's Drucilla without the accent, which only improves her slightly.

Anyway. Now I'm watching Firefly, which I was quite psyched about after the film (yayy! good new telly!) but sadly, and unexpectedly, I find it almost unwatchably boring. Possibly it's because I don't like Westerns, though.
 
 
Hieronymus
11:20 / 20.10.05
Tonight I just finished the last DVD of the series, having arrived at them, much like kovacs, by way of Serenity first.

And I have to say I'm a converted fan. Good, solid stuff all the way through. I plan on buying on the collected DVDs for sure the next time I get paid. Excellent series from start to finish.

With one exception.

Having seen the series secondary to the film, I see now why the movie hasn't even made back its budget. And why it's a flimsy end to an otherwise great series. Because the two mediums are completely apples and oranges. Whedon did himself a huge disservice by thinking he could pass off one as an extension of the other. It is a 'movie version' of the series. In all the worst connotations of the term. At best, it was a decent if slightly incoherent little movie. At worst, it was a fair episode with a couple of really strong connections to episodes past.

First off, Firefly's a segmented show with an ensemble cast. The plot and the characters work because those snippets that we get to see are indicative of their piecemeal lives. Snippets which bind to a greater whole. And let's face it. That's what Joss does best. Ensemble stories. And the whole has become very rich.

For that reason, Serenity ends up suffering, in my opinion, by too much Hollywood mucking about or too little focus on the interdependency of the whole crew. There's just simply not enough time available to lend itself to decent storytelling with these characters. Everything has to be rushed, bang, bang, bang.

The real irony is that it suffers oddly from both a lack of real characterization as a stand-alone flick (The world created isn't given hardly any build-up and as a non-fan originally I found myself completely abandoned in many parts) while at the same strangely unravels or tinkers with the series it owes its life to. For example:

  • Mal and Simon's utterly unnecessary conflict vs. Mal's ironclad resolve that his crew is his crew, fair weather or not

  • River's newly developed full-fledged Buffy In Space role at the end

  • Simon's cunning acting ability to pose as an Alliance officer vs. his clumsy bumbling as the boss of the crew in Jaynestown

  • Mal's very mortal character in the series and the cheap deus ex machina of his nerve-dead war wound at movie's climax (Actually, I really hate that cheap little move on Whedon's part. Did the first time I saw it. Now it seems even lazier writing to me).

    The post made by HKCAVALIER at the following fanboard speaks about my complaints about the moviefar more succinctly than me. Particularly the "Buffy-ization"/ fan-handling within the movie.

    And I'll admit, there's loads of things about the movie that work well... but only within the context of the series. The origins of the Reavers was incredibly cool. Wash and Book's deaths. The greater exposition of River's character. So this was definitely a sweet reward for the fans. But primarily just the fans. And that's why it's having a hard time taking off in theaters. It's not interested in hooking anyone else.

    It was probably a tough bind for Whedon as well. To try to tie up a few strings that Fox never allowed him to. But this was a movie that was pulled in two different directions and I honestly feel it would've been far better if it hadn't been forced to bend to the studio pressures that clearly pushed it into another atypical action movie. I got that feeling when I first saw it in theaters and, now having completed the puzzle, find that feeling utterly reinforced.

    It was better off staying a series. Far, far better.
    		•  
     
    Regrettable Juvenilia
    11:33 / 20.10.05
    Not at all 'clear' from his post, then, and 'clearly' just an assumption on your part.

    Well, the assumption I'd failed to make was that Bard's friend was already into making RPGs. Somehow I doubt you'd have thanked me if I had made that assumption.

    Jack, if you have some hostility to vent at me you can always come round and throw rocks at my house. It was you who made this aggressive and personal and nasty, all I said was that I really didn't think there was a need for such a term. If you're interested in a civil discussion about the nature of fandom and fan communities with regard to science fiction television, we should probably start a thread about it.
    		 
     
    Regrettable Juvenilia
    11:40 / 20.10.05
    Hieronymus, I think you're projecting "Hollywood mucking about" where it isn't there. I also think it's a bit problematic to state that:

    There's just simply not enough time available to lend itself to decent storytelling with these characters. Everything has to be rushed, bang, bang, bang.

    ...Only to then complain that the movie was "primarily just [for] the fans". I think the big bangs are what make the film appealing to none fans, although as someone who'd grown to love the series, they worked just fine for me, too. It's hard not to think that a science fiction movie that had been two hours of little action and a lot of richer character moments would have been an absolute box office bomb. Trouble is, the show couldn't stay a series, because it was cancelled, so television clearly wasn't working as a practical medium either.

    I also don't think most of your specific points hold up as differences between the film and the TV show:

    Mal and Simon's utterly unnecessary conflict vs. Mal's ironclad resolve that his crew is his crew, fair weather or not

    Did you think Mal and Simon's conflict was as unnecessary when it happened in the series? Both the series and the movie display both of Mal's apparently contradictory attitudes, and deal in part with how he resolves them.

    River's newly developed full-fledged Buffy In Space role at the end

    River's combat skills are heavily, heavily foreshadowed in the series, specifically 'War Stories'. "No power in the 'verse can stop me."

    Mal's very mortal character in the series and the cheap deus ex machina of his nerve-dead war wound at movie's climax

    This seems a particularly odd one. Again, see 'War Stories', in which Mal is tortured almost to death and yet able to start fighting people immediately afterwards.
    		 
     
    Evil Scientist
    12:00 / 20.10.05
    You have to bear in mind that many of the discrepancies between Firefly and Serenity come from an attempt (successful as far as I'm concerned) to open the Verse up to people who hadn't seen the tv show.

    So Simon gets to rescue his sister himself without non-Browncoats (sorry Petey gotta call em something might as well be what they call themselves) getting distracted by the shadowy rescuers hinted at in the tv version. As far as we can tell from the film, he built up a web of contacts using a whole lotta cash.

    Mal vrs Simon. A conflict that's pretty much present the whole way through the tv show, and portrayed just as well in the film. Mal's someone who'll do the right thing, but he can often be an irrascible old bastich who doesn't back down. He's loyal to his crew, but neither incarnation has shown a tolerance of people questioning his orders.

    Dead nerve cluster. Yeah, cheap trick really. But I'm prepared to forgive that little niggle as the rest of the film soared so damn high.
    		 
     
    miss wonderstarr
    12:05 / 20.10.05
    River's combat skills are heavily, heavily foreshadowed in the series, specifically 'War Stories'. "No power in the 'verse can stop me."

    It's a relatively small point, but the transformation of River from gothic pest (TV) into war machine (movie)keeps nagging me.

    River's combat skills are not heavily foreshadowed in any episode of Firefly I've seen, including "War Stories". Let alone "heavily, heavily".

    You'll have to excuse me if I remember slightly inaccurately because I'm at work rather than actually watching the show, but here's how I recall it.

    In "War Stories" River picks up a gun, gibbers something like "can't look, can't look" and with her face turned away, shoots three armed guards bang-bang-bang.

    That's it.

    Her line "No power in the 'verse can stop me" is a repetition of Kaylee's dialogue when they're girl-squabbling for the apple, isn't it? Yes, it has a different connotation when River's just shown an unprecedented combat ability, but just as Kaylee didn't mean it literally, there's no reason for a viewer to assume River does. Most of what she comes out with during the TV series is only semi-meaningful, dreamy echoes of things she's heard or forseen.


    If that's the heaviest foreshadowing in the whole series, then I don't accept that her transformation in the movie is adequately signalled or that this narrative/character territory is convincingly prepared.

    There is a big, big difference between being able to draw a bead on three opponents without looking, and defeating 50 opponents hand to hand without getting a scratch, as River does twice in the movie. Her skills are ramped up to an inordinate degree. What she displays in the TV series is like what Luke Skywalker manages as a total novice with the practice drone on the Millennium Falcon -- a hint of a second sight and mystical instinct. What she does in the film is like Neo at his peak in The Matrix: fighting like a god.
    		 
     
    P. Horus Rhacoid
    12:53 / 20.10.05
    I'm not sure why totally ridiculous skills in one type of combat don't suggest totally ridiculous skills in another type of combat. I can think of two other parts of the series where River-Buffy is hinted at. The first is the second part of the pilot, when Simon is explaining basically that River is amazing at everything she does, including physical action (such as dancing, which isn't all that far from martial-arts ass-kickery). And in Objects In Space, I think it was, the crew concluded that she was being trained as an assassin. Combine that with badass pistol skills (and those aren't lucky shots, so it's not akin at all to Luke blocking a couple shots from a remote) and you have a pretty convincing argument for River's rather remarkable ability to kick the crap out of people.

    One thing I've been wondering- River seemed to have much more of a handle on herself after they found the hologram on Miranda. It was pretty well established that the things she had gleaned about Miranda were a lot of why she was so crazy– they were horrible things she couldn't really deal with. Did the hologram provide some sort of closure and allow her to get her shit together, or am I making things up?
    		 
     
    Regrettable Juvenilia
    12:59 / 20.10.05
    No, that's in there: she vomits after seeing the hologram, then tells Simon "I'm okay", sounding almost surprised to realise that she actually is okay. Well, relatively speaking, 'cos the Reavers freak the shit out of her at the beginning of the crew's 'last stand' later, but I guess it's not much fun being near a bunch of crazy superaggressive cannibals if you're a telepath.
    		 
     
    Evil Scientist
    13:20 / 20.10.05
    If that's the heaviest foreshadowing in the whole series, then I don't accept that her transformation in the movie is adequately signalled or that this narrative/character territory is convincingly prepared.

    Kovacs. To be fair the series got axed half-way through the first season so it's not really correct to say that River "gun-fu" abilities hadn't been properly developed as a narative in the tv show. We don't know what the rest of the season would have shown us do we?

    The episodes that did get made were building up River as a programmed assassin. Little things like her zen shooting in War Stories indicated what they might have been doing to her. But getting cancelled before you've even got going has a knack of knocking the narrative out from under you.

    I believe that the Serenity storyline was derived from a plot arc that was supposed to cover the second season of Firefly (reported in Empire). So there's quite a chunk of exposition missing if you're going to count Firefly and Serenity as direct continuations of the same story.

    Serenity begins eight months along from when the crew encounter bounty hunter Jubel Early, and a lot can happen in this time. I haven't read the comic, but assume that it fills in some of the blanks (such as the fate of the Hands of Blue).
    		 
     
    Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
    13:24 / 20.10.05
    I also figured that Mal seemed way more bitter in the film (although he was supposed to have been more like this in the show originally) because Inara had been gone for all that time...
    		 
     
    Regrettable Juvenilia
    13:28 / 20.10.05
    That and the fact that Very Bad Things start happening to him and the people he cares about pretty quickly. The decision he makes to push that random guy off the Mule (and then mercy-kill him) clearly fucks him up a little, for starters. Once Book and all their other allies are slaughtered, he's clearly borderline-insane with grief and anger.
    		 
     
    Spaniel
    13:53 / 20.10.05
    There is a big, big difference between being able to draw a bead on three opponents without looking, and defeating 50 opponents hand to hand without getting a scratch, as River does twice in the movie.

    Ya see, that just comes off as such a stiff reading. It's the danger of the character you're supposed to respond to, her ability to do things which can't be easily explained, things that hurt. Before this point we've established that she's psychic, we've established that she was the product of a secret, sinister government project, a product that's being hunted by some very nasty, very dangerous fellas with blue hands - the kind of fellas that hunt very dangerous prey.

    I don't mean this to sound like a dig, but, imo, River's badassness is only a leap if you're a complete literalist and lack any intuitive feel for where the story's probably going.

    Or maybe I've been a Whedon fan for too long and have merged with his mind.
    		 
     
    iamus
    13:56 / 20.10.05
    I saw this movie yesterday and I thought it was totally fucking great. Although I've wanted to see the series for a long time I haven't as of yet (to be rectified tomorrow or Saturday thanks to Amazon's one-click ordering) but I don't think my unfamiliarity was any kind of hindrance getting into the movie. The setup works well, getting you up to speed pretty quickly, sketching out the main defining points of this universe and letting you fill in the blanks by yourself.

    Character relationships were easy enough to figure out. I thought the Mal/Zoe/Wash thing, although not explicitly explained, was pretty clearly signposted. Mal's comment at the start about her husband sets up that relationship and when Jayne mentions Serenity Valley during his confrontation with Mal, Zoe tells him not to go there which is a pretty big insight into their relationship from very little dialogue.

    Now I really did love it, but part of the reason I did is that I knew there was more to these characters than what was on the screen. It definately is a TV property rather than a movie one. In this short a time, you can only get a feel for who these people are and how they work together. Their very dynamic is grown from a TV serial format and that's pretty plain whether you've seen the TV show or not. If I was unable to go and spend more time with them after the movie, I would have felt a little short changed. If the movie does manage to revive the franchise then I'd much rather see it continue as TV rather than movie sequels. Characters like this really need space to open out and breath. You need to know that they're not going anywhere and can take their time to grow on you, going at their own pace.

    Again, though I've not yet seen the series, the distinct impression that I got was that the movie was not coming up with whole new material, but was instead condensing planned arcs from the series into a shorter space. I'm going to have to wait until I've watched the box set until I can comment on any disparity between the two though. Also a bit reluctant to do that though. I got a bit choked at Book and especially Wash's deaths and I didn't even really know them. Getting to know them better seems like it might be a little masochistic.
    		 
     
    iamus
    14:06 / 20.10.05
    Also should add that it just resonated for me from the outset. I already felt like I knew the characters, even when I had no fucking idea who they were, and it got me on the edge of my seat pretty quickly. The heist sequence near the beginning, from the actual job (that reveals how these people work together) to the chase with the big smoke-belching reaver machine (which was fantastic, and more thrilling than any recent cinema excursion I can think of) was great. It pretty much won me over for the rest of the movie.
    		 
     
    The Natural Way
    14:14 / 20.10.05
    See my bro's post. C'mon, 'vacs, I don't get it.
    		 
     
    Billuccho!
    14:27 / 20.10.05
    Mal's very mortal character in the series and the cheap deus ex machina of his nerve-dead war wound at movie's climax (Actually, I really hate that cheap little move on Whedon's part. Did the first time I saw it. Now it seems even lazier writing to me).

    Deus ex machina, maybe, but it pretty much fits in with the theme and leads to nice batch of irony. All this time Mal has been told he'd always been on the losing side. It was the war that led to a stronger Alliance and to the experiments on Miranda and to the Operative's hunt for River and his outright slaughter of Mal's network of friends and "family." Yet, in the end, it's just a little minor wound from the war which fucks over the whole Alliance.

    Mal *is* that missing nerve cluster, or whatever. The war took him out of the body of the 'verse, but it's not going to stop him, or get him to fall on his sword... he's going to come back fighting and kick some ass because of what he believes in.

    And, what, no political commentary? Are you mad? The Alliance is the ultimate exaggeration of the US and the Reavers are the mindless terrorists we've been taught to fear, which, for all we know, sprung up out of the ether. But there are sinister things afoot we don't know about.

    And, well, the Alliance is FOX and Mal is Joss Whedon and he wants to get the bloody signal out there.
    		 
     
    Regrettable Juvenilia
    14:31 / 20.10.05
    There is political commentary, it's just (favourite euphemism ahoy) not unproblematic. See Mister Disco's post earlier.
    		 
      

    Page: 1 ... 23456(7)891011

    		 
      
    Add Your Reply