Sept. 30, 2005, 8:16 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:19 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:21 a.m. CST
Someone saying "ahoy", and meaning it, can actually add a suprising amount to your morning. *sigh*
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:28 a.m. CST
by Andy Dufresne
.....sometimes I think that movie gets forgotten as it wasn't a massive box office smash or anything. But it seems to have endured well.
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:34 a.m. CST
Just read Mori's review and it seems we doubled up on discussing our dislike of the hardcore Whedon fans. Sorry for the repetition and again, before the talkbacks go out of control, I don't lump just anybody into that "Asshole fanboy" camp. I respect Whedon's audience, but some of them really, really need to take a chill pill, yeah?
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:40 a.m. CST
Is shaky-hand. I won't buy it on DVD, won't see it again in theaters... Might watch some of it on cable or something. I'm "meh" on the movie, which is a solid step up from disliking it, the opinion I expected to have going into the film. Sorry that wasn't more clear.
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:59 a.m. CST
The ninny above doesn't even get that he just did exactly what people expect him to do, as a member of the Church of Whedon. Man, you people are so sad. Trekkers just became cool.
Sept. 30, 2005, 9:08 a.m. CST
I've thought all along that this would probably seem more like a TV movie than anything else, apart from a higher effects budget. And Whedon just seems to rip off every piece of characterization from other writers. I know there's been a lot of sci-fi over the years and a lot of cliched wisecracking or anti-hero characters etc. but Whedon just rips them anyway in a way that isn't original. People treat him like some kind of god when he went fucking AWOL on Buffy in seasons 6 & 7, with his fucking 7 finale stinking of shit anyway.
Sept. 30, 2005, 9:22 a.m. CST
I just saw my first episode of Firefly on sci-fi a few days back, along with a look at the upcoming film. I watched Buffy and Angel occasionally. But Quint, the real problem I think you are having with Whedon as a writer is that you are taking his work seriously. Everything he writes is tonque in cheek, and not really meant to be taken so seriously. The only work of his I have ever read that I thought was meant to be serious was his work on Alien Resurrection, which they butched as badly as my spelling! I've seen two episodes of the series, and I feel I'm ready to watch the film. I really felt like the sets looked like Star Trek Deep Space Nine sets, personally.
Sept. 30, 2005, 9:48 a.m. CST
(Spoilers ahead obviously) You're spot on about the fact that Wash's death seemed planted for shock value. I didn't think it was necessary at all personally, and I can definitely see how those who didn't watch the series would be a bit unaffected by it. One point on which I have to object, though, is in the characters' reaction; the character's wife (Gina Torres) had some wonderful moments after her husband's death that had something Shatner's overwrought performance in Star Trek II lacked... subtlety. You can see that she's a soldier, she's doing her job, but the look in her eyes, the artificial set of her face--something just died inside her. Doesn't fix the writing mistake of Wash's sudden death, but for the record I think you're completely wrong about the reaction of the characters (namely the one that counts in that situation).
Sept. 30, 2005, 9:49 a.m. CST
I want Firefly to be a franchise. [Unless all the character deaths I've heard about as spoilers make continuing the franchise impossible, and Whedon has brought real closure to his story.] I also want Trek to come back. I want these things because I just realized that the reason franchise venom has reached new heights lately is because we have three separate sci-fi franchises that each have dramatically different tones. This creates a situation where we have Firefly fans saying to BSG fans, "OUR show is entertaining and clever and fun, not depressing and dour like your show," and we have BSG fans saying to Trek and Firefly fans, "OUR show is serious and literary and philosophical, unlike your shows, one of which is a cardboard cutout of a utopia, and one of which is empty snark," and we have Trek fans saying, "OUR show has a glorious role in sci-fi and tv history, and inspires people to have hope for the future, unlike your shows, one of which is depressing and misanthropic, and one of which is just a western in space." It's the perfect fanboy storm, and these basic arguments can be infinitely elaborated and extended. It's hard to think of a better setup for satisfying flaming and counter-flaming, now that the Matrix is dead.
Sept. 30, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST
You apologize for a degrading characterizations of Scientology and then rip on the mainstream Christian church? Doesn
Sept. 30, 2005, 10:24 a.m. CST
Damn. All this time I've been a closeted not-fan of Whedon. Not a hter, mind you, but just...eh. One of my roommates swears by all things holy that "Buffy" is god's gift to television. Better, even, than "X-Files." "Buffy" had some snappy one-liners and is interesting, but it's got that stuffy made-for-tv feel to it that "Next Generation" and all the subsequent "Trek" shows suffered. When I think excellent B-grade sci fi, I think Whedon. "Serenity" looks like "Supernova" to me. Not terrible but...well...kinda stuffy. His work, thus far, just doesn't feel like cinematic genius the way "X-Files" and even "Lost" do. Take another look at the 2-part opener for the first season of "Lost." It's as good as any decent action movie you'd see in the theater. "Serenity" is in the theater. Should it be?
Sept. 30, 2005, 10:36 a.m. CST
Talk about the movie on its own merits, 90% of that was a rant about Whedonites. If you've watched Firefly and don't care for it, great -- then just talk about why you don't care for the movie. If you haven't watched Firely then again, great -- just talk about why you don't care for the movie. I've watched a lot of entertainment media in my time and find that Whedon does a pretty good job of building and continuing both characters and long story arcs, but if you don't like his style, fine. While I appreciate your opinion, your job is to review movies and unless you're going to also spontaneously become funny (Vern) would also appreciate you NOT taking a lesson from Harry and instead focusing on the reviewing.
Sept. 30, 2005, 10:44 a.m. CST
...with Quint and Mori's fear of the Browncoats and Whedonites. And that's hard to say, because I love love love "Firefly," am going to see "Serenity" as soon as I get off work today, and watched pretty much the whole run of "Buffy" as well as the later seasons of "Angel." I *like* Whedon's work, is what I'm saying, but I think he's gone from being underrated to overrated, and the cult surrounding him is out of control. He's not God, contrary to the popular internet expression you see here and there. His shows have been a unique and cool blend of shallow snark and soapy melodrama layered on top of genre TV, but they've all had flaws out the yin yang, too. It's just that "Firefly" had fewer of those flaws than usual. ...Anyway I hope the movie does well and generates a couple sequels at least, but I could do with fewer psychotic conversations with people who self-identify as Browncoats and have the "Serenity" logo tattooed on their arm. Let us not willfully go the way of "Trekkies," eh? Do we really need to see a "Browncoats" movie with, say, Alan Tudyk interviewing some nut reporting for jury duty dressed up as Mal?
Sept. 30, 2005, 10:58 a.m. CST
I am a big Buffy fan and was with the series right from the start, so I really like and am grateful for Whedon's work, but it is true that he and his writing have some flaws. Those senseless deaths coutn among those. Whedon just seems to have short-circuit deep inside his mind that keeps telling him that he has to kill off some more characters before the end. Preferably in the last five minutes, thus creating some very, very cheap "instant" drama. It is a shame, really.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:03 a.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
...that review was really half-ass. No insight at all.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:07 a.m. CST
I remember when the early test audiences said that the big death at the end wasn't very satisfying and the crew's reactions felt off, like they didn't really care. I thought that had to be a mistake they'd correct during post production or something, only now it's apparently still there!? I don't get Joss when it comes to killing off characters. I know he wants it to hurt...but it often feels like it's a power trip for him, as if he's saying "see, I can make you cry, bitches!" This sounds like it could be more of that. I'm really sorry he feels the need to do that, but even more sorry he doesn't succeed at making it sting for new comers.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:08 a.m. CST
Thanks asshole ... maybe next time you could put a line or two between your spoiler warning and the actual spoiler ... I was in mid click to close the window when I saw the person who died in the first line of the spoiler ... Awesome ...
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:10 a.m. CST
I did the same thing but convinced myself that the actor's name I saw in the first line wasn't the person who actually did the dying -- until I read your post.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:12 a.m. CST
I guees Im not as good as deluding myself as you when he says ... the big death ... SPOILER .. name .. hmmm maybe is was somebody else? ... Of course if dickhead had left a little room neither of us would be having this converstaion.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:13 a.m. CST
I guess, Quint, that you've never met a rabid Scientologist before? There was one on the Today show a few weeks back...I think his name was...Tom Cruise? BTW, in this one set of reviews there is a disparaging remark about Christians and praise for a child molestor. Crazy!
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:17 a.m. CST
Well if you're gonna tell me you see no difference in cinematic quality between "Buffy" and "X-File" or "Lost" then I can't help you. I'm guessing most people understand the difference in cinematic quality between them: the directing, the production value, the cinematography, the scripts, etc. Yeah, they're all TV shows but that doesn't make them equals.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:18 a.m. CST
How come no one ever mentions this?
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:21 a.m. CST
Quite simply: Owned.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:23 a.m. CST
You can definitely see a difference in the quality of some shows. Compare, for example, Deep Space Nine to Andromeda. DS9 is clearly a much more expensive, much higher quality production than Andromeda. I do, however, think that Buffy suffered more from atmospheric limitations than budgetary ones. I never personally liked the show, but I did see a couple of episodes and the atmosphere gave it that 'afternoon serial' sort of feel.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:23 a.m. CST
I only heard this name (?) in connection with that bag of contaminated urine "Alien Resurrection", and in there, I heard that this "Whedon", whatever or whoever it is, wanted to add flying alien vampires to it, to actually make it even worse. Is the "Whedon" a project, a living being, a company, a program?
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:24 a.m. CST
i too couldn't avoid the spoiler since it was written right below the word "spoiler".. you sir SUCK!!!! thanks very much for ruining that for me. you're a real pro.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:28 a.m. CST
Totally agreed. Tudyk needs more love.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:32 a.m. CST
Again AICN demonstrates it's inappropriate comments or slights against anyone with a belief in God. 1st it was Assawyrm's graphic of Christ jackhammerin' on the cross. Then we have Quinty with the slight to Christianity. Imagine what the outrage would be if Roger Ebert dropped the bomb on how right it was to Hitler to implement the "Final Solution" during a review of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. AICN drops to new lows almost daily.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:39 a.m. CST
I get what you're saying. I don't disagree with you and I am a Fundamentalist Christian (something Quint and I talked about a couple years ago). Your talkbacks merely give him the chance to go, "See what I mean?" We're supposed to expect his viewpoint. So, with respect, don't act like it's the first time EVAR you've heard it.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:39 a.m. CST
Me too. I'm a Christian and I see the persecuted everywhere I turn. Last place I thought I'd see it would be a in stupid movie review.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:40 a.m. CST
Liked a lot in any case. It's a movie that I've really wanted to look forward to but sort of turned me off to it with its promotional stuff. Well, consider me excited once more.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:48 a.m. CST
It's not the first time I've heard it. Believe me I have thicker skin than that. However, when I read a movie review, spoiler, what have you, I could do without the slight to a persons beliefs, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish...what have you. I'm there for the review, not someone's narrow minded views of spirituality.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:50 a.m. CST
Hey, and to the ever-persecuted Christians: Don't let it get to ya. Atheists have to rag on you because they think they have it all figured out. Hey! Kinda like you do! Forming a conclusion in any direction about an unknowable is delusional. But dressing it up and giving it a personality and getting offended when someone else calls you on it is just plain silly. Personally I'm rooting for Zeus: the dude's ripe for a comeback.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:54 a.m. CST
I don't push my faith on other people. Yes, we do believe we should tell the world about salvation. No, I don't get offended when somebody questions my beliefs ( as opposed to insulting them ) because if they question, I assume they want an answer and it gives me an opportunity to tell them what I believe. If you consider this "pushing," well then okay. We're clear on this one.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:54 a.m. CST
Valiens. I'm not sure, but I think it's not a good idea to insult your readers when writing a review. Tends to fall into the category of "bad style".
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST
For the record, I don't push my beliefs on anyone, however there is a big difference between questioning my beliefs and insulting them. The rag of a review didn't even approach the question.
Sept. 30, 2005, noon CST
I didn't figure you hadn't heard it before. It's just not exactly a secret how Quint and Harry feel about our beliefs. I can't speak for Mori so much, which is a credit to him because I don't know anything about what he believes. And I don't want to know, either. So just as Q will chalk it up to another Christian being all uppity, I'll just chalk his reaction up to another person who doesn't get it taking a shot just because he has the forum to do so.
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:02 p.m. CST
He didn't say anything about Christian beliefs, he was directly talking about Christians. Whether that's better or worse I'll leave it to you to decide.
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:04 p.m. CST
Oh, fuck!! That reminds me. What am I doing here reading this drivel?! I have to go knock over a few emo fans and Amway reps to convert some more sheep. Later!
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST
I do. Why can't people just follow a logical moral code without there having to be some superior being telling them to do it? Can't we all do unto others... just because?
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:08 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:09 p.m. CST
by The Outlander
Serenity Did Right.
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:15 p.m. CST
Your statement implies that we've decided this. You also imply the logical moral code is there without a superior being. There is a God and he is the measuring stick for the moral code you speak of. Whether you agree with that or not, that's between you and God. Not you and I.
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:21 p.m. CST
I think we cannot follow our own logical moral code because humans tend to have a wide interpretation of good and evil. Some cultures believe it is morally right to have a father kill a daughter because she has chosen her own husband or had premarital sex. Or chopping off the hand of a thief. Morals have to come from a higher being or they are simply "feelings." "I "feel" it is wrong to kill a murderer." "I "feel" it is okay to abort this child because he/she will inconveniece me for 9 months in utero and 18 years ex utero." Feelings fluctuate. Morals shouldn't.
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:30 p.m. CST
Well, unless Jesus Christ actually was the son of God, unless he rose from the dead, and unless the content passed down to us as his teachings is accurate, being a Christian is being a fool. And if you consider the above three things "unknowable", you are applying a false standard of skepticism and proof. Given the likelihood of those three things being false, "forming a conclusion" that this particular "unknowable" is true and "forming a conclusion" that this particular unknowable is false can't exactly be described as equally delusional. We can never really "know" that George Washington wasn't a space alien. But that doesn't mean that the people who form a conclusion in the negative aren't doing a better job of analysis than the people who form a conclusion in the positive. And, by the way, once again the religious pluralism of our political system has led certain people to falsely associate disapproval of a particular religion with disapproval of a particular race. The two are not comparable. No one chooses their race, and therefore a person's race cannot be said to be a reflection of their character. People do choose their religion, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to judge a person based on the choice that they make. Politically I wouldn't want to stop you from choosing a particular faith, but personally I have no choice but to think that you're all out of your gourds. And you should think the same way, if you examine your beliefs in a consistent way. But can we get back to Whedon bashing please?
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:32 p.m. CST
is just adolescent high school shit. "I can't like "xxx" because people I don't like are into it." Waah! Have some balls and think for yourself - judge a film on its own merits, or at least admit to your blatant bias.
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:43 p.m. CST
NOBODY who matters in movies reads this bullshit. These tools could bray all they want, one way or another, and it will have ABSOLUTELY ZERO impact on Serenity. Don't get deluded your opinions mean anything except to your handful of "e-friends".
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:49 p.m. CST
Hardly FluffyUnbound. Most people's religion is the religion they first come into contact with that 'suits' their personality profile or the dominant religion in their family, culture or race.
Sept. 30, 2005, 12:58 p.m. CST
Perhaps it would be better to say that people can choose to be religious, or not, and can choose to remain in the "family" religion they were born in, or not. But still, every time you get up on Sunday morning and go to church, or every time you positively witness for or affirm your belief in your religion by some statement, you are "choosing" your religion, all over again. So it might be wrong to think less of someone because they were baptized as a Catholic, for example [since they were born into that, and participated in the initiation rituals of the sect when they were too young to have a choice], but it would NOT be wrong to think less of them when, as an adult, they voluntarily continue participating in Catholic ritual and affirming Catholic belief and doctrine. Beliefs are thoughts, after all, and affirming belief in action, and it really isn't useful to claim that we can't judge our fellow men on the basis of their thoughts and actions. That's the perfect thing to judge them on, both as a practical matter, and in terms of basic fairness. Can we get back to the Whedon fellating now?
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:01 p.m. CST
I didn't mean to imply that all facts have equal opposite positions. We're talking about all things god-related and to that end, there is IN FACT nothing god-related. There's only belief. I WAS implying that some beliefs are wiser than others. There is a heirarchy in spiritual thought, from fundamentalism to interpretation to atheism to mysticism to the state of being that comes with giving it all up. Of course not believing in the holy magic of Jesus or Shinto or a chair is more logical than believing. Nevertheless, concluding that there is not "god" "truth" or whatever word you want to use has the exact same effect as concluding that there is: it allows you to rest in an untenable conclusion instead of remaining open to the question. Whether or not there is anything spiritual that isn't a product of human thought beyond that question can only reveal itself when we stop creating the answer. Plus, "Firefly" is boring. The end.
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:15 p.m. CST
Yo Timmy - this site has pimped the HELL out of "Serenity." I think they've paid their dues to the movie and then some. One last minute kinda-negative review and one last minute I-don't-like-the-fans-but-I-liked-the-movie review isn't going to put one tiny dent in what AICN has done for the movie already. There's no merit in this argument. There's also no merit in your argument that the site is somehow trafficking in bad faith with its "biased reviews." Every review on here is biased, usually horribly so, and most of the time they don't even pretend otherwise. The talkbacks are worse, being almost exclusively fanboy-wars. If anybody comes here for unbiased impressions of movies, they're idiots.
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:18 p.m. CST
The reviews here have convinced me to wait to rent the DVD as opposed to seeing it in the theater, which I had planned to do this weekend when I had no idea what it was about. Now I'm going to see A History of Violence instead.
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:19 p.m. CST
in this day of 16x9 HD sets is a wicked feeder. Get a job, and watch it like it's intended. I can't believe people still watch tapes, watch 4x3 tubes, and claim to be fans of the medium. If you don't care about it, that's cool, but if you work in the industry, nothing more than a full home theater setup should be used to judge anything. And yes, the pic and sound do matter in the experience. If they didn't they'd just be books.
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:21 p.m. CST
I look at all major religions; see how they decide on the treatment of women - and very easily discard them to the wastebasket of fine idiocy. Ah, Wheddon is not even that gifted as a writer. His strength is that he makes you feel smart in a pop culture kind of fashion - like you're in on the joke and none of this is serious. Brings hope to confused morons everywhere. It's writing as slacker art. I really like Firefly. I find it amusing and the characters fun to be with for a hour. Seeing this movie sounds like a good time, but if the browncoats show up in legion than the powerful stench of B.O. will likely drive me from the theatre. That or the wheezing - remember to bring your inhalers!
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:24 p.m. CST
To give you an idea what I'm talking about, when I first read the advance reviews of "Serenity" (months ago now), I had never seen "Firefly" and knew nothing about the movie they were making. Since then, mostly due to the exposure on this site, I have borrowed the DVDs of "Firefly" from a friend; subsequently bought my own set and loaned it to two other friends, who eventually bought their own sets as well; and tonight me, those two friends, and all three of our significant others are going to see "Serenity." Now tell me again how much damage Ain't it Cool has done to Whedon's cause.
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:31 p.m. CST
OK, bare with me on this one, this is the analogy I always give to those who say, "You're just as closed to the possibility of God as I am closed to the possiblity of there not being a God". OK, say that four thousand years ago we started throwing our dead ones into the ocean, whereby they'd sink to the bottom and come in contact with the QUICKSAND, our saviour, who would erode away all their flesh and bone and leave their chi, their essence, which would sink right through to the other side of the world whereby it would assume the form of a new foetus and start the cycle again. We should all pray to our lord QUICKSAND. Sounds quite ridiculous right? Well after four thousand years of indoctrination it sure as hell wont. In my opinion, if we stepped back for one second, this God concept would sound pretty barmy too. So, that being said, "Are you closed to the concept of QUICKSAND, our saviour, being true?"
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:36 p.m. CST
1.) If you're just choosing willy-nilly to believe that then you're basically admitting it isn't true; you just prefer to live in fantasy land, which is fine. But if you really truly believe that that's historically accurate--there's this god who creates earth and then man sins and along comes Jesus--well that's just plain BS and I don't think it's disrespectful to call it what it is. In fact, I'd call that an intervention. 2.) The other problem is that when you wholeheartedly believe an untruth like that you still unconsciously know it's a lie. But that lie becomes you so you have to defend it. You have to convert others to your point of view because that's the only way you can continue to appear right. To be wrong means you're living a lie and to be right means you know what life is about, that there's this afterlife, and anyone who just believes what you believe will be saved. Awesome. Bring on the Inquisition. Bring on holy wars. Bring on Intelligent Design. Who cares about global warming when the Rapture is coming, right? I doubt anyone has a problem with Christian ideals or any religion's core moral teachings. But saying one needs to believe in something specific to hold those ideals lest we burn in hell or sit in prison is where the fantasy turns dark and involves the rest of us. And since that particular movement is back in play in 200friggen5, the hostility toward this junk is understandable.
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:44 p.m. CST
Viggo Mortensen: Does some really great, understated work here. He's a great actor given some great material and aided by a great director. that's real deep.....phew This is why I keep coming to this stinkhole?
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:51 p.m. CST
what this site says on sci fi projects when it comes to their reviews. i dont read harry's reviews at all anymore. after the way farscape was just thrown to the dogs by aicn because it had puppets, and they love the new bsg which i cant stand, its so freaking boring, i just dont concern myself with reviews of projects i already know about. its like star wars and star wars fans, doesnt matter how crappy the movie may be to you, but as long as i like it, i dont care. i still like quint and mori's reviews, i agree more often with them then not. but as far as serenity goes, i saw the 3rd test screening, so i already know i like it.
Sept. 30, 2005, 1:59 p.m. CST
Thank God. After my lifetime as an asshole, I can't wait to say "I believe" and cut to the front of the line. So the moral to the story is: Be as good or as bad as you want. Without this magic ticket, ya ain't gettin' in. Persecution or no, that's ridiculous.
Sept. 30, 2005, 2:05 p.m. CST
Apparently all you've gotta do is say, "I believe in Jesus" with your mouth to be redeemed.
Sept. 30, 2005, 2:08 p.m. CST
Think there's room for a lucky 13th disciple?
Sept. 30, 2005, 2:12 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2005, 2:50 p.m. CST
by Ban This User
Obviuosly, most Christians don't believe that they have the power to condemn people to hell, but they believe that people will be so condemned, and that it is right for them to be. I find that morally reprehensible. Clearly, we differ. nor was I suggesting that most or all Christians do they otherl isted things. I put them forward as examples of immoral things that poeple of various faiths do, and arguing that they sohludn't be excused merely because they have a religious basis. As to the adult converts -- well, I suppose Fluffy is right about them.
Sept. 30, 2005, 2:59 p.m. CST
You just dont exist at all. Hence most people's need for heaven and hell. Even the most horrendous torture would still be better than being completely quashed out of existence.
Sept. 30, 2005, 3:03 p.m. CST
by Ban This User
I don't know them. I was just offering examples of immoral things that religious people do, and arguing that they shouldn't be excuse merely because they are religiously based. Is this concept really so difficult? As to your specific beliefs about hell, you misapprehend the views of non-believers (or at least of this non-believer). I don't believe that after I die I will exist in some kind of "void", I don't believe I will exist at all. But I find the whole concept that people will be treated differently after they die on the basis of their religious beliefs to be morally objectionable. Evidently you don't. That's why the make the ice cream in 31 flavors. By the way, I don't believe that a moral distnction can be drawn between a religion "in theory" and the way in which it is practiced. To my mind, a religion is its practices.
Sept. 30, 2005, 3:23 p.m. CST
and I distinctly remember reading a part where it said only ninety thousand people will ever go to heaven or something...
Sept. 30, 2005, 3:32 p.m. CST
Wow, quint, you are, like, way "out there", man. Jaws is so Avant-Garde!! ;-)
Sept. 30, 2005, 3:37 p.m. CST
Though it's doubtful. Revelations was always my favourite part of the Book by the way. Nice imagery.
Sept. 30, 2005, 3:41 p.m. CST
This isn't addressed to Quint but rather to the Talkbackers in general. We listened to you piss yourselves over "Episode I" and watched as a bunch of people who are frankly mostly old enough to know better Balkanize this place for years over a movie of dubious cinematic merit. Harry, we had to put up with you writing thousands of words about the brilliance of Scooby-Doo. Yeah, we're fanatical, but frankly, the Browncoats are nothing next to the Warsies. So, please, have a hearty dose of "shut the fuck up", stop using the fans as an excuse to hate the movie, and go see it. It's a good SF movie and deserves your buck. Or failing that, go see "A History of Violence."
Sept. 30, 2005, 4:23 p.m. CST
That's a good question. It should have gotten MANY lousy reviews, to reflect the large degree to which it sucked.
Sept. 30, 2005, 4:42 p.m. CST
Honestly... how would that work? Even Roger Ebert, one of America's most loved critics gives positive reviews to crappy movies because he's a boob hound. At least the AICN guys let you know about their bias and WHY they are bias towards a movie. It lets you step into their head a little bit and get where they are coming from. Otherwise, why read reviews at all if you want an unbiased opinion. You can be just as biased AGAINST a movie because you don't like the genre as much as you CAN be biased FOR a movie because you love the actor/director/cinematographer/composer's previous work. Get what I'm saying? So shouting OH THIS REVIEW IS SO BIASED... is stating a bit of the obvious. But don't kid yourself into thinking that ANY critic's review is any more or less biased that your own opinions of certain movies. The point is, try to find a critic that most thinks like you do, and trust that opinion. Or perhaps I should say, find a critic that is just as biased as you are on the same level and stick with that critic; I think exposing your purposes and reasons for being biased helps a reader do just that. It
Sept. 30, 2005, 4:48 p.m. CST
most of your review was spent bashing the fanbase, next time concentrate on the actual film itself. I agree that the fanbase is a rabid one, but I think your generalizing the whole fanbase because of a couple nuts.(Particularly the many faces of Tonay) I wager 95% of Whedon's audience are just passionate about his work and is undeserving of your "fear".
Sept. 30, 2005, 5:13 p.m. CST
by tango fett
I'm a somewhat conservative Christian, and it kinda surprises me that fellow Christians on this forum are surprised at peeps talking shit about us, I mean Jesus said we'd get this kinda shit, big whoopie. As for Whedon, I watched a few episodes of Firefly not too long ago and it was alright, nothing ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE but pretty cool I guess. So uh, color me a lite whedonite. Out
Sept. 30, 2005, 5:21 p.m. CST
At least not Harry, Mori or Quint. I feel pretty much exactly the way they do. I just walked out of the theater and felt pretty "meh" about the whole thing. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either, for all the same reasons mentioned in the review.
Sept. 30, 2005, 5:38 p.m. CST
I'm pretty sure you're a pop culture machine that randomly blurts out references to Jane Seymour and defunct 70's cartoons. As far as your Viggo and Whedon obsession...well at least you're consistent.
Sept. 30, 2005, 6:36 p.m. CST
just saw Serenity. liked it. wish they had been given a bigger budget for special effects though.
Sept. 30, 2005, 6:43 p.m. CST
You've said *exactly* what I feel about Whedon product and his acolytes (who I think ARE like Scientologists). He had a good run for five years on Buffy (and I was a big fan during those first five years) and Angel was a decent show, but anyone who doesn't think Serenity is just a piss-poor retread of Alien Resurrection is fooling themselves. Whedon may consider himself a lofty "auteur" (and I can't believe he actually had the balls to refer to himself as one -- hey, Joss, Truffaut, Kubrick and Allen are auteurs -- you're just a glorified TV writer like your dad and granddad before you), but this film is just serious wanking. What surprises me is that so many people want to lend him a hand in the wank.
Sept. 30, 2005, 6:53 p.m. CST
Don't you realize that when you play his game you're just making Whedon stronger, Roy?
Sept. 30, 2005, 7:29 p.m. CST
by Neighbor Jim
Found it about as entertaining as SG1. How is it post-Farscape and with the new Galactica running strong, Firefly is even recognized as legit scifi for this particular era in television? Space: Above and Beyond looked like it had a bigger budget. Of course there are ways of offset a lack of production $$$ by you know, having interesting characters and plots which worked for Babylon 5 pretty well. That show actually got through its initial arc, only who knows what Firefly's "arc" was going to be. I'm probably not cut out to like Whedon's masterpieces, but my brother, he loves Buffy/Angel/Firefly. He's also a 20 year old, anxiety-stricken, anti-social virgin who refuses to eat the unfrosted edges of his Pop-Tarts. True story.
Sept. 30, 2005, 7:43 p.m. CST
I wish so called Whedonites would stop getting picked on. I'm probably one of em. I love Buffy, Angel, Firefly and saw Serenity last night, loved it. There's no difference between whats going on with Joss now and what happened with Peter Jackson over the last few years. Maybe there's just a few more haters. We love Joss' work, not the man. We just want other people to like it too, for no other reason than to see it be successful so we can get more of Joss' stuff on the big screen. It's as simple as that
Sept. 30, 2005, 7:47 p.m. CST
Nobody?!? Then shut the fuck about yours! Keep that shit to yourself. Nobody cares and it means nothing.
Sept. 30, 2005, 7:52 p.m. CST
and if you think $2000 is alot of cash in the year 2005, then I feel sorry for you. I agree, you have more important things to think about than TV. If by your standards 2000 is close to a months salary, then around here you'd be barely above the poverty line. For us, it's less than a weeks' and we are no better than lower middle class finacially. I don't know where you can survive on 2000 a month.
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:01 p.m. CST
It strikes when something costs a dollar amount that we, in our youth, decided was excessive, and having made that decision, can't take it back. I see an HD TV priced in the $2495 range and I say, "You've gotta be kidding me," and I refuse to buy it, because as far as I am concerned no TV should cost more than $599. Having the money makes no difference. I also have this reaction to 1) hockey tickets [which should cost no more than $20] 2) real estate and 3) auto repairs. On the bright side, all computers available now look cheap to me.
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:25 p.m. CST
The U.K. release date for Serenity is 7th October 2005. This also happens to be my Birthday so I say "Thank you, Joss!", best damned Birthday present I could've wished for and I can't wait, 6 days and counting!!!
Sept. 30, 2005, 8:44 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2005, 9:15 p.m. CST
by Thirteen 13
And the prequel apologists get nowhere near the criticism that the hardcore Whedonites do. I mean look at the prequel apologists. These idiots camp out for weeks in front of a theater (when you can easily buy advance tickets online over the internet), dress up like Luke Skywalker and Amidala, and come out with the warm glowing fuzzies after watching 110 minutes worth of poo poo jokes and Jar Jar. And you all say the the hardcore Whedonites are weird. LOL!!!!!
Sept. 30, 2005, 9:39 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
Judge the movie on its indivdual merits and not how much you liked Whedon's past work, how much Whedon's fans annoy you, or how much people who talk shit on Whedon annoy you. Who cares? That has nothing to do with whether the movie is any good or not. And I'm not so personally insecure that I need everyone on a Talkback to agree with me in order to feel good about myself.
Sept. 30, 2005, 9:55 p.m. CST
Well said, Sir!
Sept. 30, 2005, 10:28 p.m. CST
OMG! That was intense, and awesome. Best sci-fi action flick in years! Finally, something out of Hollywood worth paying to see! that doesn't happen often enough. I'm actually gonna go back this weekend and see it again. AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:10 p.m. CST
by Barry Egan
I enjoy Whedon's work a lot, but do I really want to be lumped in with the rest of these people? There were some scary folks at the screening.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:15 p.m. CST
by Sir Loin
I'm with ya, guys...it's hip to make fun of Christians but having a thick skin helps. I laugh out loud at the generalities about us cluelessly slung about, and it has indeed gotten worse on this site in particular (been visiting here since 1997). What was funnier was the success of THE PASSION last year, they just couldn't believe it and wrote it off as a "snuff film." BAHAHA
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:17 p.m. CST
by Sir Loin
Saw SERENITY tonight and had a great time despite being pretty much a Firefly n00b. Hope they make more films with these characters.
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:35 p.m. CST
by Ace Hunter
That's a "Dinner for Five" I'd like to see. (Favs being the fifth, of course)
Sept. 30, 2005, 11:44 p.m. CST
by Roger Thornhill
Are too easy to make fun of but most of the ones I know are normal people who just happen to be devoutly religious. Yeah one of them told my gf that she'd burn in hell because she didn't believe in Jesus, but by and large I think they get a bad rap.
Oct. 1, 2005, 1:11 a.m. CST
Alright!! ... saw Serenity tonight and it surpassed my expectations. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience even though a certain someone spoiled a major plot point for me earlier today. I plan on seeing Viggo tomorrow but had to see this one out of the gate or I would go crazy. Don't beleive the haters ... the entire theater was laughing and cheering thoughout the whole movie ... YOU WILL LOVE IT !!
Oct. 1, 2005, 3:40 a.m. CST
Well, in the Bible it says that you have to repent and be baptized to be saved. Confession and beleif won't do it. Don't beleive me. OK, well even the demons believe in Jesus. Are they going to heaven. Trust me on this one. Ive been hearing biblical rhetoric for 18 years (forced into going to church by parentals). If you don't believe thats your choice. I don't what to believe other than dogmatic crazy relegious people and crazy dogmatic ready to kill me cuz the only thing I like about Buffy is Sarah Michelle Gellar's hot ass (Sp?) Whedonites piss me off. And I am going to see Serenity based on the fact that it looks like a good B Sci-Fi movie and Im a sucker for Sci Fi. Thats right I said B now suck it.
Oct. 1, 2005, 3:43 a.m. CST
Serenity is propably not a B-Movie. It seems well acted and Ive never seen Firefly. I also want this to do well as I want more Sci Fi films. Please don't burn my house down. Please...
Oct. 1, 2005, 4 a.m. CST
Do you want me to leave my room in a pretty Brown Coat? I said I was planning on seeing it later. Maybe Im not the biggest idiot in here as you would have known the answer to your question through a more carefull (yet still broad) examination of my post. Still, thanks for getting angered onj acount of my post. It makes me feel special :)
Oct. 1, 2005, 4:01 a.m. CST
"do you ever leave your room"
Oct. 1, 2005, 4:17 a.m. CST
I used to think the the "first" guys were pathetic.
Oct. 1, 2005, 4:25 a.m. CST
what else can I say? I haven't seen the movie.
Oct. 1, 2005, 6:19 a.m. CST
Because around here, the average new house is $400,000, and the average car is $30,000 ish(Money Magazine). I have one child and one on the way, and don't see how I could possibly live on 2000 a month. I am hardly a conspicuous comsumer. But I'm not a Po-Boy who works at Walmart either. It's called making a decent living in this day and age.
Oct. 1, 2005, 8:28 a.m. CST
by Real Deal
I'm surprised that I never have been able to warm up to Firefly. I've tried several times and have always been bored to tears. I don't know what it is maybe the cowboys in space stuff. Also let me say I've always liked the space opera. It's just that FF doesn't grab me. Wheadon's other work BTVS and Angel were fine examples of good TV. However I will note what Quint discribes about the emotions of the characters reacting ( or not ) to a death mirrors the way I felt about Anya's death in the Buffy finale. Xander didn't hardly shead a tear for someone he was going to marry at one time. Maybe this something Wheadon just can't get right?
Oct. 1, 2005, 10:12 a.m. CST
I saw the movie last night, and yes, I'm a Firefly fan, not technically a Browncoat, and I loved it. All you people bitching it's a made for tv movie are on crack. It works as a MOVIE. There was nothing amateurish about the special effects, in fact they looked better than most of the recent Star Wars trilogy because it wasn't 100% green screen. And the Whedon haters who bitch about the dialogue can kiss my ass, because the snark, the Western-isms and the Chinese swearing are all significantly downplayed for a mainstream audience (just enough to keep people who appreciate unique dialogue happy - my favorite had to be Kaylee's "Twixt my nethers" line. LOL!). I agree (with people who disagree with Quint) that Zoe's reaction to Wash' death is totally there. Just like her, we don't get a moment to contemplate it until they're outside the ship and setting up for the Reavers attack. You can see the exact moment that it hits Zoe and it's completely in character. At first I thought it was shock value, but after I thought it about it, it reminded me of Anya's death on Buffy, in which someone who doesn't belong in a violence situation will inevitably die because it's WAR (a definite theme in a movie). And there's no time to mourn. And it makes sense as far as who it would hit the hardest. Far more realistic than the melodrama of Spock's death. The one thing that bugged me as a Firefly fan was the bit of retcon about how much Simon actually knew about River's condition, but that wouldn't matter to anyone who hadn't seen the show. And the Operative was one of the most interesting villains I've seen in a long time - I'd say how he ends up bucks most sci-fi/adventure cliches. I'm not here to preach the Browncoat gospel, but this movie is definitely worth it for anyone remotely interested in good scifi and whose mind is not clouded by Whedonhate.
Oct. 1, 2005, 10:56 a.m. CST
It is precisely the "positive" things Whedonites say about his creations that puts me off them. He's a damn creative and talented guy, but his personal tastes seem to run to archness and snark, which people have chosen to call "wit". The problem is that some time ago I had my fill of archness and snark. There is certainly more than enough of it available in the market. [If you took the snark and the porn out of our society, the sudden reduction in background noise would probably made us all scream in agony from the sudden silence, a la the end of "The Machine Stops".] I just don't have any need to seek that product out anymore. I avoid snark DT's by reading TWoP and occasionally watching the Gilmore Girls, and with that little bit of maintenance, I'm good. Nowadays I find myself more interested in material that takes itself seriously - preferably too seriously. If Owen Gleiberman would find something tendentious, I'm there. I don't want blithe chatter or lovable rogues. All of this being the case, the better Whedon does at being Whedon, the less I will want to go. Frankly oisin's last post makes me more likely to see it than positive reviews on RT would - if Joss has dialed it down a notch, that appeals to me more than Joss being Joss and executing perfectly.
Oct. 1, 2005, 12:14 p.m. CST
by Quin the Eskimo
did exactly what a soldier needs to do TO SURVIVE. Not everybody is like that asshole from Jarhead.
Oct. 1, 2005, 3:39 p.m. CST
by Jeff Dee
No, in debate the burden of proof normally falls on the side making the affirmative claim. On the question of God's existence, that means the ones who say he does exist bear that burden. Of course you're right, it's unfair to pick on Christianity - all supernatural beliefs are equally silly.
Oct. 1, 2005, 7:38 p.m. CST
so hackneyed and juvenile that serious scholarly studies have been undertaken and published on his work? Many people take his work seriously and are fully functioning adults. Even the critics like it and people like you still have to diss it and act like you're just so above it. Just say it's not for you instead of pulling some bullshit superiority kick. Anyway, it's not meant to be genius, but a fun space adventure with more heart and humor than most in the genre.
Oct. 1, 2005, 8:01 p.m. CST
WTF was so awesome about that movie? I just saw it this afternoon...it was an interesting film, but certainly wasn't in-depth enough to be a character piece, and the bits of ultra-violence were so out-of-place that it tore me out of the movie everytime. The ending was weak in my opinion too. No build-up leading to a non-ending. This was more of a premise than a story, and while the concept was interesting, it wasn't worth the ticket price.
Oct. 1, 2005, 10:38 p.m. CST
First, it is "A History of Violence" that had the highest per screen average, not Serenity. Second, if critical acclaim validates Joss Whedon/Firefly/Serenity, then I suppose the Browncoats who have been slamming Lucas and the Star Wars prequels will all admit that Revenge of the Sith validates Lucas and the prequels. If not, then it doesn't work the other way either.
Oct. 2, 2005, 12:16 a.m. CST
Let's see - one of the first (of many ) anthologies on Buffy, "Fighting the Forces" - came out in 2002, while the show was still on, had contributors from University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern University, University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford University, North Carolina University, as well as several London Universities and the University of Sydney. Should I go on? Hardly community colleges. Since then, the list of scholarly monographs and anthologies on all things Buffy/Angel/Firefly has increased steadily and are still being published, as well as conferences, university courses, etc. Will Buffy Studies last forever? Probably not. Is it Shakespeare? Of course not. But many people who appreciate Shakespeare also appreciate Joss. And Joss certainly appreciates Shakespeare. And when an author creates a pop culture icon, his work is worth studying and will be for some time, as long as the history of pop culture is important. Asshole.
Oct. 2, 2005, 1:35 a.m. CST
SPOILERs I thought it was B- grade and should have gone straight to DVD. I guess I thought it was slow almost to the point of being boring and its attempt at adventure was flat and lackluster - same goes for all the jokes and the "Hee Haw" language/dialect. The crew had a history? a "connection?" I couldn't tell -maybe I was yawning. And the supposed-to-be meaningful deaths/burials at the end meant nothing to me - and most of the audience I saw it with. Maybe I missed something not being on the up and up with Firefly, etc.? I am a big Sci-Fi fan and love even Sci-Fi crap - but you couldn't pay me to sit through this movie again. And to compare it to The Wrath of Kahn is blasphemy. My 2 cents
Oct. 2, 2005, 1:45 a.m. CST
OK first off. I'm ot a fanboy. yeah i know i come to this site, but its because i like hearing about movies before they come out. And i've seen only about five minutes of an episode of Buffy. And purposely didn't watch the show because the buffy fans annoyed me. I didn't see any of firefly. and at first glance this movie looked like a bad sci fi channel movie. Well I went to see it anyway. It was pretty damned cool actually. I think I will pick up the series now. But i'm still not watching buffy dammit.
Oct. 2, 2005, 2 a.m. CST
by ripper t. jones
...thats what I usually think of your reviews.
Oct. 2, 2005, 7:45 a.m. CST
The scientific world view currently cannot explain the origin of the universe [and it may never do so, for the simple reason that it would require us to explain existence in terms of nonexistence, and the entire point of science is to understand that which exists, and not that which does not], but it is certainly attempting to do so, using what would seem to be pretty straightforwardly the best method to do so - looking for evidence where we can find it, and using critical inference where we cannot. And the scientific world view is, because of its process, flexible - any evidence that comes up to contradict a given scientific picture of the world, if proven, is simply subsumed into a new, revised scientific picture of the world; science isn't about picking one idea in the year 800 BC and sticking with that idea no matter what the future evidence. Religion has neither of these process advantages, as its history makes abundantly clear. Religion is based on "revealed" truth, and the thing about revealed truth is that it can't afford to be wrong in the smallest particular without being completely and utterly debunked. Since the traditions of the main religions rely on the claim that their founders received their information directly from the deity by inspiration, absolutely no part of that information can be false, or the claim is exploded. This is why religions have always fought so hard against science - they have been [properly] concerned that science would uncover something that would demonstrate that some element of their founding documents was false. It is a testimony to the credulity of the public that science [in almost too many fields to name - geology, biology, astronomy, history, archaeology, philology, etc.] has done precisely this, many times, but people persist in thinking that they can "adapt" their religious thinking to the new situation. Actually, it may precisely be the prevalence of the scientific method nowadays that leads people to think that they can do that in the first place. A scientist says, "I may have been wrong yesterday, but I'm tweaking my theory to try to be right today." That makes religious people think they can say, "Our religions were wrong yesterday, but we have corrected the excesses of the past today," or "Our religions were wrong yesterday, but all that wrong stuff in the Old Testament was just metaphor." Sorry, but revealed truth doesn't work that way. If it was wrong yesterday, it is wrong forever. All it really has on its side is the sanctity of inherited tradition, and if the tradition is exposed as false, it doesn't even have that. By the way, if you ask a scientist, "How did the universe begin?" he can credibly answer, "I don't know yet, but I'm trying to find out," because that is the nature of his process and method. But if you ask the religious, "Well, if God made the world, who made God?" and they have no answer, or attempt to avoid the question by saying, "No one made God, he is eternal," they're copping out. Neither side presents an answer, but they are still dissimilar. You could say that they are like two men facing a long walk: the scientist starts walking, even though he may never get there; the religious person does not start walking, because "Moses was down that way a long time ago and he already wrote down what's down there in this book I have here, so I don't need to make the effort." And if anything he sees ahead, on the stretch of road that is visible from his stationary position, contradicts what Moses said, the religious person deals with that difficulty by turning around and looking the other way.
Oct. 2, 2005, 11 a.m. CST
by Mista Mann
I don't understand why so many people don't care about Firefly because of it's fans. Or hate it. Or almost ignore it. Are you really that weak to be affected like that? Can a group of annoying fans make you really hate what they love? That is just sad. I hate most of the super political left-wing nuts that listen to some of the punk and rock music that I love. But that doesn't make me stop listening to their music. I don't suddenly start finding all the faults I can in the songs. Hell, I'm in love with songs that have lyrics completely counter to my beliefs. And sometimes I'll feel bad, but most of the time I sing along, loud as I can. Because I love the music. You know, the goddamned focal point? My point is, you love something you love. Not love something... so long as it doesn't have outside forces ruining it for you. Ignore those forces. It's not hard. The funny thing is, if Firefly was just this generally, calmly loved show by a a few people, I think a lot of these people that don't like it so much would probably be trying to point out its brilliance to the rest of us.
Oct. 2, 2005, 11:52 a.m. CST
He can't write for beans. His obsession with lesbianism, which runs through Buffy, Angel and Firefly showing his sensationalist WB attitude to writing. Lets not even start on Alien Resurrection. The difference between Whedonites and Star Wars freaks, is that Star Wars freaks are willing to criticise Lucas when he makes something really poor, Whedonites believe that talentless hack can do no wrong.
Oct. 2, 2005, 12:46 p.m. CST
Yes. I'm a shallow fuck who is NOT seeing Serenity because Whedon's hardcore fans made it such a distasteful notion that I can't possibly consider going into the theater or giving Joss my $10 for his TV soap opera movie. And no- That's not sarcarm. You Whedonites actually DROVE AWAY the rest of us. You now have Serenity all to yourselves, which is just what you wanted, isn't it?
Oct. 2, 2005, 2:59 p.m. CST
Take a look at the numbers for this weekend.
Oct. 2, 2005, 6:03 p.m. CST
that will make Universal a nice little profit once it is released on DVD.
Oct. 2, 2005, 6:33 p.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
Per screen average is something taken into consideration when a film is released in limited release and they're trying to determine how wide to take it, when a film is released wide, as Serenity was, per screen average doesn't mean jack, the film pretty much as wide as its gonna get, all their money is in and they want totals. But just so we're clear, yes, it did better than Flightplan, per screen, in Flightplan's second week of release. But its per screen average for a film in its first week is still weak.
Oct. 2, 2005, 8:14 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
"I didn't actually see this movie, but I hate the fans of the guy who made it, so it must suck."
Oct. 2, 2005, 10:17 p.m. CST
Funny, because while that was a good scene, it wasn't at all why I like the series. The two biggest things I loved about the series -- the humor and the character development -- were the two biggest things lacking from the movie.
Oct. 3, 2005, 12:01 a.m. CST
He doesn't get credit for Toy Story. He's blamed for that horrible Alien Ressurection script. all his shows get cancelled. Yet, fans love him. I love him. kiss me, my sweet. Joss should just make movies in his garage and sell them on the internet.
Oct. 3, 2005, 12:56 a.m. CST
I hear other talkbackers saying moviegoers should ignore what hardcore fans say or do, and make up their own minds about a film -- in this case, "Serenity" -- after seeing it. I'm sorry, but the real world doesn't work that way. Not for me and not for most people. I saw "Serenity" last Friday, and I enjoyed it, but a few overly knowledgeable college students sitting a few rows behind me intermittently geeked out during the film, ruining it for me. With all the "Serentity" buildup over the summer, all the Whedon love flowing like an unstoppable river, I was trying to hold back the sense of overkill I felt. So when I endured more Whedon fellation in the theater when I was truly hoping for silence, I remember thinking, "Jesus fucking Christ, you losers. Shut the fuck up. No one cares how much you know about Mal or River. Stop ruining it for everybody." After the showing, I realized I didn't -- and don't -- want anyone to group me with the Browncoats. I'm sure most of them are solid, mindful folks whose company I might otherwise enjoy, but the extremist faction of the Whedon fan base kills it for me in a staggeringly big way. After seeing "Serenity" with those assholes three rows back -- in addition to all other over-Whedonizing I've seen on this site and others -- I couldn't (and haven't) recommend the film to any of my friends, and I'm not going to see it again. Crazy fans do have an effect. The "Firefly" DVD sales were great, but the honeymoon's over for me. Sorry, Joss. I'm an Alliance man now.
Oct. 3, 2005, 4:39 a.m. CST
That's like saying I don't like trekkies, so I'm a romulan now.
Oct. 3, 2005, 8:26 a.m. CST
Dead on with your analysis.
Oct. 3, 2005, 11:06 a.m. CST
when thrown not only space opera and western style. But pay visual and conceptual homage to both Lord of the Rings and 28 Days Later. I may be alone in this but when I saw those Reaver ships I was thinking if the Orcs from Peter Jackson movies could build spaceships this is what they'd look like. As far as the both visual conceptual nod to 28 Days Later. Let me just say scary empty planet with a big secret.
Oct. 3, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST
just the thing i was thinking..the beauty shot of the place where Inara was staying reminded me of LOTR too
Oct. 3, 2005, 12:24 p.m. CST
We're talking about religion and science as two competing methods for securing knowledge about the world. The scientific world view holds that one gains knowledge about the world by examining it, by forming theories about the phenomena you observe during your examination, and then attempting to devise ways of testing those hypotheses by making further observations or experiments. The religious world view holds that, for some things at least, that method is not a valid way to acquire knowledge, and that "true" knowledge is obtained through spiritual revelation. This spiritual revelation is not to be obtained empirically, but either through contemplation of one's interior life [as in many Eastern religions], by direct communication with a deity or his representative [as in Islam, Mormonism, etc.], or by the reading of "inspired" communications [such as the Gospels, which are not held to be dictated directly by any member of the Trinity, but to be the work of church members "inspired" to exact truth by the Holy Spirit.] Were it not for this distinction in method, there would not be any difference between science and religion for us to talk about. And here's the problem with this method: as soon as you admit that any part of the information you gained by it is untrue, you have to be prepared to explain how we are going to determine which remaining parts are true and which parts aren't. If you say, "Some parts of it are legend and some parts are true," that means that ANY part of it might be legend, and we need a method to determine which parts actually are. If we decide that the part of the Bible that talks about Adam and Eve is a metaphor, there is no way to not conclude that it's possible that whole bit about Christ rising from the dead on the third day is a metaphor, too. Or that the existence of a deity in the book to begin with is a metaphor. So what method do we use to figure out if a given section is a metaphor or not? We can't use revelation again, because they used revelation the first time and got something that, by your own statement, was at least partly false. If we try instead to critically examine the Bible as a document, and say, "Well, this part about the sun stopping in the sky is obviously a metaphor, because that would not have been possible, and it would exist in other historical records if it had in fact happened - but the rest of it is true," then what we have done is apply the method of science to the material that we initially told ourselves was religious. Doing so constitutes an admission that the method of revealed truth was wrong all along. And you can't unring that bell. Once the bell is rung you have to walk away from the method itself, because it doesn't contain a self-correcting mechanism like science does.
Oct. 3, 2005, 12:30 p.m. CST
Oct. 3, 2005, 12:38 p.m. CST
I hadn't thought of Inara's place but your right, there is a bit of Rivendell there.
Oct. 3, 2005, 1:02 p.m. CST
Hard to say. I think they are both pretty consistent with characterization and dialogue. Serenity did well following up on the main plot with the Alliance and River. And it even picked up from Inara having left as she was planning at the end of the series. Ultimately though, I think PK Wars benegfitted from longer mini-series format so that it could include more of the supporting character's reltionships. Like D'Argo and Jothee, D'Argo and Chiana, even Scorpius and Sikozu. In Serenity's case Wash and Zoe's conflicts presented in the series could not be addressed in the movie format. And I think Whedon did right not to address them given the format. It would have been distrating and would have been hard to resolve by the end. It had the right focus for a film. So if I absolutely had to choose I'd say PKWars is a little closer to source. But that's Serenity made the changes neccesary for it's own transition to big screen film and is probably more accecible to new viewers.
Oct. 3, 2005, 1:58 p.m. CST
Finally, someone wants to discuss the actual movie and not the box office, Whedon, or the fans. Let's see. Apples and oranges, imo. PK wars was a miniseries on the same network as the series. Could have been a four part story arc that ended the series nicely. Serenity, by necessity, had to depart quite a bit from the source material to be a stand-alone movie. Now whether you believe this worked or not is another question. The first thing I noticed is how everyone seems to have visited a hair stylist while they were on the outer edges of the 'verse. The ship was filmed differently, with lower lighting and harsher angles (Serenity was not quite as homey as in the series - intentionally so, I would venture). Mal was much harsher than on the series (the story was that Fox had insisted he be "lighter" on the series) and Simon was more of a badass (and even a bit of retcon on his backstory, which I was a bit bothered by) and Kaylee was certainly not as happy-go-lucky, but the tensions were much higher in the film, especially with Reavers being such a huge part of the plot - everyone's on edge. And Anchorite, I'm sorry - you're just flat out wrong. Serenity's dialogue was SO much more believable and human than anything in ROTS, which was either overwrought melodrama or elevated pseudo-Greek tragedy. I certainly don't agree that the special effects were bad - again this looked better than ROTS, which was all green screen. And [SPOILER] people didn't care that Wash died? WTF? Were you expecting weeping and wailing, like Amidala? Zoe's reaction was spot-on, brilliant and moving. And they were in the midst of battle. At first, I thought the death was cheap in its shock, but then I began to see how it would resonate for the characters in the battle scene and then in the final scenes. I will grant that Whedon could do what he does best in a series format when he can take his time in unfolding consequences, connections and character development. But it still worked and I can't wait for the sequel. Oh yes, like Book says, I believe in something! It will happen. As a final note, this post was not about bashing ROTS - I enjoyed that movie too, but on a totally different level. But people whining about derivative-ness, need to shut the hell up.
Oct. 3, 2005, 2:58 p.m. CST
by The True Priapic
Oct. 3, 2005, 2:59 p.m. CST
by The True Priapic
Oct. 3, 2005, 3 p.m. CST
by The True Priapic
Oct. 3, 2005, 4:22 p.m. CST
by Jeff Dee
http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/kirklogic.html Scroll down to Fallacies of Distraction, number 3, Shifting the Burden of Proof. It says: "As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)." It also says, "In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate." So don't feel bad that you were mistaken about this. But don't take it lying down when believers try to shift the burden of proof onto you, either. THEY say they know there's a god. Okay, then it is their job to explain how they can know that.
Oct. 3, 2005, 4:42 p.m. CST
by Jeff Dee
I don't know which of your fellow atheists you were talking about, but *I* do not "hate" Christians. I just think their beliefs are silly, and I'm not shy about explaining why. Many Christians, by contrast, are not shy about saying that folks like you and me deserve to be TORTURED FOREVER. You're right, some atheists go over the line into hatred - and that's bad. But even worse hatred is *taught* by certain brands of Christianity.
Oct. 4, 2005, 1:24 a.m. CST
Oct. 4, 2005, 3:07 p.m. CST
By the time Star Trek 2 came out, Spock was a household name. The show was iconic. Killing off Spokc was BIG, it was like killing off Kirk. People are going to care when you off an icon even if they don't know anything about him. There is nothing iconic about Firefly or Serenity, they can't even be compared.
Oct. 5, 2005, 12:58 a.m. CST
Serenity tanked. It will tank next weekend. End of story.
Oct. 5, 2005, 2:35 a.m. CST
about Zoe's reaction - because the last thing she was doing was forgetting her husband was dead. SHe basically wanted to die to. I thought that was pretty clear - and is usual these days becuase just as I agree with Quint about the extreme fans I also see a lot who are extremely anti- - for no really clear reason (I think many may be bitter SW fans who hate to see anything else doing well when their series went to shit). I was disappointed with Oliver Twist though. I mean, it looked gorgeous, was very faithful - and I thought Foreman's performance was superb. But it could have been made by anyone - I know Polanski said he wanted to make a film his kids could see, but he has done this by removing everything that says it is Polanski and made it a very anonymous piece of directing. WHich can be contrasted with the VERY accessible Cronenberg - that still remains, clearly, a Cronenberg film.
Oct. 5, 2005, 3:08 a.m. CST
Funny, I would think being weak would be to buy into something just because a bunch of other people told me I should. Any decision I made (to like or dislike) I made on my own. So... no, Some people aren't weak, Some are just reluctant to jump on the bandwagon. Especially when they think a bunch of kooks might be riding with them.
Oct. 5, 2005, 3:07 p.m. CST
You might try looking up the definitions of the words "fundamentalist" and "Christian" before you make an idiotic statement like that. Just in case you have a hard time with that, I'll do it for you. Fundamentalism: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles", and Christian: "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike." And the actual definition of fundamentalist Christian is also easy to find: "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching". Sounds SOOO bad to me, 'cause Jesus was such a terrible guy. The only thing you got right is that anyone who follows Jesus is supposed to do their best to spread the faith. Not in any crazy inquisition, like you seem to think of it. That's totally the opposite of what Jesus taught. So anyone who is out there PUSHING their beliefs on anyone certainly can't be called a fundamentalist Christian. They obviously haven't read their Bible closely enough. And I don't know any fundamentalist Christian clergyman who doesn't preach that we should question things, invite debate, and listen to opposing viewpoints. Because those are the best times to win converts, not when you go out and beat someone over the head with how religious you are. Again, this is just following Jesus' example. And He never asked anyone to send Him money on late night TV. Now, on to the actual point of your article, I really liked Firefly and I really liked Serenity. And not because I'm a Whedonite (by your definition) because I didn't like either Buffy or Angel...at all. (!!!SPOILERS FROM HERE TO THE END OF MY POST!!!) First off, the setting for Mal's final fight scene was way too obviously built specifically to have a dangerous place to fight. It was like the choppers and smashers hallway from Galaxy Quest. And I would have to agree with you that they needed to do more with the characters who die. Shepherd Book (Ron Glass)needed at least one more scene to solidify that he was a close friend of the crew. And seeing as the pilot Wash (Alan Tudyk) was with the main cast most of the movie, they should have played his part up more, given him a bigger role. Aside from some cool piloting, and a couple funny lines (less than he had in the series), he was mostly in the background, which is unfortunate. As for his wife's reaction to his death, I think that's pretty natural considering her character. She's a hard woman who's been through war. She had a quick emotional reaction at first, but when she realized they didn't have time to grieve, she put those emotions away...or more accurately, transformed them into anger and wrath. She was fighting those Reavers harder than she needed to because they just killed her husband. The fact that she was getting out of ranks and messing up the group tactics shows you that she wasn't herself. Non-fans wouldn't notice, but the fact that she was wearing a light-colored dress in the funeral scene is a HUGE change, since she never wore anything but leather in the series. Personally, I was very surprised that they killed him off. Between being the main "anti-violence" voice on the crew, one of the best sources of comedy, and being the ship's pilot, I figured he was safe. When I first heard that a couple characters die, I thought his wife, the doctor, River, and the preacher much more likely to be killed off. And I was sweating profusely that they would kill off my favorite character, Jayne, who I had to admit was THE most likely to be killed. Also, in the funeral scene, I didn't like the fact that Mr. Universe's tombstone was put in there along with the two cast regulars, considering that he was a brand new character, I don't see why he warranted being placed with them. But, I guess that's one of the things I have liked about Firefly, not going with all the conventions and cliches of storytelling.