Firefly & Serenity (Use Spoilers!)

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

...

Great show
177
29%
The greatest show
384
62%
Otter/Duck
58
9%
 
Total votes: 619

sir_schwick
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:06 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby sir_schwick » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:20 pm UTC

But only after they made a giant amount of money.


Sadly I have not seen that episode yet. Who was buying the apples?

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Firefly

Postby headprogrammingczar » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:31 pm UTC

Just watch Ariel, then the one after that.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby cephalopod9 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:56 am UTC

So I've watched most, if not all, the episodes, and the movie.

I'm feeling kind of conflicted. On the one hand, it is a good show, and compared to most teevee, is exceptional. On the other, there's little things that bug me, a lot.

I suppose my main complaint is that guns are really stupid. It's especially jarring in The Message, and Heart of Gold
Spoiler:
When a new character is introduced and starts making things interesting, only to die a pointless gun related death, while no one seems to think to get the exceptionally talented doctor. I mean, Nandi got shot in the belly, don't Mal or Jayne recover from that every other episode?

It also bothers me that with all the pretty outfits Inara and Kaylee have, neither Mal nor Simon seem to have a single short sleeve shirt. Did Nathan Fillion not have the biceps he has as Captain Hammer? There was the one naked scene, but over all it just doesn't seem fair.
Image

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Firefly

Postby headprogrammingczar » Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:01 pm UTC

For the doctor thing (I don't think we need spoilers for such an old show), you are missing the part where Nandi was shot in the middle of a huge ass-battle. It does bother me that they don't call for the doctor though. On second thought, she deserved it, so whatever.

Nathan Fillion was not supposed to be portrayed as "supertough machoman", so that was probably the primary reason for him always wearing the same outfit. Jayne wore a ton of short-sleeved shirts, and so did Book (probably to suggest at his past). Simon probably doesn't have any t-shirts. Also, the only outfit I remember Kaylee wearing is the "big red blimp-dress" at the party.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Firefly

Postby natraj » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:51 pm UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:On second thought, she deserved it, so whatever.


Why do you say that?
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Firefly

Postby headprogrammingczar » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:39 pm UTC

She snitched, felt bad about it, then kept messing with their defense, unlocking doors and so forth. Put simply: REGRET DOES NOT MEAN KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE REGRETTING!
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Firefly

Postby natraj » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:She snitched, felt bad about it, then kept messing with their defense, unlocking doors and so forth. Put simply: REGRET DOES NOT MEAN KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE REGRETTING!


What? No. You're confusing Nandi with Chari.
Spoiler:
Chari was the one who sold them out to Burgess and let him in to steal Petaline's child. Nandi was the woman who ran the brothel, and she was the one who got shot and died.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby cephalopod9 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:24 pm UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:Nathan Fillion was not supposed to be portrayed as "supertough machoman",
Except for the part where he's a war hero, and varying degrees of invulnerable, and I don't see what that has to do with not letting me see his arms. Although now that you mention it, he and Zoe kind of dress similar.
Also, the only outfit I remember Kaylee wearing is the "big red blimp-dress" at the party.
Yeah, she's not super fancy or anything, but she does have, like, sun dresses and cleavage shirts, and more than a few outfits.
Jayne wore a ton of short-sleeved shirts, and so did Book (probably to suggest at his past). Simon probably doesn't have any t-shirts.
Jayne and Book are not as pretty as Simon, and wasn't he trying to blend in?
I was also disapointed he was not tied up in Objects in Space, rather was allowed to put his sweater back on. Again, no fair.
Image

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby Gunfingers » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:51 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Except for the part where he's a war hero, and varying degrees of invulnerable, and I don't see what that has to do with not letting me see his arms. Although now that you mention it, he and Zoe kind of dress similar.
Warheroes are people who handle themselves well during a time of war. When you tell this kind of story you want to emphasize the fact that your "hero" is just a guy, not a superhero. Depending on your perspective, that makes him more badass.

aireoth
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby aireoth » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
headprogrammingczar wrote:Nathan Fillion was not supposed to be portrayed as "supertough machoman",
Except for the part where he's a war hero, and varying degrees of invulnerable, and I don't see what that has to do with not letting me see his arms. Although now that you mention it, he and Zoe kind of dress similar.


Mal's outfit is perfect, he is the war hero, so what if you can't see big muscles. He is always wearing a browncoat outfit, to identify himself with the browncoats in the war. His outfit is even used briefly in one of the episodes plot, where they get into a bar fight on union day.

Seriously why does it matter that his arms are showing? Nothing about a war hero implies a supermachoman, try looking up a few in real life, like Lucian Adams.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby cephalopod9 » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:43 am UTC

aireoth wrote:Seriously why does it matter that his arms are showing?
I want to see them. That is all I'm saying.

There seems to be room for female eyecandy, Inara, obviously, Kaylee has here cutesy outfits with short sleeves and low collars, we see River naked in the first/second episode, and even Zoe's "brown coat" ends at her waist so her snug fitting pants can show off her legs etc.
and they're all young* and shapely.

There is a little of Jayne lifting weights and he has those random t-shirts, although, I didn't feel like he was really meant to be attractive, or even that likable. Though, I did like him. A lot better than I liked Wash, who I guess was supposed to be nerdy, and brainy, and I can't stand him. Book is older, and not sexy. Mal is, well, pretty violent. While not in the show-offy sense, he is pretty "supermacho". There's maybe 3 scenes where he isn't wearing long sleeves; in one he's behind a prostitute, and the other two they do the camera angles so mostly all that shows is the tops of his shoulders or chest hair.
Simon is pretty. I will not believe you if you try to argue that he was not cast, at least partly, for that reason. And yet I can only think of the one shirtless scene in the show, and the one at the end of the movie. Why?
Why is it they can make room for Inara giving a female client a massage, but not a few extra moments of Simon without his shirt?
I'm probably forgetting things. Feel free to send me screen shots to prove me wrong.

*relatively, I haven't gotten the timeline quite figured out, I guess Inara and Zoe could be a little older.
Image

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Firefly

Postby Jack Saladin » Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:39 am UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:(I don't think we need spoilers for such an old show)
Just for the record, that's not even slightly how it works. Spoiler everything, forever.

User avatar
el_loco_avs
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:14 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby el_loco_avs » Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:49 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Mal is, well, pretty violent. While not in the show-offy sense, he is pretty "supermacho". There's maybe 3 scenes where he isn't wearing long sleeves; in one he's behind a prostitute, and the other two they do the camera angles so mostly all that shows is the tops of his shoulders or chest hair.
Simon is pretty. I will not believe you if you try to argue that he was not cast, at least partly, for that reason. And yet I can only think of the one shirtless scene in the show, and the one at the end of the movie. Why?



Considering Mal was naked on screen and was nicknamed Captain Tightpants due to his outfit... I don't think they really were unequal with the eyecandy. And what I likes was that everyone wears clothes that make sense to their character. Simon (the character)... would be VERY weird to see without being perfectly dressed (think like seeing Zoe in a dress). Unless there should be an obvious and gratuitious shower scene or something :mrgreen:

I do think that shows in general should be less afraid in showing of their attractive male stars. And I do wish the ladies the feeling I get when I see that bit with YoSafBridge... you know. jaw..floor... drool. I hereby start a motion for a male companion to be introduced when the show returns. Played by Gael Garcia Bernal.




(yes I said "when". SHUT UP)
You go your way.
I'll go your way too.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby cephalopod9 » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:52 am UTC

I do have to admit that it is less a criticism of this particular show than it is my problem with all t.v. and movies forever. (part of it might also be a result of my computer freezing the picture but continuing to play sound mid episode and making me cranky, rather than the content or quality of the show itself)

Although, it still seems fair to be annoyed they wasted such a great opportunity in Objects in Space
Spoiler:
Simon has his shirt off, Early just tied up Kaylee..
but no, not only does he get to put his long sleeve shirt back on, he ends up friggin tackling the guy.
I can sort of go back and forth on the "in character" notion, since character is largely defined by action. Like when Kaylee
Spoiler:
has her break down over shooting people. It seems like it could go either way and still be "in character" becuase her reaction there decides her character. Although it does kind of bother me that Simon has no problems shooting people when he's from a more sheltered background, is dealing with the stress of caring for his mentally challenged sister and hiding from the government, and is later shown unable to ignore a patient having a heart attack. (In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of a time when he seemed all that troubled about anything)
It was later plot relevant, but it doesn't seem that difficult to think of other ways Kaylee might've been incapacitated (plus it would have raised the tension between her and Simon, possibly making it more beleiveable).
Either way it felt sort of cliche.
Same goes for Inara crying after Mal slept with her friend. It would make sense if he had said something about having feelings for Nandi, or something mean about Inara, but I don't remember that happening.

I suppose I should also say that I'm a little more critical of a show made by someone comended for his self proclaimed feminism. A show where the women are all pretty, and the men are in charge tends not to feel very feminist.
Was Yosafbridge Inara's female client? (I kind of skipped that part because of computer freezing. )
Image

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby Nath » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:15 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
Spoiler:
Although it does kind of bother me that Simon has no problems shooting people when he's from a more sheltered background, is dealing with the stress of caring for his mentally challenged sister and hiding from the government, and is later shown unable to ignore a patient having a heart attack.

I don't think any of these things is implausible or out of character.
Spoiler:
One of Simon's defining characteristics is that in spite of his safe, sheltered life, he's quite willing to do extreme or risky things. It isn't obvious, because he's mild mannered, but it makes sense when you think about it; he does things his way, and copes well with stress. If he'd been raised out on the rim, he'd probably be a pretty good bad guy. The hospital thing was his way of briefly returning to his old life: Dr Simon Tam, back in a hospital saving lives.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been more interesting to give Kaylee secret reserves of strength and make Simon crack under pressure, but as things stand, I think the characters are pretty consistent.

cephalopod9 wrote:Was Yosafbridge Inara's female client? (I kind of skipped that part because of computer freezing. )

No.

User avatar
el_loco_avs
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:14 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby el_loco_avs » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Nath wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:
Spoiler:
Although it does kind of bother me that Simon has no problems shooting people when he's from a more sheltered background, is dealing with the stress of caring for his mentally challenged sister and hiding from the government, and is later shown unable to ignore a patient having a heart attack.

I don't think any of these things is implausible or out of character.
Spoiler:
One of Simon's defining characteristics is that in spite of his safe, sheltered life, he's quite willing to do extreme or risky things. It isn't obvious, because he's mild mannered, but it makes sense when you think about it; he does things his way, and copes well with stress. If he'd been raised out on the rim, he'd probably be a pretty good bad guy. The hospital thing was his way of briefly returning to his old life: Dr Simon Tam, back in a hospital saving lives.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been more interesting to give Kaylee secret reserves of strength and make Simon crack under pressure, but as things stand, I think the characters are pretty consistent.

cephalopod9 wrote:Was Yosafbridge Inara's female client? (I kind of skipped that part because of computer freezing. )

No.


Simon is also always quite calm doing anything. Having done something stupidly risky in
Spoiler:
saving his sister
I'd say him being okay with that is in character. He's kind of a doing what needs doing person.

Kaylee however seems to be the softest person in the crew (together with Wash, even though he got his heroic-ish moments).


YoSafBridge is
Spoiler:
Saffron. Mal's "wife" aka crazy backstabbing lady.




However Inara
Spoiler:
crying over Mal was indeed a bit out of character I think. She's a pretty tough lady. I think they could've dealt with her being hurt differently
.
You go your way.
I'll go your way too.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby cephalopod9 » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:48 am UTC

Like I said, it's hard for character defining moments to be out of character, so it's a tricky thing to criticize.

el_loco_avs wrote:Simon is also always quite calm doing anything. Having done something stupidly risky in
Spoiler:
saving his sister
I'd say him being okay with that is in character. He's kind of a doing what needs doing person.
So, yeah, that's "in character", but I guess it annoys me they made him a character
Spoiler:
that is supposed to be the sympathetic, sensitive guy, without his sensitiveness effect him much. I do still feel like the dynamics between him and Kaylee would have been better if their emotional roles were more or less reversed.
He's dealing with a lot, physically and emotionally, she just has to make sure the ship doesn't fall apart, did we get much of her backstory? I don't remember seeing much. Anyways, she seems at least a little niaive, or maybe just innocent, I think it would have been more interesting had it been more her insensitivity to his needs, rather than the older than dirt, "durhur, he doesn't get that she likes him" trope they seemded to go with instead.


el_loco_avs wrote:Kaylee however seems to be the softest person in the crew (together with Wash, even though he got his heroic-ish moments).
There are parallels between the two that work up to a point; they're both on the ship for their particular ship related talents, and don't have to be good at much else. I did like the moment in Heart of Gold when they realize
Spoiler:
Oh wait, Wash is locked in the engine room and Kaylee's in the rest of the ship, this won't work.

Except for, then Wash has to have his macho moments, and I just don't like him much.

I guess, basically, if all the genders were reversed the show would be perfect.
Or maybe I just want to see terrible things happen to pretty boys. That could be cool too.

Oh, got it YoSafBridge =
Spoiler:
Yolanda/Saffron/Bridge..tte? what ever her other names were. I can barely keep up with one name per character.
Last edited by cephalopod9 on Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Firefly

Postby phlip » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:42 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Oh, got it YoSafBridge =
Spoiler:
Yolanda/Saffraon/Bridge..tte? what ever her other names were. I can barely keep up with one name per character.

Yep. The hybrid name is one that Mal used (once) in Trash.

Also:
Spoiler:
Spelling: Yolanda/Saffron/Bridgit.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Firefly

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:17 pm UTC

I'm curious about why people object to Kaylee's 'softness' (which I kind of disagree with)? Mal isn't trying to surround himself with hardened assholes, he's trying surround himself with family. Kaylee is family.

Another important thing to remember about the crew dynamic, is, according to Nathan Fillian, Mal lost part of himself in the Independence war, and as such, is seeking the fill those holes in his life. He lost his innocence and a carefree attitude, and perhaps continues to feel a desire to protect and care for someone (Kaylee, remember when Mal says "I don't object to you being uncomfortable with killing people" in that episode when they raid Niskas HQ?). He lost his spirituality and seeks approval of a fatherly figure (Shepard), and is an adult, and needs adult friends (Wash, Zoe, Inara), as well as humor (Wash), reliability (Zoe), and love (Inara). I think he recognizes Jayne as hired muscle, but holds him as kind of a rival sibling, someone who he cares for but occasionally needs to smack around to keep in line. And that leaves River and Simon, and the complexity behind Mal's loyalty to them compromises a big portion of the show. Perhaps he respects the brother/sister duo, perhaps he just likes that they "stuck a thorn in the alliances side (and that tickles me)".

But in any case, Mal is a pretty interesting and layered character. I've got a bit of a man crush on him.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby Nath » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:50 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:...and needs adult friends (Wash, Zoe, Inara)...

Heh.

But yeah, that's an interesting analysis of Mal.

Fate
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 5:55 am UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby Fate » Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:59 pm UTC

I'm so angry at Fox for canceling this show simply because we never learn of Books past. Or whats to come of Mal and Inara's relationship. If they were to start the show back up it would have to start with one of them waking up from a bad dream which is "the movie". You wouldnt be able to bring firefly back to life and have it work as well as it did without the original cast. But sadly, Wheadon said that there wouldn't be another season or another movie, but then the actors say there will be another movie or something, anything, at the Dragoncon events.

FayeKane
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:47 pm UTC
Location: Homeless and naked in a cave in Fairfax County, VA
Contact:

Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby FayeKane » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:55 am UTC

It could have been to TS:TNG what TS:TNG was to ST:TOS.

And you guys who complain about the lack of Asians on the ship:

WTF?

That show was damn near PERFECT. TV shows are written for a particular audience, and in the U.S. that audience is white males. Hey, I don't like it either, but they run everything (generally, into the ground). If you lived in Japan, would you complain if a TV show didn't have enough occidentals (or whatever we're called)?

I don;t have a problem withb rifeles instead of phasers. Maybe it's inpossible to invent phasers. I do kind of wonder who would use steam locomotives when gravity manipulation exists, but hey, if the show hadn't been assassinated by the stupid people, I bet they'd plausibly explain that (e.g., perhaps grav-tech resources have to come from Earth).

Quit complaining about B.S.! There's enough to complain about already in the god-forsaken, post-college nightmare without ragging on the folks who wrote Firefly.
It's the best show for us geeks since "Daria" left MTV. Its only fault was that it was born into the Fox "reality TV for retards" network.

--faye kane, homeless brain

Fate
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 5:55 am UTC

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby Fate » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:23 pm UTC

FayeKane wrote:It could have been to TS:TNG what TS:TNG was to ST:TOS.

And you guys who complain about the lack of Asians on the ship:

WTF?

That show was damn near PERFECT. TV shows are written for a particular audience, and in the U.S. that audience is white males. Hey, I don't like it either, but they run everything (generally, into the ground). If you lived in Japan, would you complain if a TV show didn't have enough occidentals (or whatever we're called)?

I don;t have a problem withb rifeles instead of phasers. Maybe it's inpossible to invent phasers. I do kind of wonder who would use steam locomotives when gravity manipulation exists, but hey, if the show hadn't been assassinated by the stupid people, I bet they'd plausibly explain that (e.g., perhaps grav-tech resources have to come from Earth).

Quit complaining about B.S.! There's enough to complain about already in the god-forsaken, post-college nightmare without ragging on the folks who wrote Firefly.
It's the best show for us geeks since "Daria" left MTV. Its only fault was that it was born into the Fox "reality TV for retards" network.

--faye kane, homeless brain


Agreed.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby natraj » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:07 pm UTC

FayeKane wrote:That show was damn near PERFECT. TV shows are written for a particular audience, and in the U.S. that audience is white males. Hey, I don't like it either, but they run everything (generally, into the ground).


WTF. So you're saying that since the people who run the media play into the sexist, racist narratives that white men are the only people worth caring about when they design things, we should just suck it up and not care? Sorry, but many of us don't really work that way. When we see racist/sexist BS like that, we get kind of pissed. Just cuz you're okay with it doesn't mean the rest of us need to shut up.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby cephalopod9 » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:37 pm UTC

It's not inpossible for a good show to make mistakes, Trek Star wasn't perfect either.
Image

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:12 am UTC

FayeKane wrote:That show was damn near PERFECT. TV shows are written for a particular audience, and in the U.S. that audience is white males. Hey, I don't like it either, but they run everything (generally, into the ground). If you lived in Japan, would you complain if a TV show didn't have enough occidentals (or whatever we're called)?

Having a show with mostly white males is one thing. Having a show with mostly whites who just happen to speak Chinese and are supposed to come from a Chinese/American hybrid population is a little odd.

Joss Whedon's official response is that in space, nobody can hear you, uh, dilute the racial purity. And that apparently Firefly is set after the ethnicities got thoroughly mixed.

I don;t have a problem withb rifeles instead of phasers. Maybe it's inpossible to invent phasers. I do kind of wonder who would use steam locomotives when gravity manipulation exists, but hey, if the show hadn't been assassinated by the stupid people, I bet they'd plausibly explain that (e.g., perhaps grav-tech resources have to come from Earth).

Again, there's an explanation. First of all, technology is expensive. Why would you want to build a rocket-train if a regular train runs just as well and is much cheaper? Second of all, and more expansive in its answering power, is that the Alliance doesn't let tech get out to the Rim worlds.

And personally I think the firearm is here to stay for a while.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:29 am UTC

FayeKane wrote:That show was damn near PERFECT. TV shows are written for a particular audience, and in the U.S. that audience is white males. Hey, I don't like it either, but they run everything (generally, into the ground).


I don't think the show was remotely created for white males. Aside from a few exceptions it lacks in the T&A category (Saffron and Inara I think are the only example I think, and Inara I think is very, VERY tastefully portrayed), the violence is mostly quick and never the focus, and the show commends and supports morality and 'goodness' rather then things like wealth, power, fast cars danger fire and knives (heh)...

I think the show caters to the Sci-fi contingent, which certainly has its fair share of white males, but you know, isn't only.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby Malice » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:40 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
I don;t have a problem withb rifeles instead of phasers. Maybe it's inpossible to invent phasers. I do kind of wonder who would use steam locomotives when gravity manipulation exists, but hey, if the show hadn't been assassinated by the stupid people, I bet they'd plausibly explain that (e.g., perhaps grav-tech resources have to come from Earth).

Again, there's an explanation. First of all, technology is expensive. Why would you want to build a rocket-train if a regular train runs just as well and is much cheaper? Second of all, and more expansive in its answering power, is that the Alliance doesn't let tech get out to the Rim worlds.

And personally I think the firearm is here to stay for a while.


To paraphrase Howard "Schlock Mercenary" Taylor, the nice thing about using old-fashioned bullets in space is that, unlike energy weapons, they won't cut through your hull.
Image

FayeKane
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:47 pm UTC
Location: Homeless and naked in a cave in Fairfax County, VA
Contact:

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby FayeKane » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:55 am UTC

>> I do kind of wonder who would use steam locomotives when gravity manipulation exists, but hey, if the show hadn't been assassinated by the stupid people, I bet they'd plausibly explain that.

> there's an explanation. First of all, technology is expensive. Why would you want to build a rocket-train if a regular train runs just as well and is much cheaper?


Yeah, but the example can be permuted into inexpensive technology which is both vastly superior and missing (e.g. solar power, automatic weapons).

However: I am NOT one of those geeks who nitpicks sci fi because it doesn't provide a deus ex machina for every common plot element (e.g. "How come all the aliens on Trek speak English?"). I mean, when it comes to Lucas f*cking up star wars, mitochlorians were second only to Jar-Jar.

Nevertheless, I AM one of those geeks for whom logical inconsistencies (in any context) DO grab my attention. I can't help it.

> more expansive in its answering power, is that the Alliance doesn't let tech get out to the Rim worlds.


THAT is an example of an elegant explanation, my friend! (If one is even needed).

However I think that quick, brief explanations like yours are only required for egregious, obvious plot holes (like "why doesn't Scotty just beam the landing party back up?"). Failing to explain away real blatant oversights (and almost ANY excuse will do) creates a distraction because it's obvious the writers deliberately ignored something that the characters would immediately do, were the situation real. Sometimes I can just see Dorothy Fontana yell across the partition to Gene Coon "Hey, you think they'll notice that we're not just sending a shuttlecraft to the rescue?"

And they don't even need to go find Okuda and come up with something complex. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is ALWAYS an acceptable explanation!

I've just got this "thang" about the obvious being studiously and pointedly ignored.

Double Posting is Discouraged.

>> TV shows are written for a particular audience, and in the U.S. that audience is white males.


>So you're saying that since the people who run the media play into the sexist, racist narratives that white men are the only people worth caring about when they design things, we should just suck it up and not care?


No, I'm saying that, for example, just because one guy in 10 is gay, that doesn't mean that Roddenberry should have given in to the loud demands to introduce a homo Starfleet officer.

...Which, to his credit, he didn't. Instead, he magnificently dealt with the issue by creating a planet where sex itself is something to feel guilty about. Not only does that neatly sidestep everyone's biases and address the more general and important human issue ("what do you do if your sex feelings overwhelm you?"), but by putting it in that context (and using a female to play the androgynous character), it became MUCH more relevant to geeks (like me) who have struggled with that question their whole lives.

See, THAT'S the way to deal with these issues!

I remember when I was jes' a wee little girl, there was a cereal box with kid characters on it, and one of them was in a wheelchair (which was jazzed up like a racing car). I mean, WTF?? It's so distracting and unnecessary and silly! THAT'S the kind of forced, gratuitous "inclusiveness" that I hate to see sci fi contaminated with.

Another was when Clarke had one of his characters in the 80's have sex with another man for no reason whatsoever other than Clarke himself had just come out of the closet in a playboy interview (see my vehement discussion about this on Clarke's wikipedia talk page--it may have been archived).

Asimov never had to do that bull shit, and neither should contemporary sci-fi authors, even when writing for tee-vee shows.

-faye

PS
Are we allowed to cuss here? I lack the ability to detect when I'm being "inappropriate".



Curse all you fucking want but knock it of with the goddamn red text. Red Text Is Not For You.

User avatar
sunami
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:52 am UTC
Location: Arlington. The state of Northern Virginia.

Re: Firefly

Postby sunami » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:38 am UTC

FayeKane wrote:PS
Are we allowed to cuss here? I lack the ability to detect when I'm being "inappropriate".

Only if you mix it with wholesome words to confuse the censors.
"You heard it here first: all my software is shitty."

FayeKane
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:47 pm UTC
Location: Homeless and naked in a cave in Fairfax County, VA
Contact:

Re: Firefly

Postby FayeKane » Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:48 pm UTC

> Double Posting is Discouraged.


What is "double posting"? Did I accidentally post the some thing twice, or are we not supposed to post replies to two different messages consecutively?

If the latter, doesn't that make it difficult to reply to two different messages? For example, the following segue is abrupt:

> Red Is Not For You


Who is red for? Is brown okay? I prefer a color that contrasts with the background.

It's possible that you mean "don't use colored text" (which I do to help me find my own posts), but that contradicts the fact that you provide it. Is cilir to be used for one specific purpose? If so, what?

Perhaps you mean "don't use one color text for a quote and a different color text for the reply", but that both seems pointless and contradicts the fact that you provide text color choice. Is there a rule requiring us to use the [quote] tag instead of text color to indicate change-of-speaker?

Your use of capitalization suggests an unspoken sub-context going on of a type I am only dimly able to perceive (possibly anger manifest as sarcasm). Is this actually about text color, or am I about to get thrown off another forum without ever knowing why, even though I didn't use cuss words this time?

I don't know how Mister Data manages to live among humans, and I'm surprised he even tries to.

-- faye

Do Not Use Red Text Or Make Posts Entirely Of A Colored Text. It's Tremendously Annoying. The quote tags are not mandatory, they just make the most sense.

User avatar
jaap
Posts: 2094
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:06 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Firefly

Postby jaap » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:24 pm UTC

Faye, read the Forum Rules. It is all explained there.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Forum rules

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:35 pm UTC

Forumites here are pretty lax and easy going in their policies, but the mods are big on other people not using red text, as that's what they use to chide us and stuff.

You can use the QUOTE button in the lower right to grab highlighted text from other posters, even while you are posting, you can use the button. It avoids confusion about who exactly you are quoting.

Generally, I'd say if you are writing stuff under quoted text, it is assumed you are responding to the person quoted. If you are just writing text, you are either putting general thoughts out, or responding to the last poster.

Welcome to xkcd though.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Firefly

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:29 pm UTC

This is so totally not a welcome to the Echo Chamber Thread.

Back to Firefly, read the rules.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Firefly

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:44 pm UTC

Fate wrote:I'm so angry at Fox for canceling this show simply because we never learn of Books past. Or whats to come of Mal and Inara's relationship. If they were to start the show back up it would have to start with one of them waking up from a bad dream which is "the movie". You wouldnt be able to bring firefly back to life and have it work as well as it did without the original cast. But sadly, Wheadon said that there wouldn't be another season or another movie, but then the actors say there will be another movie or something, anything, at the Dragoncon events.



Books past, IMO, works well being a constant mystery. Part of what makes him an interesting character is that at any given moment, he might pull something extreme out of the blue (I've been shot! But no worry, just show my ID to this super alliance vessel), or demonstrate knowledge that we wouldn't expect a preacher to (They'll come at you sideways...). If you define his past, suddenly that mysterious, well traveled and knowledgeable stranger becomes a simple ex-agent, or ex-operative, or whatever.

I think Mal and Inara's relationship was pretty well cemented at the end of the movie. Whedon left pretty little room for anything but a romantic future for the two of them.

Spoiler:
Aside from Wash's death, I think the movie was excellent. I immediately conjured fantasies about the group raiding a Reaver base and somehow rescuing Wash (who has been turned to a Reaver, of course) with the power of love and family, but meh...
They could always do a series that focused on the events in between the shows conclusion and the start of the movie, as I'm under the impression that the scope of time from the series only encompassed a couple of months, half a year at best. But one of the comics explicitly focuses on that time period, so... I dunno, I want to see more, but there aren't a lot of options.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby natraj » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:15 pm UTC

FayeKane wrote:A bunch of bigoted wankery.


So, you're basically annoyed because those stupid uppity minorities want to be represented in media, too, and that interferes with your desire to just see able-bodied straight white people everywhere. Wow.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lotta talk here about Firefly

Postby Belial » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:18 pm UTC

natraj wrote:
FayeKane wrote:That show was damn near PERFECT. TV shows are written for a particular audience, and in the U.S. that audience is white males. Hey, I don't like it either, but they run everything (generally, into the ground).


WTF. So you're saying that since the people who run the media play into the sexist, racist narratives that white men are the only people worth caring about when they design things, we should just suck it up and not care?


I tried to read the rambling tripe that she wrote as justification for this comment. And as near as I can tell, the answer to your question is yes, she thinks that.

Now let's see if we can make someone's brain pop just by hating them really hard over the internet.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Alder
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:20 am UTC
Location: Scotland

Re: Firefly

Postby Alder » Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:45 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Spoiler:
Aside from Wash's death,
I think the movie was excellent.

I couldn't agree with you more... That annoyed me so much at the time. Of course, I now know that's what to expect from Whedon, but back when I watched the film I was young and innocent. Well, innocent. Well...
Plasma Man wrote:I might have to get rid of some of my breadbins.

Kulantan wrote:I feel a great disturbance in the Fora, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and then kinda trailed off to a grumble.

Gummy
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:29 pm UTC

XKCD finally convinced me to watch Serenity

Postby Gummy » Thu May 14, 2009 11:17 pm UTC

XKCD's The Race series finally convinced me to watch Serenity...
And I LOVE IT!!! saw the movie for the first time this week, and am now halfway through the Firefly series.

Also, I feel I'm dangerously close to developing the same creepy fascination/infatuation with Summer Glau that Randall seems to have.

I really like how they've blended Western and Sci-Fi so well. Yes, sci-fi have always largley featured elements of the western genre. but this is the best (and most blatant) I've seen- though I'm not a huge SF buff.
As the westerns featured a newly colonised America, Firefly features a newly colonised space, with the controlled, and civilised central planets, and the wild west of the outer planets beyond the reach of the law, but brimming with settlers, fortune seekers, miners, outlaws, gangsters, horses, smugglers, sheriffs and robbers, and of course the Savage 'Injuns' 'Reavers'. Thematically there are a lot of similarities to westerns too.

One thing I don't like though, but I see this a lot in Science fiction, is how they base an impression of an entire planet just on one town and a couple dozen denizens. It would be narrow minded to judge a whole country or state like that, let alone a whole planet. Imagine if aliens landed on earth, but in some backwater town in the sticks (which, apparently they do quite a lot if you listen to alleged abductees) or in some grotty crime ridden slum, or even in just a bad suburb of an otherwise nice city. What if the aliens took a quick look around that place, and thought 'well, this is earth? seems a bit sh!t, sod this for a laugh' and then just left. I don't know about you, but I'd be a bit miffed they didn't at least turn up somewhere else to see if it was any different. They'd miss out on all the cool places.
I'd just like to see more variety within each planet, different regions and climates. so far all I've seen is dusty frontier towns and similar countryside. which is appropriate to the western theme, yes, but it is still science fiction at heart. </rant>

ah, well maybe they'll fix that in the next series. (snort!)

User avatar
Jourdy289
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 4:31 pm UTC

Re: Firefly

Postby Jourdy289 » Fri May 15, 2009 1:08 pm UTC

Gummy wrote:XKCD's The Race series finally convinced me to watch Serenity...
And I LOVE IT!!! saw the movie for the first time this week, and am now halfway through the Firefly series.

Also, I feel I'm dangerously close to developing the same creepy fascination/infatuation with Summer Glau that Randall seems to have.

I really like how they've blended Western and Sci-Fi so well. Yes, sci-fi have always largley featured elements of the western genre. but this is the best (and most blatant) I've seen- though I'm not a huge SF buff.
As the westerns featured a newly colonised America, Firefly features a newly colonised space, with the controlled, and civilised central planets, and the wild west of the outer planets beyond the reach of the law, but brimming with settlers, fortune seekers, miners, outlaws, gangsters, horses, smugglers, sheriffs and robbers, and of course the Savage 'Injuns' 'Reavers'. Thematically there are a lot of similarities to westerns too.

One thing I don't like though, but I see this a lot in Science fiction, is how they base an impression of an entire planet just on one town and a couple dozen denizens. It would be narrow minded to judge a whole country or state like that, let alone a whole planet.
I'd just like to see more variety within each planet, different regions and climates. so far all I've seen is dusty frontier towns and similar countryside. which is appropriate to the western theme, yes, but it is still science fiction at heart. </rant>

ah, well maybe they'll fix that in the next series. (snort!)


Agreed!
Completely! This is what I wanted to say...
BTW, do you think we should have a snort tag, that knows when you finished reading, and snorts for you?
[snort]Snort here please[/snort]
Cut your clothes to fit your body, and not the other way around!
http://thestuffiread.blogspot.com -Book Blog http://www.travian.co.uk/?uc=uk5_48953 -Want to play Travian? Sign up here!


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests