ZIPZINN

Friday, 09 March 2012 04:05

Most of this is just opinion so I'm not going to comment on it. My attitude is that the author is entitled to his own opinion. One thing I have to comment on is his section, "The Alliance is Evil." he references Bushwhacked and uses it to support his argument. My problem with this is that he clearly didn't watch the episode to closely because he grossly missed what actually happened.

He states that Mal intended to "hijak" and "claim" the derelict vessel. When did this happen? All he planned to do was lift some valuables from a ship on the drift.

Next he inimates that the vessel belonged to the alliance so they technically owned it. It was a civilian transport, not an alliance vessel so no they didn't.

He finally states that Mal told them to blow the derelict vessel up then got mad when they did it. This is clearly not true to anyone that actually watched this episode.

Mal is not mad that the Alliance blew the vessel up, he is mad that they didn't allow the crew of Serenity to keep the goods they had salvaged.

His misconception is evident in his misquote of Mal, the author showed it this way, '"Wouldn't want to leave without their profit. Wouldn't be civilized." Snarls Mal'

Okay, snarl... really?

The line is actually something like, "Couldn't let us profit, it wouldn't be civilized."

I would never bash anyone for having an opinion that is different from my own but I do have to say that I think many of the author's complaints spring from misconceptions like the one I pointed out here.

BYTEMITE

Friday, 09 March 2012 05:11

Got really long, but

1) this is holding the universe as too self-contained, when Joss is being meta. It's called leaning on the fourth wall, and intentionally done for humour purposes, for exactly the reason observed. It wasn't just a lapse in Whedon thinking like a 25th century man. Post-modernism. If you don't like post-modernism ine, but at least be able to recognize it when you talk about it.

2. You can't call it too simplistic and then say it's so complicated that heroes and villains seem arbitrary.

3. Ehhh... Yeah, okay. But that'll depend on whether a person likes those tonal shifts. Which I actually see as fairly realistic. even someone deep in mourning isn't going to be sad ALL the time for six months. They'll be cracking jokes.

BYTEMITE

Friday, 09 March 2012 05:13

I'd agree with zipzinn, author confused themselves and then lost sight of what actually happened in the episodes.

I think the author might be too literal-thinking, and may be missing a lot of the nuances.

CGRIT

Friday, 09 March 2012 07:49

Really, if you hate the series so much, why post an analysis on a fansite at all? Just go and watch something more to your taste. Actually, I liked all the so-called bad jokes, didn't think everything was cliché, and certainly did not conclude that all the Alliance people were baddies. To me it was quite clear they weren't, even though a few were. I agree with some others that the author doesn't remember the episodes very well but they still made some impact otherwise he couldn't have made such an analysis at all.

AMDOBELL

Friday, 09 March 2012 15:56

While the author of this 'essay' is entitled to their opinion it has no place being posted in the Blue Sun Room where Browncoats post fanfiction for the series and/or movie sequel Serenity. Apart from all the inaccuracies it just reveals someone who is jaded, opinionated and trying to influence the rest of us with that viewpoint. I am surprised and saddened it has been posted on our beloved website. Ali D
"You can't take the sky from me!"

PENQUIN11

Friday, 09 March 2012 18:33

Here we go! (Aka some things I noticed)

1. The Author criticized Joss's use of Dramatic Relief- which I believe is one of the more valuable aspects of the series. It also created some of the best episodes within the series (Jaynestown). Furthermore dramatic relief also is used frequently to have a euthanizing effect- aka making a situation that is too dark light enough to be understood.
If you want to see a successful series that did not use dramatic relief than look no farther than Battlestar Galactica- which became so dark at times that it often alienated its viewers or caused them to miss the wholesome meaning of an event- aka I bet you that only 3 people would have been able to guess that Starbuck was an angle- because she so frequently was involved in the perversion of innocence that it would be contrary to popular thought that she could be an angel based on how vividly her weaknesses were displayed.

2. The Alliance is not made to be totally idiotic- this theme of a double sided nature regarding the Alliance is created right from the pilot episode, in which a debate goes on at the dinner table regarding government commandeering of a ship- both sides of the debate draw legitimate support. Rather I think that it is more accurate to say that the Alliance is portrayed of being Niave in its conquest to improve people- this is supported by the ignorance of the Alliance officer that Mal Runs into during the episode Bushwacked as to the dangers on the Rim planets. Furthermore this officer is actually depicted as being a rather good guy- not being brutal towards the crew in questioning and being kind enough to release the crew at the end- whereby also taking there goods (see double nature above.) The Alliance is depicted as more of a obstruction than an actual threat throughout most of the series- as aside from the boarding during bushwacked and the corrupt 'police' in The Message most of the Crews problems are directly related to dealing with fellow bandits.

3. The Badass teenage girl; River Tam, actually is more of a bloonhead during the firefly season- excluding her killing of 3 men during war stories River is protrayed as a helpless victim who needs protection- and she also has some of the funniest lines in the darn show!
Now it has been well known for a while that Joss is a feminist- if you havent realized that by now then you need to have your brain examined.

4. Firefly isn't like starwars- which likely has one of the worst overall scripts you can find. Firefly possesses ENTIRELY Dynamic characters which evolve during the show- which would explain why they make decisions that would be contrary to what they believed in at he beginning of the series/show. This is partially how FOX murdered Firefly- in playing the episodes out of order the viewer could not adequately see the progression of the characters over time, this created a inconsistent environment around the show. However when the episodes are watched in proper order it is easy to track the progression and growth of each character.

5. On one final note I would like to say that your ENTIRE analysis of Mal is so far off that it actually discredits any useful insight you had. Mal is an ANTI-HERO and literally upon watching the pilot episode the viewer is supposed to disagree with many of his actions- which you would if you didnt try to look at the show as if it were The Adventures of Robin Hood (who is actually a shitty anti-hero by the way). As a matter of fact I would go so far to say that Joss challenges the viewers to have a distaste for Mal up until the moment that he talks to Simon about possibly remaining on the ship- or even latter depending on your understanding of the show.

M52NICKERSON

Friday, 09 March 2012 18:51

Okay, so you don’t like Firefly. That’s cool. You want to pick it apart, let’s see how you do…

“1: In one of the first episodes the pilot, Wash, is musing about River Tam having revealed herself to essentially be a telepath.

"I dunno. Telepathy. Kind of sounds like science fiction to me." He says.

"Dear, we live in a space ship." His wife replies.

"Oh yeah." He responds, raising an eyebrow.

This just annoys me and is the primary reason I dislike this show. Science fiction changes with each new generation and I would have hoped a fan of the genre would know this. This is like nowadays someone saying 'I dunno. Sounds like science fiction' and being rebutted by someone saying 'But we have toasters'. Yes, in earlier centuries that might have seemed like sci-fi and there is a point in there somewhere, but the real reason this statement was made is because being on a space ship will be associated with science fiction by the VIEWER.”

Two day Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is still considered Science Fiction. It is not a stretch to thing that members of the crew know that Science Fiction at one point in their history was often centered around space travel.

“However in one episode Shepherd Book begins a seemingly random conversation with Simon the doctor about an ancient Warlord named Sun Yu, and just before the titles of the episode another person with not immediate connection to the previous scene asks another guy if he's familiar with the same warlord. There's no reason for this other then so the audience can get the sense of a bridge.”

…and that bridge worked well. Not to mention that Book brought it up for a reason, it was not random.

“Characters are just too gorram clever for their own good or my enjoyment. Every line seems tailored to make the audience admire Joss then to tell a story as they reference things they wouldn't know, say things no one would say, or just outright make clichés just so they can break them. In one scene Mal is fighting a bad guy and Zoe stops the others from just shooting him by saying 'No. He has to do this on his own!'

When Mal screams 'No I don't!' Zoe replies 'Oh.' And the team opens fire.

Get it? Because is cheesy sci-fi usually characters say that line.

But it doesn't work at all. Zoe is too smart to say anything like this, Mal has nothing personal against the man he's fighting beyond his trying to kill him with a knife. There is no reason at all for this scene to exist except for a forced in joke that isn't all that funny.”

I would think that torturing a person would make it personal, so Zoe might have indeed thought Mal would want to finish that fight on his own.

“The Alliance is evil. No ambiguity. All Alliance personnel are either incompetent, corrupt, or both. In the first episode we're meant to cheer as Mal guns down an entire troop transport ship of Alliance soldiers and the first Alliance loyalist we meet is psychotic. Oddly for a show which claims to be based on the civil war there's no indication of Alliance and the Brown Coats having any common ground. Once you wear the steely gray costume of The Alliance you lose your soul. Conversely, if you're part of the Serenity crew you can do anything underhanded including murder but the show will forgive you. Mal claims have a code at one point, but over the course of the series he breaks it several times. It doesn't matter. He's the hero so whatever he does will be for the best intentions and have the best consequences. Even his failings and mistakes wind up being moral victories, which is odd as the show endlessly claims there is no true morality, just survival.”

Did he watch the same show? Mal gunned down a skiff, a fighter jet, not a troop transport. Plus they were in the middle of a war.

I would like to know how Dobson was psychotic. He did get nervous and shot Kaylee, he did beat Book, but of course he was trying to capture River and stay alive. He must have known that the crew would have little choice but kill him at some point or he could identify them.

For Mal and th

TWO

Friday, 09 March 2012 19:57

The essay praises Firefly. I pay most attention to the compliments. “Firefly was a constantly shifting rainbow of settings and ideas, all of which were given fervent and beautiful treatment.” and “You could count on Firefly episodes solidly bunkered in interpersonal relationships, questions of loyalty, and conflicting ideals: the best kind of television in my opinion.” But there was food for thought . . .

It looked cool to Joss Whedon and Tim Minear when the Alliance cruiser torpedoes the derelict ship at the end of Bushwhacked, but if Commander Harken was a real person, he would never spread debris in space. No real Commander is such a stupid ignoramus as to create a collision hazard for ships. Somebody should have persuaded Whedon and Minear that the episode cannot end with metal garbage flying in every direction. Even though it looks cool, it also makes the Alliance look like unbelievable idiots. Well, maybe that is what Whedon and Minear wanted us to know – the Alliance is run by evil clowns who accidentally won the Big War. That is an example of why the essay writer was pissed off at Whedon. Me, it doesn't bother. I love senseless explosions.

M52NICKERSON

Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:33

Space is big. I mean really rutting big. The derby from that ship would pose little threat.

Now leaving it for Reavers to use as a trap, that maybe dangerous.

TWO

Saturday, 10 March 2012 14:55

m52nickerson wrote: "Space is big. I mean really rutting big. The debris from that ship would pose little threat. Now leaving it for Reavers to use as a trap, that maybe dangerous."

Scriptwriter Tim Minear wanted you to imagine an ocean-going vessel that sinks when it is torpedoed. No one will ever see that derelict ship again, except James Cameron looking for Titanic. But in outer space, there is no bottom and exploding spaceships, and all the pieces, keep orbiting. But if you want to use the rationalization “Space is big” then Commander Harken was not an idiot for using torpedoes. Harken must love big explosions as much as I do!

EBFIDDLER

Sunday, 11 March 2012 02:44

Two, thanks for finding and posting this interesting essay. While I certainly don’t agree with the author – well, in a lot of ways – he does make some interesting points, and brings up some elements worth discussing.

As Jarredspekter points out, Firefly has some very good aspects, and I agree with much of the “what works” section of the essay. These are some of the things that drew us to Firefly in the first place. Great characters. Interesting premise. Great overall production. Yes, indeed. I’d go farther and say the characters are fantastic. Most TV shows that I’ve watched just don’t have characters with this kind of depth, or if they do, it’s limited to a couple of central characters, and the supporting characters are rather flat. Many shows focus on their leads, with the supporting characters found mainly in scenes with the leads, acting as foils to the leads. In Firefly, any one or any selection of the characters can carry a scene, because they are *all* interesting. Even the most straightforward characters (Jayne and Kaylee) have more to them than meets the eye, while characters like Mal and River have labyrinthine complexity, and Inara and Book have layers upon layers of secrets.

“Too self-referential”
Firefly is its own universe, with its own history, customs, politics…these things may look familiar, but they’re not just a carbon copy of our current world. I like the self-referential aspects that give consistency to the history and culture conceived of as the background to Firefly.

“Too simplistic.” Jarredspekter says: “Despite its pretense at shades of moral gray…villains and heroes seem arbitrary.”
I think J.s. is missing the point entirely. This show is not about black and white. It’s *all* about grey. Mal’s not the perfect hero. But he’s not a villain, either. He’s a complicated and conflicted human being; he sometimes acts noble, he sometimes screws up. In my opinion, this is even better than a clear-cut “hero” or villain. It’s the greyness that appeals. My least favorite villain on Firefly is Niska, and it’s simply because he is so clearly bad. Badger, on the other hand, is complicated; so is Saffron.

“Wild tonal shifts”
Firefly is all about those tonal shifts. Somebody finds the comic aspect that keeps a completely serious situation from becoming overburdened. I dunno why J.s. finds that unpleasant. I like that. It’s those shows that carry on with taking themselves way too seriously for far too long that bother me. I like it that Firefly is not all about darkness, all the time. Because humor is a way that human beings cope with serious, difficult, stressful situations.

“Telepathy. Kind of sounds like science fiction to me…Dear, we live on a spaceship.”
J.s. objected to this kind of joke. I laughed at this joke, but it also bugged me. I thought it was an out-of-character remark for Zoe to make. It struck me as something the writers would find funny, rather than something the characters would say. But unlike J.s., I don’t think this is typical Firefly humor. I’d be hard-pressed to find another example like it.

“Book begins a random conversation with Simon about Shan Yu.”
This conversation was far from random. Book seldom said anything randomly. Book’s conversation was specifically directed. I didn’t find it to be simply a contrived bridge. There was a point.

“This is something the Captain has to do for himself….No I don’t.”
J.s. objected to this, but I found that one hilarious. And typical Firefly humor. Too bad J.s. was in too sour a mood by this point to appreciate it.

“Alliance is evil….Incompetent, corrupt or both.”
Where’s he getting this from? Did we watch the same show? In the pilot episode Serenity, we see the Captain of the Dortmunder and his ensign discovering an illegal salvage operation, making an attempt to stop the illegal activity, but dropping it in favor of answering a distress call. How is this corrupt? How is this incompetent? How is this evil? These Alliance people are clearly depicted as being okay. They’re only

TWO

Monday, 12 March 2012 12:26

In Austin this weekend, Joss said he dislikes revision, a sentiment he shares with Dickens. Only geniuses can get away with little revising.
http://flavorwire.com/268267/12-things-we-learned-from-joss-whedons-sxsw-talk
How Joss writes: “I dislike revision, and I’ll tell you why: that’s more work. I didn’t write a lot of first drafts, even in school. And that was—for you young people nowadays—before we had the computer. So when you’re writing what is your final draft, and you’re typing it on your crappy little manual typewriter, you have to try to get it right. So I think out of my further laziness, I developed a system where I don’t write anything down until I’m sure about it. And in terms of writing fiction, that’s even more fun, because what I get to do is walk around the room and act it all out.” [Charles Dickens acted out, too.]

Joss wrote Cabin in the Woods with director Drew Goddard in three days: “I’m always nervous telling people that,” Whedon admits, “because it’s a great story if you’re a writer, but if you’re an audience member, it’s like, ‘That’s how hard you worked?’ I’d had the idea sometime before, and the idea just fell together—and it came with a third act, which has happened to me twice in my life. And when that happens, you know that’s something you have to write, and it’s also something where can also do the writer’s dream: where you lock yourself in a hotel room and just write it.” They did some prep in advance, and punch-up afterwards, but “we did the bulk of it over three days, and turned out 15 pages a day, each, minimum. I wrote 26 pages in one day, which is a personal best, I think… And what we wrote there is exactly what we shot.”