Anyone else disappointed?

POSTED BY: sagrilarus
UPDATED: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:05
VIEWED: 41679
PAGE 8 of 14

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


u


Insert quote by Jayne here.

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

I for one was also disappointed.

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

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

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




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

Sag.

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

Sag,

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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