Anyone else disappointed?
POSTED BY: sagrilarus
UPDATED: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:05
VIEWED: 41679
PAGE 13 of 14
Just one more thing, on the River ninja action. First off, I loved it. It was a beautifully shot mesmerizing scene. A Clockwork Orange mixture of dance and violence. But as to the topic at hand, who didn't see this coming? The series was clearly heading in that direction. They were already calling her "assassin" by the end. I have no problem with her being able to dodge bullets. "She did it with math."
But not to expect a 90lb. waif ninja from Joss, is like not expecting the innocent to die in the last episode.
"Pain is scary."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You misread (as most seem to do on this site)
I was saying that BUFFY does not conform to
the laws of physics BUFFY is mystical where
as River is a product of science albeit evil
science.
On Civilization the term needs defining.
If one is reading "Civilization" to mean a
heavy controlled concentration of power and
population then say I agree with both your
interpretation and Joss's sentiment "who needs
it!?" But if one defines "Civilization" as
a caring and civil society of social empathy
and laws or ethics that protect all from
harmful intent then that is a different
entirely.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was assuming civilization to be used in the way the romans used it to differentiate themselves from the barbarians.
The barbarians were not technologically inferior.
If the issue is ethics, than ethics are enforced by a govt. through a unilateral display of power. I know this idea is repulsive to some people, the whole concept of top-down society is repulsive to me. But it's also true. Firefly outter planets life is devoid of ethical values. Did anyone miss this not too subtle detail?
But civilization in the roman sense was really about order. The barbarian's social order was freaking chaos. It's pretty clear that Joss would rather live with the barbarians than with the romans, and so would most of the fans, that's why the show has it's anti-civilized bias.
But anyway, that was the sense in which i was interpreting the word; not trying to pull a monopoly on interpretations of the word.
Of course the sexiness was foregone conclusion. For Joss I suspect killing lots of people with an axe is foreplay. Not a sign of sickness, a sign of actual maleness. Unlike the eunichs who seem to write most tv programming.
:)
I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Okay, I'm gonna try my hand at this kooky argument. Have any of you arguing these points every thrown a punch? It is just about the stupidest way to make your point. Some people would say it was childish in the extreme and very low class, know what I mean? That's why Simon wouldn't punch Mal, because it is totally beneath him and pointless. It's something semi-trained apes do to prove who's the biggest ape. Simon was just a little bit like a real person, with certain limitations of character and personality before he got injected with rowdy-pop-corn-movie DNA in Serenity.
Yes, punching someone is stupid and pointless, and possibly even low class (although I think it is brawling, not punching, that is low class -- boxing was a sport learned by the upper class).
That doesn't mean upper class people don't do it. (In "Shindig" we even see that the upper class have a protocol for when it happens: it's treated as a challenge for a duel.)
Simon almost lost the person he has sacrificed everything for because of the captain's decision. By this point I'd argue the idea of doing something "beneath him" isn't a concern. He was angry but restrained before the job (although angry enough to get in Mal's face). Now his sister has been attacked by Reavers, and been part of a crash landing into the cargo bay. That makes the angry man angrier, and I have no doubt that Simon, high class or not, would be willing to toss off a punch as a result of that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
At the risk of having a hit called out on me, I'll keep the details of my opinions quiet. But I was very disappointed with the movie. With any luck, I am the only one. No one else here seems to be expressing that feeling. Just thought I'd toss it out and see if I'm alone or not.
The only thing that I found disappointing was the special effects during the crash landing sequence. I felt that the effects were a bit more towards the TV quality end of the special effects spectrum than the motion picture quality end. Other than that, it was pretty
!"I'll be in my bunk." - Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes I agree but as said on an earlier post:
Why is it too much to ask of Joss that there
be a planet who represent a progressive society
a philosophy of living that is anti-Alliance
not "strange, archaic or even barbaric" to
quote Joss from the Telegraph interview. Why
can't their be at least one planet where the
ethics of the society are worth fighting for?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry for the long post. It's amazing on how much can happen in under 24 hrs.
@Sneaker98:
Read my posts. And don't be such an ass.
@Teraph:
"""
None of them were in a fighting mood. They were in a run away/try and stay alive mood.
"""
I'll give you that. But, when one is rather charged up from getting almost killed and rather on the edge from one of those nasty things almost killing you, having a punch thrown at you and landing has a necessary reply. Mal didn't do it.
"""
Simon would never hit Mal?
... blah blah blah ...
"""
Simon did those things when it involved River and no-one else.
So, if he was so inclined to hit Mal, riddle me this. How come when Mal hit him in Serenity (ep not movie), why didn't Simon even move to hit Mal or really show any real anger/willingness to hit Mal back?
"""
And the revelation of Jayne selling them out?
... snip ...
"""
I'm talking about physical realization of revenge/retribution because that is the context we are talking it. Tell me, how does this fit into such a context?
"""
Mal hits Simon twice. Once when he thinks Simon is an Alliance mole who has sold out his ship and crew, and once when Simon insults Mal's integrity and honor by suggesting that Mal cowardly serves the beck and call of the Alliance (moments after Mal has just threatened to toss Simon out an airlock if Kaylee -- part of his crew -- dies). In the second one Mal was already pissed and feeling violent toward Simon.
"""
Then tell me how being on a mission and almost killed doesn't make one grumpy.
"""
The fed mole who had a gun to someone's head? The fed mole whose armed presence in the cargo bay was a direct obstacle to getting off Whitefall before the Reavers attacked and killed them all? That fed mole?
He shot Dobson to save himself, his his crew and his ship. I'd say those circumstances were significantly more severe than being sucker punched once by the ship's doctor.
"""
My point is (since you missed that part) that he killed him without even blinking or thinking about it. It kind of tells of a certain mentality when they had to get off world quickly. Tell me, how does Reavers around make this not the case. Getting off world quickly that is.
"""
We must have different definitions of quick.
"""
This is my definition, what's yours:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quick
"""
Done or occurring immediately
"""
"""
And I find all of it to be consistent behavior that flows from their characters and their circumstances. Even things I didn't like (e.g., Kaylee being so much less cheerful) made perfect sense to me given their circumstances.
"""
And what exactly were there circumstances? The same things that we saw them deal with in the series (aside from later on, but we aren't really discussing that part of the movie right now). So, different reactions, same circumstances.
Could it be that they are different characters? \begin{dripping sarcasm}No, it couldn't be, that'd just down right make sense. Must be something else.\end{dripping sarcasm}
@Ferrex:
"""
Maybe some of you are wearing purple under yours. Us Browncoats don't leave none behind, and that includes Joss and Serenity.
"""
It's think kind of "yes men" mentality that makes things go south in the first place. It has no place in the Browcoat world. I'll think and say as I like and not have anyone define what I can or cannot say. Such a thing is rather Alliance ways of thinking. Valid criticism is valid criticism. And when someone deviates from the established, I'll call them on it, period.
Everyone keeps saying that Joss had to do change things to let people in on what the show was about, etc, etc, etc. Well he did it rather effectively in the Train Job and wrote that in literally a weekend. So, what's his excuse for having to change things now? Fact of the matter is that he could've written another one like the Train Job (techniques for explaining things and such) and just changed what th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Why is it too much to ask of Joss that there be ... where the ethics of the society are worth fighting for?
Okay. Because this is opposed to the whole concept of the show. I write short stories, well I try. And here's the thing:
A story has a message.
I as a writer have many beliefs, many of them political, moral, social, ethical. Maybe the truth that the story has the opportunity to expose is in line with one of those. Maybe it isn't. Perhaps the story exposes a truth which is in violation of my own personal political beliefs. But it's the story's message that matters.
Does this sound absurd. Well, it's not. You get used to it.
One of my political beliefs is I'm anti-war. I'm anti this war, in Iraq, but I'm anti-war in general. I have lots of problems with war, on many levels. I think it's a human right disaster, and ecological disaster and a diplomatic disaster, and basically a bad way to settle political differences.
Either you agree with that position or you don't.
Now these are our beliefs, as they currently stand.
However, I may be writing a story, and maybe the message thta the story seems to want to tell is "Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in."
Objectively, should that happen, which it undoubtedly will now that I've said it, I have several choices.
I can
1) Try to follow the path and tell them message that does not mesh with my own personal beliefs.
2) remove that message and transplant a pre-conceived peace message from my own political philosophy.
3) While I'm at it attach my personal position on the importance of environmental conservation even if it doesn't seem to fit.
Now if I choose option 2 or 3, I'm just not a very good writer. If I choose option one, there may still be places where I can innovate. I could innovate in a boring way by showing the audience for a 219th time "War is hell" or maybe I can find more subtle ways to not undermine the story's message, but perhaps clarify a view points of contention that I have, such as whether or not carpet bombing of civillian populations is an effective combat tactic for someone who wants to win on and idealogical level.
As you can see, when you let go of what you hold dear, and are willing to write something that objectively may support the other side, you have actually opened up a whole new world of opportunities. In time I might even convince my self that some of my current ideas about war always being a bad idea are wrong. I'm not predicting that this would be the case, but everything is possible.
As for firefly, specifically, it's not about the perfect ethical society where men are angels. It's not about effective government control of the populous.
Firefly is very very clearly a western, a frontier story, a story about a new frontier, a chance for society to start over completely free from the shackles of old oppressive government, and the eternal struggle of old oppressive government trying to prevent that from taking place.
It's a story that is civil libertarian in nature. Does this make Joss a civil libertarian? No, it doesn't. I suspect he has strong leanings in that direction because a similar theme was also present in buffy.
Also, I want to try to put a lid on what I think is a misconception. Ethics are concerns of an ordered society. Perfect utopian govt. worries about ethics. Ethics are not a major concern of civil libertarian society which is more concerned directly with freedom and rights, rather than preventing people from doing what others might perceive as morally wrong. This latter is what big govt. does.
Finally, there is an obvious point about ethics which is pertinent right now. It's a safe bet that firefly fans include Democrats and Republicans in equal numbers, and a fair number of independents. So please no one take this as a slight against Republicans or Democrats, I have nothing against the voters, or their elected officials. I do have a gripe with certain heads, and specifically, to give equal time here, Bush and Clinton both deserve this. Whi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I walked out after second viewing. I just didn't feel like sticking it out until the end and I only bought the tickets in the hope that there will be sequels so that I can see the end of the story.
My problems with the movie vs. the tv show have been mentioned often in other peoples' posts. They have to do with changing the characters' personalities and thereby changing the chemistry of the characters as they interact with one another. I am not going to forgive Joss any time soon for killing Book and Wash and their deaths will loop back into changing the way the characters interact with one another by removing the contributions that they make to the Serenity crew. For example, Kaylee is alone to bring levity to the crew because Wash isn't there to bring his goofiness to them. Wash's death also points to another element that I miss, which is the humor in the series. The movie just didn't seem to have enough of it for me to offset the all of the serious drama and intense action sequences that seemed to drive the movie and made me feel like I was on a roller coaster and not kicking back on the couch enjoying the dialog.
Some other random things that aren't going to draw me in. I know that the writers on the show were bringing Simon and Kaylee together but I don't see them together as a successful couple and because of that I'm not going to invest a lot of my emotional energy into that relationship. Even though Wash and Zoe are opposites, there was a comfort and respect in their relationship that was intriguing to watch. With Kaylee and Simon, I keep on seeing them fail to connect. There are a lot of examples in the tv show but think about in the movie when they were hunkered down to fight the reavers and Simon said that his biggest regret was not being with Kaylee during the past eight months. I got the feeling that Simon was talking about being with Kaylee in more than a physical way but Kaylee didn't seem to get it and was just hyped that she was getting laid by the fair doctor. I think Sean did a good job of making Simon look momentarily confused by Kaylee's response.
But anyway, I babble.
"You can keep a dog; but it is the cat who keeps people, because cats find humans useful domestic animals."--George Mikes
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I walked out during my second and third viewing. I just didn't feel like sticking it out until the end of the movie and I only bought the tickets in the hope that there will be sequels so that I can see the end of the story.
My problems with the movie vs. the tv show have been mentioned often in other peoples' posts. They have to do with changing the characters' personalities and thereby changing the chemistry of the characters as they interact with one another. I am not going to forgive Joss any time soon for killing Book and Wash and their deaths will loop back into changing the way the characters interact with one another by removing the contributions that they make to the Serenity crew. For example, Kaylee is alone to bring levity to the crew because Wash isn't there to bring his goofiness to them. Wash's death also points to another element that I miss, which is the humor in the series. The movie just didn't seem to have enough of it for me to offset the all of the serious drama and intense action sequences that seemed to drive the movie and made me feel like I was on a roller coaster and not kicking back on the couch enjoying the dialog.
Some other random things that aren't going to draw me in. I know that the writers on the show were bringing Simon and Kaylee together but I don't see them together as a successful couple and because of that I'm not going to invest a lot of my emotional energy into that relationship. Even though Wash and Zoe are opposites, there was a comfort and respect in their relationship that was intriguing to watch. With Kaylee and Simon, I keep on seeing them fail to connect. There are a lot of examples in the tv show but think about in the movie when they were hunkered down to fight the reavers and Simon said that his biggest regret was not being with Kaylee during the past eight months. I got the feeling that Simon was talking about being with Kaylee in more than a physical way but Kaylee didn't seem to get it and was just hyped that she was getting laid by the fair doctor. I think Sean did a good job of making Simon look momentarily confused by Kaylee's response.
But anyway, I babble.
"You can keep a dog; but it is the cat who keeps people, because cats find humans useful domestic animals."--George Mikes
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME