Anyone else disappointed?
POSTED BY: sagrilarus
UPDATED: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:05
VIEWED: 41679
PAGE 14 of 14
Quote:
One last question, and this is a big one -- hundreds if not thousands of dedicated, rabid fans such as us (including some of the people reading this) saw this thing in previews months ago. Why did not one of you speak up in any way about this? Based on the word on the street, this film was all that and a bag of chips. The reviews were just obscenely good. Did not one person in any of these showings question the very different characters that were presented? How did I get hit with such a curveball without warning?
Sag.
Some people did say something but they were silenced by other people saying how much can you tell from a preview? Don't judge the movie until you see it in the theater. Some other people told themselves that too. And, some other people hoped that an additional preview would shed some light on the movie that would show that it isn't what they suspect from the two previews that were released. That third preview never came and then they saw the movie and thought, "Agh, I was right!"
Some people refused to be spoiled by spoilers but among those who wanted to know what was going on had to deal with some very vague accounts of what the movie was about. Word about the deaths of Wash and Book got out among this group and a lot of debate was generated about it.
One final word, anyone who saw the previews of the movie had to deal with an onslaught from people who didn't want any spoilers posted on the board, so I think a lot of people kept their mouths shut until after the general release of the movie.
Unfortunately, this board doesn't have a function where you can search for archived threads about a topic and threads are archived very quickly when a lot of people have new threads that they want to get out there, so it would be difficult to go back and look at these old threads.
"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
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
People say Mal was darker. I find this silly. Mal wasn't darker, he was angrier. Angrier does not equal darker; just angrier.
SigmaNunki:
Great job. I like reading your comments. Just one thing. I got the term of Mal being darker from a Nathan Fillion interview. You can check it out at:
http://www.greatlink.org/dcisV2.asp?url=http://www.greatlink.org/shown
ewsitem.asp?item=2158
or I cut and paste some of it here:
10 Nov 2004 Nathan Fillion on the dark side of Capt. Mal Reynolds in Firefly movie
Reported at TGL by Chris Howell at 00:31 BST
From Sci-Fi Wire:
Nathan Fillion—who stars in the upcoming SF movie Serenity, based on Fox's canceled series Firefly—told SCI FI Wire that his character, Capt. Mal Reynolds, will be a little darker than he was allowed to be in the TV show. "I think he's still on that same vein," Fillion said in an interview during a break in filming at Universal Studios in Los Angeles last August. "I think if anything, I think he's a little darker than he was before. I think he's a little more empty than he was before. He, too, has had the rug pulled out from under him a couple of times since we've known him in the series. And I also think that, because we're in a film, another difference versus television is we can be allowed to be darker. ... We don't have a ... TV producer saying, 'Make him more likable and funny.'"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whether you're disappointed or not, you guys have GOT TO read this synopsis of Serenity. It is ROTFLOL hi-larious. The funny thing about this "Serenity in 2000 words" is that it actually can appeal to both those who were disappointed and those who loved it. It makes fun of the movie, but in an affectionate way.
http://www.swartzer.com/writing/serenity2000.php
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Read my posts. And don't be such an ass.
Tough not to be an ass versus such a flawed argument.
Mal backed down from Simon? What, when he threatened to riddle him with holes after the sucker-punch? Or when he warned him not to give orders on his boat?
Maybe it'll take a stop to dictionary.com, but I'm fairly certain that doesn't qualify as 'backing down'.
Find a real reason to hate the movie.
"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh boy I simply used "ethics" to keep things simple and you have gone and built a mountain. Albeit a very well written mountain.
I love FIREFLY and I enjoyed the nihilistic values in it. But all I was saying was in response to Joss in the Telegraph interview who seems to believe that there is only the following chocies:
ALLIANCE
a strange alternative (he does not clarify "strange")
an archaic alternative
or a barbaric alternative
Joss can't seem to imagine an enlightened alternative to the ALLIANCE.
I was not implying anything about people being angels I love FIREFLY partly because they not after all they are thieves!!
But they are thieves with ethics on FIREFLY
MAL has a code even though he often pretends he has less ethics than he does.
Also in your real world references my own take is that Americans engaged in arguements along party lines is a joke. The Neo-Cons or at least their supporters who tend to be religious are mostly naive and uninformed beyond belief while the Kerry voting Clintonites are an even bigger obstacle to progressive change as they refuse to see the real problem (the empire) and their role in it. The issue is the American Empire not Rep or Dem. Kerry was going to send an additional 100,000 troops to Iraq. Even Bush isn't doing that. Hillary Clinton refuses to call for a withdrawal, she might as well run with Condi Rice not against her. On Foreign Policy they are identical.
In our own world right now there is an alternative happen and its called the Bolivarian
revolution...while the source my top down the realisation is very much grass roots and bottom up. What Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela is using the wealth and amenities of a state to provide the tools to poor people and poor countries to get the leg up they need so they can take charge here-on in. Where great poverty exists due to prior regimes the state is very much needed to play a role. In the Bolivarian revolution they have achieved a healthy balance
between the state and the grass roots. The state provides communities with what they need but it is local communities who run things and decisions are made in a democratic way within the community.
Plus the national government is also elected.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
"""
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.
I think we both agree it has a necessary reply. I just don't agree that punching back is the only believable reply.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
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?
Simon is not a brawler, so his first instinct is not to punch back (although if Mal had pressed with an attack either time, Simon may have tried, I don't know). The first time Mal hits him, Simon is confused and indignant, not looking for a fight. The second time Mal hits him, Simon doesn't even try to get up off the floor, let alone fight him. And if the man who just punched me was also the man who moments earlier was seriously threatening to throw me and my sister off the boat and into space, I wouldn't punch back either.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
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?
It doesn't. My understanding is that you cited Simon not doing anything to Jayne as an example of Simon as a pacifist. To which I replied that Simon's behavior in the series showed that he wasn't a pacifist, but that he did respond to Jayne's betryal -- just not with violence, which doesn't make him a pacifist, it just means he has options. In your post you wrote:
"Series Simon could've gotten him back in some way, but chose another route."
Looking at it now, it seems you meant "gotten him back" to mean something physical, and "another route" to mean the non-violent option.
I took "gotten him back" to mean all possible forms of retribution. I'll read more carefully next time.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
"""
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.
Never said it wouldn't. I'm arguing that Mal not punching Simon is in character. I'm not arguing that he wasn't grumpy. He looked pretty grumpy to me. (He also looked a bit confused for a moment. Hell, maybe the reason he didn't punch back is actually that simple. Maybe he was just thinking "What the hell was that? My doctor just hit me? Is he looking for a fight?" Confusion would certainly short-circuit an impulse response like "hit back". Sorry. Wandering here.)
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
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.
Without thinking or blinking? He hears a gun shot before he's dismounted, enough time passes for Dobson to grab River (and for Inara to come from her shuttle), and then Mal comes up the walkway, draws his gun and shoots Dobson. P
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here's the latest from jax6213jax6213:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:Quote:
Note that he discovered the series through seeing the film.
With any luck others will as well. In my opinion, people coming to the series from the film will be simply knocked out of their socks. The movie plays better with people who don't know the series.
Quote:
10-19-2005 9:33:00 PM
I went to see Serenity 2 weeks ago, and I purchased Firefly the Complete Series the day after, and now I must confess that I'm a complete addict.
I now have seen the movie 5 times, and have watched the TV series 4 times!
I'm getting too old to be addicted to things!!!!
---------------
"Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet."
-- Jack Handey
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME