Firefly politically incorrect?
POSTED BY: Bugboy
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2004 18:06
VIEWED: 15813
PAGE 3 of 6
Personally I like the fact that Firefly does not present its characters or the situations they find themselves in as black and white. I find shows that try to force its characters into the molds of "white hats" or "black hats" to be unrealistic.
Life in general is not black and white, and the various gray areas make for interesting and entertaining TV. Gray areas are more realistic and give the characters and the universe they dwell in more depth.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:...people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv viewer.
I think you´re correct about this one. People want to see something "stable". The do not want to see the main charachters of a TV series shoot an old friend dead when they could have avoided it.
Also, I find it remarkable how funny the violence is portrayed, even the torture-scenes in "War Stories" made me laugh. I couldn´t help it. It is very possible that people are turned off by this. Not me, though :-).
However, I do not think that Firefly should be taken so seriously. It is very much a comedy, some of the dialogues could be from a movie parody on "Mad Magazine".
That one does buy some of the stories and is actually touched by them shows how great the actors are.
Since I got that Box-Set last weekend, I´m hooked to the show. Let´s all hope that the movie or new TV-Show or whatever gets made soon, because I´m already sad that I do not get to see more of the Serenity for a while.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I want to apologize to everyone for posting my last respones multiple times.
I experienced some weirdness there and did not realize it.
I am very sorry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
2 cents:
While it's all well and good to bad mouth organized religion, I don't think Book's conflict is simply one of obedience to an abstract code. He says he "swore" to protect the marshal's life. Decent people do not take their oaths lightly, nor do they abandon them without serious doubt and inner conflict. It is not an abstract code he serves, but his own concrete personal integrity. It has to do with loyalty which is a human value that transcends religion or ethics--predates them, if you will. It's "in" us. How would you feel if you saw a decent person fullfilling his duty gunned down in cold blood? I believe Mal's action disturbs Book's humanity first, and his religiosity by the way.
This is a very good point.
I was not in any way, shape or form trying to bad mouth any religion. I generally don't do that, unless your religion says its okay to kill me. Only then, do I got problems with that religion.
His own personal sense of honor, however that is a good point. But it is also important to realize that the realize that the reason he could not fulfill his duty, was Dobson beat the snot out of him. A preacher.
Dobson was not a decent person, nor particularly bright. Beating up on a preacher, who, even though he smacked you in the jaw, did keep you from being spaced right then and there, is not what I would consider the mark of a decent person.
Nor is shooting an unarmed, and very cute, female mechanic in a moment of panic.
Telling the captain that he was as guilty as the fugitives, before backup had arrived, was not bright. It was a severe tactical mistake. And one that ultimately cost him not only his mission, but his life.
I also think that Dobson's actions disturbed Books sense of humanity far more than Mal's. At the end of the day, one has to realize that Dobson brought his death on himself, first by threatening the captain, shooting a member of his crew for no reason except panic, and holding a gun to his passenger's head. While Book could not keep his vow, and I am sure that is troubling, Dobson's actions I think are far more troubling. Even more so, since it is apparent that Dobson had the weight of the law behind him.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Life in general is not black and white, and the various gray areas make for interesting and entertaining TV. Gray areas are more realistic and give the characters and the universe they dwell in more depth.
Well, can we agree to disagree?
I do think that the universe is black and white. What a lot of folks see as grey, I don't get. But then I find a lot of folks don't get me either.
It boils down to a simple question. Do you live or die? You pick the actions that will keep you alive, at a price you are willing to live with. Part of that is you have to expect that other people have thier lives, and wants and desires, and try to find mutually accomadating resolutions to areas of conflict.
But sometimes, you run into situations where there is no mutual compatible solution. He wants you dead, you want to stay alive. Don't think offering a coma is gonna work. Then the choice is to fight, run, or die.
In Firefly, there is a definite conflict between the law, and being able for our favorite crew's ability to live. Something's gotta give, and that is the world they, and sometimes we, live in.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One other thing. I don't see morality as just an "abstract code" If anything morality is where the rubber meets the road in philosophy. The rules themselves may be abstractions of numerous events, situations, etc. ("No touching guns!") but it has a profound real world effect. Ask Dobson.
There is this guy named Popper who divided the world up into two catagories. You had real things, like rocks, trees, people, etc. and you also had ideas, like philosophy, morality, laws, governments etc. The first group is called "objective", and the second "subjective".
The demarkation is whether the thing can, or cannot exist without a mind. Rocks have existed long before people, or even plants. And I can show you that rock over there, which indicates that it needs no particular mind in order to exist.
The thing about subjective items is that your mind is not accessible to me, nor really any one else. You can tell me about your dreams, memories etc. But I have no way of independently verifying nor refuting what you tell me. I can't look inside your skull. It is not open to just anyone.
Between those two large catagories are things like law, language, mathematics and inventions. These are ideas made real, or more real than a dream is, real in a very different fashion. And they are accessible to minds, (and in some cases, like legal systems and political or religious institutions, only minds) but accessible to more minds than say dreams are.
Its all tied together. Even an abstract subjective imaginary moral code has concrete objective real consequences, and in the final analysis, it is those concrete objective real consequences that determine whether your abstract code works, or not. The real world is what determines whether your mental constructs and whatnots are true, false, healthy or unhealthy.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is getting way too deep for me, Browncoat1 has expressed all that I was trying to get across. That there are such nuances of right and wrong in Firefly is what makes me like it so much, and what I feel makes it unique.
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Personally I like the fact that Firefly does not present its characters or the situations ...
Legal prostitution? Drakon how does that fit into your black and white view of this reality? (in 20 words or less please) How many scenes deal with the conflict Inara and Mal feel within themselves about her profession.
I'm simply saying that to me the majority of people in the US don't like complicated issues like this in their entertainment and that may explain the network's lackluster support of it.
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak!" - Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
Legal prostitution? Drakon how does that fit into your black and white view of this reality? (in 20 words or less please) How many scenes deal with the conflict Inara and Mal feel within themselves about her profession.
20 words or less? Well, two people having sex, whether its for money, prestege, or dinner, I ain't got a problem with. Its their business, not mine.
But then I don't connect sex with love, the way a lot of folks do.
and I think I am at the end of my word count.Quote:
I'm simply saying that to me the majority of people in the US don't like complicated issues like this in their entertainment and that may explain the network's lackluster support of it.
I will partially agree, that American audiences don't like a lot of complexity in their entertainment. They do like the happy endings and rooting for the good guys. The good guys have to be good, if not legal or respectable. (In fact I think that most Americans like the rascal good guy far better than the straight arrow)
But I think the network's lack of support was more, they simply did not get it. I think it had more to do with starships and horses than morality. Heck prostitution being something that would keep Fox from picking up a show? Get real
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually the way you describe Firefly it would be Politically Correct. Bush's comment was Politically Incorrect. Firefly would be viewed as being very much in tune with today's politically correct morale relativism. So I don’t think that it is Firefly’s morale relative stance that makes it out of phase with the networks, but it may make it hard to stomach for much of Heartland USA. Although I think you’re correct in saying that people seem to prefer simpler themes in their TV shows, and maybe Firefly was just a little TOO politically correct.
Originally posted by Bugboy:
In this day and age when the establishment is painting the world in shades of black and white, as so un-inspiringly offered by our president's "you're either with us or against us" statement, I can't help but wonder if Firefly's portrayal of the infinite shades of gray that is the real world's rights and wrongs isn't rubbing some people the wrong way. That could explain the lack of interest from the networks, as people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually the way you describe Firefly it would be Politically Correct. Bush's comment was Politically Incorrect. Firefly would be viewed as being very much in tune with today's politically correct morale relativism. So I don’t think that it is Firefly’s morale relative stance that makes it out of phase with the networks, but it may make it hard to stomach for much of Heartland USA. Although I think you’re correct in saying that people seem to prefer simpler themes in their TV shows, and maybe Firefly was just a little TOO politically correct.
Not so sure I would agree. I can see why you would say that based on superficial issues with the show, but I think underneath it, there is something else altogether going on.
Heinlein had it right, there are two kinds of people on this planet. Those that think mankind should be ruled, and those that want to be left alone. Even Marxism, which talks a good bit about the power of the proletariat, is really just a throwback to feudalism. Instead of kings, you got commisars. Instead of an aristocracy, you have "the party". The rhetoric is different, but the structure is the same, just with different players.
Whether its a right wing dictatorship, a left wing dictatorship, or even a dorsal fin dictatorship, it don't matter. What it says does not matter either. Either you make your own decisions, or someone else makes them for you.
Mal works for himself, outside of the authority of the Alliance. He is his own man, and not property of the state, nor anyone wearing a red sash. In this day and age, this appears to be far more politically incorrect, than any superficial things like "multicultural" chinese swearing.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME