General Discussions

Evil Firefly Haters

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 07:06
VIEWED: 55301
PAGE 8 of 20

Friday, December 26, 2003 9:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wz:
The reason I "walked away" from Firefly thinking it was supposed to invoke the memory of the Civil War is because Joss Whedon stated publicly that it was inspired by his (obviously scanty) reading about that war and the Reconstruction period that followed. He said it, I didn't. Your point about the American Revolution parallel is well taken, however the overall western motif of the show, along with Whedon's statements make it clear what period of US history he's referring to.



It's similar in that you have someone who believed heavily in the cause he was fighting for, yet his side lost and he's forced to deal with that. Focusing on things about the Civil War's events directly simply isn't applicable to this.

But really, none of that political stuff really matters, since we're talking about the story of a handful of people in a situation largely because of one guy's resentment of the Alliance. He thought he was on the right side, his side lost and he's in a place where he gets to deal with the ramifications of that loss all the time.

Saying you hate Firefly because the Southern states in the United States had slavery in the 1860s is just plain idiotic.

Yes, we all know that slavery is wrong. That's why the bad guys do it. You don't see the lead character supporting slavery, though, do you? In fact, he actually robs a person profitting from slavery in a bar and clearly states he did it because the person is profitting on slavery, then engages in a bar fight with them. So, your argument that everyone should hate Firefly because of a Western theme where the people in the actual West who were confederate soldiers might have approved of actual slavery is assanine. It's assanine because the Alliance itself supports the slavery whereas the central figure doesn't.

Quote:

Your statement that the various colonial planets on Firefly are more like the American colonies than the Confederacy makes sense to a point, but your suggestion that they want "localized sovreignty" sounds a lot more like the Confederacy than the 13 Colonies. The Colonies were struggling to CREATE a central government despite having little in common culturally and economically -Ben Franklin before the revolution suggested a "Grand Union" of the colonies, which failed to win enought support - while the Confederates were looking to DECREASE the power of the central government. There's your "localized sovereignty" - that's precisely what the Confederates wanted. Obviously no sci-fi show set in space, 500 years in the future is going to be an exact parallel to any period in American history and symbolism can be debated ad nauseum, but to deny what Firefly is about, while contradicting what its creator publicly said about it, is unsupportable.


Like I said, they were called "Independents", not "Confeds". Even the parallel with our Revolution and the formation of the Articles of Confederation doesn't really apply since there's really no indication that they wanted to toss away their autotonomy after the war in factor of a centralized government.

Quote:

I don't believe Tasha Yar was shown to have no ill effects from having lived on a planet where gang rape was the major pastime. I believe she was shown to be scarred by the experience - which should be compared to Kaylee's reaction.


You do know there's a difference between the two situations, don't you? A rather profound one. Tasha Yar spent years dealing with the threat of the rape gangs. Kaylee was merely threatenned and tied up. Tasha Yar's only sense of empowerment from the situation was nonconfrontational escape. Kaylee actually escaped her bonds and played a role in bringing Early down before he could really do anything to her. In fact, Kaylee had it a lot better than Mal, Simon, Inarra, and Book, who were actually physically beaten down by Early. In the case of Simon, he was shot.

So, you end up at the end seeing her playing jacks, being close to and bonding with the one person on the ship that helped her

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 3:31 PM

I can understand why someone might not like the show (perhaps with good reason), but I don't understand the compulsion to write essays based upon television shows that one does not enjoy.

I don't like Buffy, Angel, Andromeda, Enterprise, etc. However, I don't spend ANY amount of time thinking or writing about them. To each his own, I suppose.

On the Kaylee's rape thing... I might understand the dissaproval if she was actually raped, but I hardly think that a casual threat is inappropriate.

-------
Well, here I am.

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 3:31 PM

Double Post

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 4:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wz:
I know nobody is reading this thread anymore - or would care about this if they did - but the ratsalad response to Firefly fans is finally up, only two months after it was promised. It can be found under "Firefly Redux" at www.ratsalad.com.

Willie Zaza



Well, I do care. Thank you for your funny article.

About the "rape scene" in "Objects in Space", you wrote:

Quote:

From WZ's original Article:
Let's take that (threatened) rape scene for example. What's so bad about this scene? Actually it's not the scene itself, but the end of the episode in which the girl involved shows absolutely no ill effects from being recently threatened with a slow torturous death involving the most degrading possible form of personal humiliation.



First, Kaylee was fortunately able to do something about this threat and remove Early from the ship. This might have helped her getting over the fear.

Second, the Fact that she dit not show any ill effects to the outside does not mean she didn't have any. They may have been buried to be shown in either further episodes or the movie which we are going to see in possibly 2005.

Quote:

From WZ's original Article:
She is in fact, happily recounting one of her sexual encounters:

KAYLEE:
And his folks come by to fetch him, and it turns out he's, like, 14 years old. (Laughs) I mean, he must've been some kind of genetic experiment, 'cause, I swear this guy was, uh...(waggles eyebrows)



How about: ...this guy was... (exceptionally big for his age)?
Why do you think she references the size of his penis? This may very well be your dirty mind at work :-)


I write all of this because I cannot understand how you can not like this show. I love it and want that everybody likes it.

I'm not american, so I cannot really say if there is a trend in the US. to glorify the civil war aera. However, I do not believe that Firefly can win some people over to "the dark side" of people who believe that the federal system must be thrown out and slavery is a good idea.

This show was clearly not a parallel to the real american civil war era, and would it have been allowed to continue a bit longer, this would have been more obvious.

Well, you can see this for yourself when the show continues 2005.

Have a happy new year.

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stillshiny:
OK, let me start by saying, I am a born-again, more or less, conservative Christian. (If I'm breaking a rule or a taboo here, sorry) The only reason I say this is because "we" often get lumped in with folk like the "person" who posted that letter.

Now the reason this post drops right after the Fallwell comment is not intentional, but left me say, Fallwell was wrong.

I love Firefly. I love the action, I love the characters. I dig the lingo and the "Chinese swearing." One of my fav episodes is Our Mrs. Renyolds. My wife and I love that episode & all the others. No it's not a "family" show. Who ever said it was supposed to be. But it is a great show. In my opinion the best that was ever on TV. Sure, there are aspects that go beyond "family oriented", but it's not a "family show". If I have kids in my house we watch Veggie Tales, not Firefly.

I love the spiritual aspects of Firefly. They are some of the best spiritual truths presented on TV. I especially like the character Book. I appreciated the fact that he swore in "War Stories" I would have too. My Pastor says, "The most anointed men of God have feet of clay" My heart especially goes out to Mal. He is a man who has lost his faith. He is incomplete without it. A good portion of Firefly is about his redemption.

He says, "You're allowed on my boat, God ain't" Not because he doesn't believe in God, but because he feels God has let him down. A man who truly doesn't believe in God, can't feel hurt or let down by Him. You can't see this more than when you watch the 2 part pilot "Serenty" The whole split second of Mal kissing his cross, just floored me. His faith in God was strong, he wasn't kissin no good luck charm. He had faith.

There we're many Confederates that had a strong faith in God, and history reveals most of them we're of stronger spiritual character than a goodly portion of the Union. I would assume after they lost the war many of them too lost their faith in God.

And if we want to get into the idea of "idolizing criminals" By their revolt against an opressive England most of our "Founding Fathers" we're considered criminals.

What am I trying to say?

Firefly, should be kept flying because it is a "good" show. It teaches good principles, about "family, faith, honor, justice, real love, devotion, commitment & redemption" the list here could go on and on

as for our "friend the writer". get past the medium and recognize the message, or take Joss' advice and realize "It's just a TV show, morons" The choice is yours.

Keep flying!



Amen, brother StillShiny! I like the spiritual themes in Firefly as well; it's something of a relief to see a man of God (i.e. Book) who is portrayed in a fair, balanced, and sympathetic manner, not as a nutcase or a hypocrite (something that I have noticed turning up alot in science fiction, sadly.) Mal's rejection of God is another extremely interesting theme: he reminds me a lot of Jim Caviezel's recent portrayal of Edmond Dantes, AKA the Count of Monte Cristo. Edmond is bitter over what he sees as God's betrayal of him, and he's extra bitter about the fact that the God he no longer believes in won't seem to leave him alone to stew in his bitter juices. Very interesting. I commend Joss Whedon for putting these elements in his show; after all, he could have just gone the way of other secular, science fiction authors and portrayed yet another false, deranged, one-note, hypocritical 'Christian character'.

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

WZ
Friday, December 26, 2003 6:36 PM

I think I understand why Firefly fans can't seem to understand what I've written. Like most Americans, you (by that I mean Firefly fans in general, or at least those who have posted in this thread) have no sense of irony, consequently, you can't tell when I'm joking and when I'm not. Example: Anytime in my articles I mentioned male genitalia - those were not a serious part of the discussion. If you read the other articles on Ratsalad you will see that they are, on the whole, meant to be funny. I'm sure you won't find them funny, but the point is that you're taking much of it entirely too seriously.

You also don't read the articles very closely. I hate to repeat myself on this point yet again, but since you keep doing it I can't help but point it out. Example: I didn't think it was inappropriate to name a character after Jubal Early because it paid homage to a Confederate General, I was simply questioning the tastefulness of having that character played by a black actor. I couldn't possibly have made this more clear in the article, and yet you totally missed the point.

Also, because you lack the sense of irony you take everything I say totally at it's face value. Example: You seem to think I believe that Firefly will single-handedly bring about a return of the Confederacy and slavery. If you re-read the articles you will see that I simply said that the show was merely one example of an unfortunate tendency in this country to value individual freedom over the well being of others - which is manifested in the glorification of sociopaths like Jesse James, who were incapable of living within a civilized society. It will help your critique of my writing if you fully understand what I said. Just a tip.

As to the "not American" (I'm guessing European? Canadian perhaps?) guy who doesn't know or care about the American habit of glorifying the Confederacy, all I can say is, that's fine for you - being "not American" you very probably will not be dragged behind a truck until you are dead because you are different in some way from the owners of said truck. Things like that hardly ever happen in Western Europe (or Canada?), a place most Gone With the Wind (and Firefly) loving Americans see as some kind of hideous, socialist nightmare because they supposedly don't have the same degree of "freedom" we do here, i.e, the freedom to be made into wage slaves by the tiny cabal of capitalists who actually run the country - and who are the spiritual descendents of the Slave Power in the antebellum South.

Willie Zaza

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

WZ
Friday, December 26, 2003 7:19 PM

Dear Mr. Gaines,

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by being unjustly contemptuous of "people who forget things," but I would like to remind you that it was you who sent a long, rather condescending email in which you said my critique of Firefly was based on a misunderstanding of American history, but contained very little support for this accusation. Instead your email contained a lot of sophistry about the meaning of the show and mis-information about the book "The Killer Angels," which, as you said, was Joss Whedon's primary inspiration for Firefly. You claimed, in your email, to have made a "year-long" study of the subject of Firefly. I'm sorry for appearing contemptuous, but frankly I am. If there is only one book in the "canon" of Firefly which must be read in the course of "studying" the show, and you can't remember the name of it, or which characters did what in it, how can I feel otherwise when you feel perfectly free to email me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? I imagine anyone would be rather annoyed at that.

To be fair, I must also admit to having "forgotten something." I my re-reading of "The Killer Angels" for the Firefly Redux article, I realized that you were probably thinking of George Pickett when you described Jubal Early as being portrayed as "an idiot" in the novel and not J.E.B. Stuart as I suggested in the article (which was unfortunately posted before I could correct myself). In my own defense, I think this is a mistake of somewhat lesser degree as I cannot read your mind and know what you misremembered from "The Killer Angels." You on the other hand, could have picked up the book and read the character descriptions which appear in the prologue(!) before emailing me and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Also, I was simply writing a snotty article in my spare time for a humor website, not a year-long "study," which, judging by your reference to a "presentation" must have been done for work or school. The standards of documentation at your college/place of business must be remarkably low if you can submit a bibliography with a best-selling novel's name incorrectly listed - especially as it was, by your own admission, the basis of much of your argument. My contempt now encompasses whoever gave you a passing grade on your research project or whatever it was (assuming they did).

You say in your post: "memory is too often an implied sibling of knowledge." I suppose for someone who can't remember even the simplest (and yet most important) things, it's imperative to believe that. However, what use is knowledge if you can't remember it?? A collection of knowledge which your brain cannot readily access has no value. It is not knowledge, it's a disorganized filing cabinet. If you can't remember all the facts, how can you collate, organize and assess their meaning? Knowledge, plus the ability to evaluate it (including the facility of "memory" that you show so much contempt for) are both necessary to achieve wisdom, which is more important than knowledge. MY GOD, I just went on a PHILOSOPHICAL SEARCH FOR MEANING!! Maybe I'll submit a spec script to Mutant Enemy!




Willie Zaza

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 7:27 PM

Underneath all the irony and rhetoric is a valid point to be debated. It is true that American myth-making has always privileged rugged individualism over collective altruism. In SF television it is only the Star Trek franchise that has placed its belief in a Federation, a pan-galactic government. Most other cult favorites (Blake's 7, Farscape, Firefly) feature renegades up against Big Governments, which are of course not collectively altruistic but bordering on totalitarianism.

History has certainly shown us a correlation between being an "independent" and being a sociopath or a paranoid ethnic supremacist. It has also shown us a correlation between collectivism and totalitarianism. But one can also argue that without independents, good federal systems can be coopted by special interests, just as without a truly democratic federal system, those going it alone have nowhere to turn when in crisis. As a 60s liberal, I know the root of Willie's discomfort, although that doesn't stop me from loving Firefly as a work of fiction.

Firefly is a meditation on this question, and I believe that if it had run its whole course, we might have seen the Alliance less from Mal's embittered point of view. The true evil in the show is Blue Sun, which embodies free enterprise run amok to become totalitarian transgalactic capitalism, and free enterprise is, ironically, something Mal's gang and Blue Sun have in common.

By the way, I thought that having a black man named Jubal Early was its own ironic statement, that the true history of Earth that was had become so blurred and blended that a black mother liking the name wouldn't even remember why it was inappropriate. It also nicely symbolized the whole contradictory and out-of-whack psychosis of the character himself.

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

WZ
Friday, December 26, 2003 7:39 PM

Thanks for your post, Cardie. Nice to hear from someone who A. seems to understand, what I'm trying to say, and B. seems to know what they're talking about. Your's was the most well-written, bile-free and intelligent post I've seen on this thread (including my own). I especially liked your point about Jubal Early.

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 8:01 PM

I apologize if I appeared condescending in my letter; however you did seem to be making some inflammatory statements, and I felt that it was a good opportunity to continue a discussion.

I also thought that since I claim to have read the book, you might cut a little slack to those of us who forget relatively marginal information such as the spelling of book titles. I certainly remember a lot of other stuff about the book, but I have an unfortunate tendency of forgeting symbolically important information. I've read 700 page novels and then promptly forgotten the name of the protagonist.

By the way, my project was actually not done for school, strictly speaking. It was done for all Firefly fans. You can read about it at www.pbgaines.com/firefly/ I'm quite proud of it.

BTA,

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