Only the characters are saving this show
POSTED BY: UFO
UPDATED: Saturday, November 9, 2002 02:05
VIEWED: 13407
PAGE 2 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.
I don't mean to be bitchy here, just stating facts.
I agree absolutely.
I have a friend who isn't exactly crazy about the westerny aspect who nonetheless is so enchanted by the characters she basically doesn't care. I was with a group of friends Sat. and we watched several episodes, and the consensus was that you could take these characters and drop them into pretty much any similar setting and they'd still be interesting - because it's all about the characters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those who wish to see the more developed urban areas of the Firefly universe are 1) missing the point and 2) going to have to support the show if they ever want to see things happen on it!
Even before Out of Gas mentioned it EXPLICITLY, Mal sails the edge of civilization because its the only way he feels that he can live under an unjust government. He's there so that he can be free. For practical and personal reasons, Serenity never ventures into the more populated areas of human civilization. Now that doesn't mean the show won't ever go there, not by any means! But it does mean that the continuing plotlines and major themes will have to develop to the point that this can happen. Because Mal won't EVER casually wander into space that is under the rule of the government he fought against.
It's like asking Rhett Butler to make his living sailing between Boston and New York.
(The accuracy of this analogy frightens even me!)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually I'm kind of thinking the same thing about your comments.
Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
I don't think you're looking at it deeply enough.
Contrary to popular belief the "Western" is a show about the late 19th century American West. Just because a show has guns and an aesthetically Western appearance doesn't make it a Western. Any western-isms in Firefly are symbolic of the underdeveloped and lawless nature of some of the environments that the characters are set in and the political situation that defines the setting. Firefly definitely is NOT a Western in the true sense of the word; it definitely IS sci-fi. So calling Firefly a Western is like calling Star Wars a Western or Star Trek a Western. Yes many of these shows have analogies to true Westerns, but they aren't Westerns. Now maybe those analogies are more obvious in Firefly, but that still does not make it a Western. Calling Firefly a Western marginalizes the truer story. There is much more too Firefly that unfortunately is being ignored by many people, and I'm afraid that pigeon-holing Firefly as a Western might be doing real damage and preventing many would-be fans from seeing a very remarkable SCI-FI show.
Now I'm done with my rant.
-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I can see your point, UFO. This is several centuries future-side but you'll notice they're still eating out of alluminum cans. 
But this is also Joss' first major foray into out and out space adventure, so I think he's just as out of water as we are. I think once the show gets more comfortable with itself, more settled in, so to speak, the sci-fi aspects will become more defined.
But I also don't think of it as nessecarily a bad thing. Joss always said that he wants this show to be very rustic, very grimy and primitive as opposed to the polished, sterile Star Trek view.
Commander Elka
The bumpkiniest of the Bumpkin Army.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The show is definitely a Western, and not just in the setting or mood, but in the characters, too. It's just about 9 people "lost in space" (pun definitely intended) trying to get by, just like the cowboy anti-heroes of traditional Westerns. Go watch "Stagecoach" or something.
I've been thinking it's a pop TV/Whedon version of "Outlaw Josey Wales". In another thread, there's been a discussion of sending Serenity into a sun or similar if the series get canceled. Maybe they should just find a home, as Josey Wales did (and as the boll weevil did).
Can you see Mal as a young Clint Eastwood? Remember, Clint, when young, was a singing & dancing extra in the Francis the Talking Mule movies.
m.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.
Ur. You've *really* hit a nerve here. But Buffy, at the very least has vampires as integral to the plot. Firefly could literally substitute horse for spaceship, next town over for planet, and a few other things and just do a western (and do it cheaper). That is how much of an afterthought the science fiction elements are. If they are going to be that much in the background they might as well have done a standard show (or a straight Western) as it would have been cheaper.
Its worth noting that the most effective episode to date was also the one that had the most science fiction/space elements in the show (OUt of Gas). Also, just because a show makes effective use of a space setting does not make it a "shallow sci-fi with lasers for the sake of lasers" (Babylon 5, Farscape, Original Trek...). I like the show, but untill it does a better job of reconciling its premise it will always have that inherint weakness sitting there to be overcome each episode.
Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:Quote:
Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.
Ur. You've *really* hit a nerve here. But Buffy, at the very least has vampires as integral to the plot. Firefly could literally substitute horse for spaceship, next town over for planet, and a few other things and just do a western (and do it cheaper). That is how much of an afterthought the science fiction elements are. If they are going to be that much in the background they might as well have done a standard show (or a straight Western) as it would have been cheaper.
Its worth noting that the most effective episode to date was also the one that had the most science fiction/space elements in the show (OUt of Gas). Also, just because a show makes effective use of a space setting does not make it a "shallow sci-fi with lasers for the sake of lasers" (Babylon 5, Farscape, Original Trek...). I like the show, but untill it does a better job of reconciling its premise it will always have that inherint weakness sitting there to be overcome each episode.
First of all, I have nothing but the upmost respect for both B5 and Farscape. Which is why I did not use them as examples in of shallow scifi. In the future, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
And while we're on the subject, do you know why I like those shows? The same reason I like Firefly. The characters are interesting. And while all three shows have some pretty shiny FX, that's not what kept me watching. I wanted to know how the Shadow War was going to end and whether or not Sheridan and Delenn were going to work out. What new and creative insults would
Crichton come up with for Rigel, and would he and Aeryn work out? I liked the characters. I liked the plot. And I think George Lucas proved quite painfully in Episode One that no amount of FX will overcome lame characters and plot.
"Out of Gas" was not great because of SciFi. It was great because Jayne shot some guy in the leg because he was tradin' up. Because Wash really bugged Zoe. Because it was Simon's birthday, and he didn't want to die. Because Mal had love at first sight.
Besides, if Firefly were a straight Western, then we wouldn't have flying cars in any of the episodes!
________________
She has parts that keep growing after they're detached. She irons her jeans! She's evilllllll!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And while we're on the subject, do you know why I like those shows? The same reason I like Firefly. The characters are interesting. And while all three shows have some pretty shiny FX, that's not what kept me watching. I wanted to know how the Shadow War was going to end and whether or not Sheridan and Delenn were going to work out. What new and creative insults would
Crichton come up with for Rigel, and would he and Aeryn work out? I liked the characters. I liked the plot. And I think George Lucas proved quite painfully in Episode One that no amount of FX will overcome lame characters and plot.
I think you misunderstood my main point (though I agree on Lucas and Episode One, though Attack of the Clones was at least a step in the right direction), that being that if a show can be done in a different genre than Science Fiction then it probably should be (do partly to the high cost and partly for other factors). From what I've seen Babylon 5 couldn't really have been done in any other setting than the one we got, same with what I've seen from Farscape.
Firefly, on the other hand, could very easily be set in a number of other settings/genres (including the often bandied about "western" genre). This to me seems an ineffiecent use of the setting. They're spending quite a bit of money on the show for special effects that, in the end, don't have a true point (would it have mattered how the crew got to the planet in Shindig? OR whether the pool balls were holographic? I rather think not...). I'm not saying I want a "Tech for the sake of tech" show (I hate most of the modern Trek for instance...) but Joss is spending a lot of money on this show and has a futuristic background. It just seems a bit of a waste to leave it setting there unused.
As for it being an inherint weakness? It is to some extent, especially without an arc backing it up. That's because every show has to reset to ground zero and we have to overcome the clashing of themes every week (it really does seem a bit eschew to see people dressed in 19th century garb and having relatively casual space travel...). The best episodes manage to overcome this (Our Mrs. Reynolds, Jaynestown), or get rid of it completely (Out of Gas) but the problem comes back each week. Maybe it will go away once we start getting continuity and storylines but I'll have to see.
Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, let me say I enjoy the show well enough. However, I have to agree with those that wonder at how much of an afterthought the scifi aspects of the show appear to be. Hopefully JW and crew will catch onto the fact that the more genre episodes (serenity, bushwhacked, out of gas) have been the most popular.
Don't get me wrong, the writing is great, the acting is fine, and the character development is outstanding, but if Firefly strays too far from its "core" fanbase (which hopefully includes more folks than just JW worshippers) it will not last. First and foremost, this show is perceived as a science fiction show. Right off the bat this alienates a large segment of the viewing public who would never consider scifi as serious drama. With this handicap, JW can hardly afford to meander too far away from the futuristic elements of the show.
In addition to good drama, Science Fiction fans are looking for thoughtful and original commentary about what the future holds. We are interested in both the philosophical, and the nuts and bolts of the technology which will make tomorrow possible.
~Panic
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
I think you misunderstood my main point (though I agree on Lucas and Episode One, though Attack of the Clones was at least a step in the right direction), that being that if a show can be done in a different genre than Science Fiction then it probably should be (do partly to the high cost and partly for other factors). From what I've seen Babylon 5 couldn't really have been done in any other setting than the one we got, same with what I've seen from Farscape.
Ok, let's think of it this way. Let's say 400 years in the past, Shakespeare wanted to invent scifi, so he wrote a play that takes place in roughly the year 2000. But he never did; as far as I know all his plays either take place in Shakespeare times or further in the past. And his stories are considered to be the best in literature.
Yet this did not stop people from setting Romeo and Juliet in modern time about fifty gazillion times. 10 Things I Hate About You is a great movie, and it does not take place in the same time period as "The Taming of the Shrew." Using your logic, since Shakespeare's tales can be effectively retold in another time period, then they should have orignially been writen as sci fi, set in our time.
Babylon 5 most certainly could have been told in another time. It could easily have been a midevil fantasy where the differnet aliens were just elves and trolls and hobbits. Hell, the whole thing could have taken place in Middle Earth.
The reason Shakespeare's plays translate well into other time periods is that the stories they tell are timeless. They apeal to all generations, because they all convey emotions that every generation must deal with.
The reason Firefly is set in the furture it to illustrate JW's point that humans on some levels will never change, and the future is just another part of human history.
The reason that Firefly would still work in another time period is that the story is universal--if you pardon the pun.
________________
She has parts that keep growing after they're detached. She irons her jeans! She's evilllllll!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME