The Other Firefly Movie?

POSTED BY: illbeinmybunk
UPDATED: Thursday, July 22, 2004 21:59
VIEWED: 11195
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

MER

Thursday, July 8, 2004 7:23 PM

Somehow this movie is trying to compete with Firefly. Much like many movies being scripted at a time and end up competeing. I don't have any examples of this though.

I know this isn't going to work and they'll end up getting sued for using Joss's ideas. But if this movie is ACTUALLY good, then I'll see Serenity many times before seeing THAT movie.

DANFAN

Thursday, July 8, 2004 8:33 PM

My concern with any new creative initiative from SciFi channel is the gallons of bilge they have pumped out lately. It seems like their idea of creativity lately is a weak story with weak acting and a couple of SGI workstations to animate a CGI critter.

Hope springs eternal, though...

As for "The civil war was all about greed."

That seems simplistic. "State's rights" is about freedom. Some of the rights that my state wanted back then were evil (and clearly anti-freedom for significant segments of the population). That just helps to illustrate that the root causes of the war were WAY more complex than a you can capture in a 7 word sentence.

This whole topic was intensely personal to my grandmother. It has never touched any strings in my heart... it's just ancient history. But I swear, I've never seen comments like that from a contemporary before. Thank God most of the population has moved beyond the need to continue assigning blame.

STATIC

Thursday, July 8, 2004 8:33 PM

Actually. . .

One of the big issues for what we southern gentlemen refer to as "The Great Unpleasantness" WAS individual state's rights. The Confederates imagined their nation being a group of joined "Nation-States". . .which is one of the reasons they were called "The Confederate States of America." Separate, yet equal. The union had serious issues with this, some practical, some principal.. .and the slavery issue, some historians will argue, was only thrown into the mix to build up some public outrage in the North. Good ol' politics.

So the Alliance/Independants war is much closer to the American Civil war, if you remember those details.

The BIG problem here is. . .few of us can truly be sure WHAT was going on with the "War of Northern Agression" for two reasons.

1. None of us were THERE
2. History is written by the winners.

So. . .speculate away.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

QUICKSAND

Thursday, July 8, 2004 11:04 PM

Quote:

This whole topic was intensely personal to my grandmother. It has never touched any strings in my heart... it's just ancient history. But I swear, I've never seen comments like that from a contemporary before. Thank God most of the population has moved beyond the need to continue assigning blame.

Whose comments? Mine? What did I say? I don't want to be misconstrued here.

It was silly of me to write my more recent response anyway, because the arguement here isn't about the politics of the U.S. Civil War (which we all agree were complex and fierce), but rather, Saying Firefly Is Reminiscent of the Civil War is Incorrect.

Revolutionary War I'll buy. Both involved colonists who were battling against an oppressive World (Galaxy) power. Later on, the U.S. Northern States were poor, stepped on, and in danger of collapsing and being re-taken by the Brits.

Hardly the same thing.

View "The Unpleasantness" any way you wish, but this thread has gone on way too long. I've said my piece.

LTNOWIS

Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:01 AM

Quote:
The colonists had NO say in the British government.

Weren't us Americans offered seats in Parliamant, but we denied them as our votes wouldn't have made a difference? Also, we had it better than most British colonies, tax and autonomy-wise. I don't hate America, but I think I would have been a Loyalist.

QUICKSAND

Thursday, July 22, 2004 6:26 AM

Lots of people were Loyalists. Benjamin Franklin's kids, for example. Whom he disowned.

No, we were not offered seats in Parliament; we were not offered seats of any kind. Hence, "No Taxation Without Representation."

The Brits were all about the tradition-- this is why they did and still do have a King or Queen. If you're Lord of Stephon Marbury, or whatever your title is, it's because your father held that title, and his father held that title, and his father and his father, all the way back to the dawn of time. So in 18th century England, if you were Lord of Beantown, and Beantown had eroded and fallen into the Atlantic 50 years before, it didn't MATTER. You had a certificate that said you were Lord of Beantown, and therefore, you got a seat in Parliament. And damned if you're going to give up your Seat for some upstart, uncivilized colonist.

I just caught "1776" on TV the other week, which is a musical comedy made in, like, 1972. And even though it's a comedy, it amuses me to see representatives of the colonies saying things like, Don't question our leadership, that's unpatriotic and treasonous.

Some things just do not change.

RECHELON

Thursday, July 22, 2004 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
I don't hate America, but I think I would have been a Loyalist.

...and I would have been the one plugging your ass full of misshapen lead balls. No offence. The revolution was about more than just lower taxes.

Granted, if I was around, I would have probably proceeded to gun for Washington and the other assholes who tried to ruin things.

LTNOWIS

Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:59 PM

Quote:
Lots of people were Loyalists. Benjamin Franklin's kids, for example. Whom he disowned.

Also, Thomas Edison's ancestors, who fled to Canada.

Maybe I would've been a Patriot, now that I think about it. I do enjoy whining about the government, and having freedoms. But I usually don't get swept up in things the majority supports. Though I can't really know, as I wasn't there.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3