Firefly/Serenity?

Sweetloaf

Sweetloaf

Sweetloaf

Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2004
Posts
6,399
Location
Southport
About to embark on these, I've heard that there is a movie called Serenity, is that additional to the series as I've noticed that the pilot episode is also called Serenity?


What's the correct order to watch them in?
 
Just watched the pilot.

So far it looks promising, even if just for that companion lass who knocks spots of Miss Glau for me :)

The only thing that bugs me so far is the captains haircut...too 80's :D

Oh, and the godawful singing on the theme tune!
 
Northwind said:
Whedon didn't think it was original, any more than he thought vampires were new and exciting... His schtick's always to take a basically old idea and rebuild it. Or, heh, revamp it. Sorry.
Click to expand...

It was no more original than save the princess in Star Wars.

It does irritate me how Big Brother etc gets aired year after year and yet something that involves so much more than merely pointing a camera and hoping for the best gets binned.
 
For me Babylon 5 took itself far to seriously and because of this I could never identify with the characters. Joss has a good understanding of humour and it really brings his characters to life. I actually really loved the fact that Firefly had no aliens in it, it really helped the setting.
 
Meridian said:
Minority of which group?


a) Star Wars fans - obviously.

b) Star Trek fans - probably.

c) People who think that much of TV Sci-Fi is good? probably.

d) People who can tell good films from bad ones - I doubt it.

They are unoriginal (except for their roots in fairy tales - not bad in itself, but badly done. Derived from panto would probably be closer), badly scripted, badly acted, but fairly well directed.
Click to expand...

The general opinion of all those people who have seen Star Wars is that it was brilliant and groundbreaking. I can't see how it had a negative effect on the genre.

Of course you need not agree that it's good but that does put you in the minority.
 
Mate, I'm not in the habit of having utterly pointless internet arguments, I think Star Wars was a fantastic leap forward for the cinema experience which is ultimately where most film makers want their movies to end up, you disagree, that's fine. I feel most would agree.

Incidentally if you google all time greatest films or 100 greatest films then there are several lists created by people other than Sun readers and Star Wars features in all of them.

Going to see A New Hope is actually my earliest childhood memory from the age of 4 so maybe I'm biased but it's a kids film, never before or since has so much effort been put into a kids movie.

I am curious though, how exactly do you think it set the Sci Fi genre back 30 years? Could you clarify that please and explain how you quantify the amount of time you suggested?

As a sidenote, just because we are kind of on the subject,

Malcolm Reynolds:

Smuggler
Kind Hearted but would rather you didn't know that.
Captain of what is effectively a "Hunk of Junk"
Has a love hate relationship with a "classy" lady on board
Want's to avoid the law at all costs
His dress sense :D

Sound familiar? (Not aimed at you Meridian, I know you aren't a Firefly fan particularly)
 
Last edited:
Although I do see the point that you are making I think you are blaming Star Wars for a general lack of creativity or imagination within what is a very difficult genre. You say that the Sci Fi films were "growing up" but realistically this is based on the appearance of one or two films prior to Star Wars.

2001 came out in 1968, Star Wars in 1977, what groundbreaking Sci Fi came out in the 9 years between the two that Star Wars suddenly put a halt on?

The problem I have with most Sci Fi is that it starts off well but all falls apart at the end when real explanations come into play. I think it's easy to start a good yarn but very difficult to wrap it up in a believable fashion.
Lucas's universe was not built around the science, merely the fiction this gave him the freedom to tell a story, no matter what you think of it it worked for millions upon millions of viewers. Of course Star Wars is cliched to hell and back, but it didn't seem to be when I was a kid.
Lazy writing has caused the stagnation of Sci Fi in my opinion, not Star Wars.

Rather ironically 2001 won it's award for visual effects.
 
Last edited:
Without cheating, the only other Sci Fi film I know of that was made in '68 was Planet of The Apes so that would be my guess.

Off to google it.

edit- It would seem not. Go on then, what's the answer?
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
I'm not sure I've seen the film - on the DVD set the first episode is a 2 parter called Serenity. Is that the 'film' or the pilot episode?
Click to expand...

That was my original question :)

Pilot episode is also called Serenity but is seperate to the film, the film should be watched last.
 
Personally I liked Fillon and thought he did a cracking job, what really came across was that he was always willing to take the fall for his crew and in true military style was willing to go down with his ship and put Jayne in his place when he got out of line. Fillon worked for me.

Now about this Oscar? :)
 
I certainly wasn't commenting on the script, I was pointing out the aspects of Mal's character that Fillon made me believe via his acting. He was supposed to come across as a little cold and sometimes heartless but also displayed the other, more caring, side to Mal's character without making Mal seem confused or disfunctional. Actors rely heavily on scripts which is why I think you got confused.

Hang on hang on....so this film that has won an Oscar, Charly I believe it's called now, is the type of film you believe should be more in the public eye? Have gained a wider audience maybe? is the way decent films should have been heading? Is a sign of how Sci Fi films of worth are vastly underrated or possibly unappreciated? and yet........(you know what's coming)

YOU'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN THE DAMN THING :D

And yet you've obviously watched Star Wars, and all 6 films I'll wager. You sir are part of your own problem. :)

ere ya go:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CHARLY-NEW-DV...14&_trkparms=72:1683|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318

edit - There's only one left now because I'm curious even if you aren't ya great big Sci Fi fan you :D
 
Last edited:
Meridian said:
I'll refer you to my quote elsewhere, where I commented that I'm quite capable of telling the difference between what I like and what is good. And I'll also point out that of the six SW films I've only paid to see three of them. I will also say that I only buy DVDs of films I've already seen - and as I pointed out, Charly almost never comes around on TV - or if it does, I've not seen it advertised. But I don't have any of the SW films either.

And I'm definitely not a Sci-Fi fan, for reasons any trufan would explain. Or look up what Harlan Ellison has to say about "Sci-Fi". If you have to ask who Harlan Ellison is then you are not a science fiction fan. Which you will not is the term I almost always use.


M
Click to expand...

So you've paid to see 3 Star Wars films and yet won't fork out a few quid for a potentially great, Oscar winning, Sci Fi film? A film made around the time you suggested that films were becoming increasingly interesting and were beginning to target a more mature audience. And you wonder why they make more films like Star Wars?

Ah well, I'll let you know if it's any good. I guess you'll never know because we will more than likely have to agree to disagree.

Oh, and I've never heard of that bloke, obviously the sign of a true Sci Fi master.

Richdog said:
DampCat, hold me.

And we probably have more in common than you think when you get past the silly little tiffs. :p
Click to expand...

Is that manlove I can smell? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom