Me
All sorts of things just really, really annoy me about Firefly.
Joss Wheedon is TBQH hugely overrated, everything he's made either bores or annoys me. I'll stick to the J. Michael Straczynski stuff thanks
Cheers
-Leezer-
Firefly/Serenity?
- Thread starter Sweetloaf
- Start date
Me
All sorts of things just really, really annoy me about Firefly.
Joss Wheedon is TBQH hugely overrated, everything he's made either bores or annoys me. I'll stick to the J. Michael Straczynski stuff thanks
Cheers
-Leezer-
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.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 4,969
- Location
- Liverpool
Indeed, I find it hard to take sci-fi seriously. I'm not a huge fan of the genre in general.
Same. For me its one of my favourite episodes of a TV show ever.
And the Star Wars series are terrible, and set the cause of Science Fiction in films back thirty years.
M
Ok, that's certainly one opinion, I do think you are in the minority though.
Episode 12 -The Message *I think*
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,503
- Location
- Surrey
Indeed, Jonathan M. Woodward, one of the few people who has 'done the hat trick' and appeared in all 3 of Whedon's major works (Buffy, Angel, Firefly)
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.
M
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.
In what respect was SW ground-breaking? Certainly not the important stuff like acting, script or directing. Definitely not plotting either. Not even the minor stuff either: the special effect in 2001 were done better - the computer-controlled camera in SW just enabled effects to be done much more cheaply.
As for whether the majority of people who saw it thought it was brilliant, I'm not aware any such survey exists? But then the favourite UK newspaper is The Sun, which shows how valuable popularity is as a guide to people's ability to tell good from bad.
M
On a vaguely related note, I watched Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog the other night, and Nathan Fillion is pretty damn funny in it 
If you liked the 'Once More With Feeling' episode of Buffy, you'll like this rather bizarre series of webisodes.
If you liked the 'Once More With Feeling' episode of Buffy, you'll like this rather bizarre series of webisodes.
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
Sound familiar? (Not aimed at you Meridian, I know you aren't a Firefly fan particularly)
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
Sound familiar? (Not aimed at you Meridian, I know you aren't a Firefly fan particularly)
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,503
- Location
- Surrey
They've never tried to hide the Han Solo influence 
Actually I like Firefly enough to watch the series again recently - but that's not the same as saying it's a great series (which it isn't) or to stop me spotting all the weaknesses. I am perfectly able to tell the difference between what I like and what is good, and understand that they may not be congruent. Something I've noticed many struggle with.
As for Star Wars setting the genre back, it would probably fairer to say that it stopped it advancing. From the late 1960s onwards, it looked like people were finally going to make intelligent science fiction films. Forbidden Planet started the move (if you're going to pinch your plot, pick the best), and was soon followed by 2001. There was still a lot of silly films around, but at least they tried: Silent Running was twee nonsense, but about a serious subject, Marooned predicted (partly) Apollo 13 in real life, etc. Finally, Close Encounters: again, a rather silly basic idea, but handled with intelligence and from an adult perspective.
But it got crushed at the cinema by Star wars, so the lesson all the film producers came away with was that if you want to make a Science Fiction film it has to have a cheap cast, cheap script, but expensive special effects, especially ones involving space ships that violate several laws of physics. And guess what we've had ever since: science fiction films with cheap actors, cheap scripts but expensive special effects, and mainly aimed at teenagers. Just occasionally a film like Blade Runner will creep through, but just about the only way to get a good science fiction film made it so play down that it's science fiction (like the remake of Solaris) or not even mention the fact (like The Truman Show). As soon as you see a film which is proud of the fact that it is science fiction you will see talentless actors you've never heard of (except for maybe a hammy cameo from a decent actor), a plot less original than last year's panto (aka the Star Wars plot) but loads of special effects.
What happened to science fiction for adults? I don't mean pr0n, I mean serious plots about serious issues? Gattica was a start, but such films are few and far between. A vicious circle has set in where labelling a film as "Science Fiction"/"Sci-Fi" (aka "Skiffy") is to label it juvenile, so only juveniles want to see it. Since only juveniles want to see such films (because adults know they will be bad) then the films may as well be made for them. Please note I mean juvenile in its technical sense, not its pejorative one.
Here's the test I always set at this point:
Q: What is the only science fiction film to win one of the "Big Four" (Film/Director/Actor/Script) Oscars?
How many of you could answer that without looking it up? Notice how it came out in 1968 - the time when the films were getting better - and here was an adult film with an adult theme. How many here realised that it is the only science fiction film to win one of the Big Four? What does it say about the state of science fiction in films? I'll concede a bias against such films operates, but I can understand why.
Finally, as someone old enough to remember the original release of Star Wars, it should be noted that:
a) Lucas made no secret of the plot being one where you should be booing the villains ans cheering the heroes. He even made a direct analogy to panto.
b) At the time it was only ever considered a mid-budget "B" movie.
Only once the fanboys started running amok did these things tend to get forgotten.
M
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.
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:
Wow! the internetz be a serious business!
Anyhow, I'm half way through it for the 4th time, this time HD, and I have to say my favorite episode has got to be the raid on the hospital, and the following episode when you find out that Jayne bought a crate of apples because of his guilty feelings.
Anyhow, I'm half way through it for the 4th time, this time HD, and I have to say my favorite episode has got to be the raid on the hospital, and the following episode when you find out that Jayne bought a crate of apples because of his guilty feelings.