Firefly/Serenity?
- Thread starter Sweetloaf
- Start date
I was trying to point out that you were having so much fun trying to mount silly personal attacks on me that you forgot to actually address my argument. Suggesting that you can't. When you want to take issue with that argument then I'm happy to debate it. But since I've pointed out more than once that I can tell the difference between a good film and a film I like, then attacking the films I buy or don't buy serves no purpose apart from suggesting that you didn't understand the point. I have never suggested that the films in my collection would serve as any sort of guide as to what was a good film. Nor have I actually said what films are in my collection, how many of them are science fiction. I've never said why I buy the films I do. Nor do I plan to because they have nothing to do with my argument.
You also seem to have misunderstood what I said: I said I've only paid to see three SW films. I've seen all of them. Apart from the cartoon one.
Do I dislike Star wars? Yes. I went to see the original when it came out again for the twenty-five anniversary of the original release and found it embarrassingly bad. There were times I cringed watching it, it was so juvenile. Why do I pay to see some of the films? I see a lot of films, including ones I know I probably won't like, and others I know will be rubbish. It's a free country. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised, often I'm not. Sometimes I'm entertained, sometimes I'm not. Them's the breaks.
M
Last edited:
It must be irritating to have no point. :
There is a huge gulf between a point which went way over your head apparently, and not having one.
M
I got the point, it wasn't rocket science, it's just that you've been struggling to stay afloat the entire thread, and you had my sympathies.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,508
- Location
- Surrey
As soon as people have disagreed with you, you have jumped to the 'oh well you didn't understand my point' defense.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,147
- Location
- Neptune
Arguing with fanatics is seldom fruitful, and I expected little. When people with a straight face say that Star Wars changed their life you have to worry - at the very least about their life. But I'd like someone to tell me why they think Star Wars (the original film) is a good film? Seriously - what makes you think this is a good film? The acting? The script? The direction? If you say "special effects" then you've pretty much agreed with my thesis.
M
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,508
- Location
- Surrey
Do you have to be able to dissect it down into componants to say why it's a good film? I think it's a good film because I enjoyed it while I watched it, and I've enjoyed it everytime I've seen it since.
Meridian, your original argument was that Star Wars had set the development of Sci Fi films back 30 years.
My original point was that in holding this belief you are among a minority (taking into account those that have seen the film which I felt was obvious at the time)
I would say that this thread is so far a reasonable indication that I was right.
As for why I personally like Star Wars, it entertained me, it was fun and exciting in a way that no other film had before or indeed has since, the same goes for The Empire Stikes Back. You seem to be forgetting that it was for kids who have little need for things like realistic physics and a truly believable universe in a movie, children can suspend disbelief and are far less synical than adults, because of this they are engrossed and infuenced far more by the things they see.
There are now far more films that I prefer to watch and looking back it isn't the best film ever made, that said it remains one of the most important in my life. If I did have to pick something about the film that remains as strong today as it did back in the 70's I would have to say the soundtrack, It evokes powerful memories from my childhood. I'm sorry you can't see beyond the effects and view it through the eyes of a kid. Adults who watched it at the time (my father for instance) enyoyed it thouroughly but it did not have the same lasting effect on him that it did on me, or indeed most kids of my generation.
This brings me around to a question I asked you. What important Sci Fi films were made in the years between 1968 and the release of Star Wars in 1977? If Star Wars, as you suggested, held back the Sci Fi genre then surely there must have been some decent Sci Fi films in between 2001 and Star Wars. What were they?
And please, before you attempt to insult peoples intelligence, think back to your Wiki link, you disguise it very badly.
My original point was that in holding this belief you are among a minority (taking into account those that have seen the film which I felt was obvious at the time)
I would say that this thread is so far a reasonable indication that I was right.
As for why I personally like Star Wars, it entertained me, it was fun and exciting in a way that no other film had before or indeed has since, the same goes for The Empire Stikes Back. You seem to be forgetting that it was for kids who have little need for things like realistic physics and a truly believable universe in a movie, children can suspend disbelief and are far less synical than adults, because of this they are engrossed and infuenced far more by the things they see.
There are now far more films that I prefer to watch and looking back it isn't the best film ever made, that said it remains one of the most important in my life. If I did have to pick something about the film that remains as strong today as it did back in the 70's I would have to say the soundtrack, It evokes powerful memories from my childhood. I'm sorry you can't see beyond the effects and view it through the eyes of a kid. Adults who watched it at the time (my father for instance) enyoyed it thouroughly but it did not have the same lasting effect on him that it did on me, or indeed most kids of my generation.
This brings me around to a question I asked you. What important Sci Fi films were made in the years between 1968 and the release of Star Wars in 1977? If Star Wars, as you suggested, held back the Sci Fi genre then surely there must have been some decent Sci Fi films in between 2001 and Star Wars. What were they?
And please, before you attempt to insult peoples intelligence, think back to your Wiki link, you disguise it very badly.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,410
- Location
- Brighton
Just finished watching the series + film - great series, could have been an amazing series if given more time, oh well.
Just thought I'd bump this.
Just thought I'd bump this.
My life is 100% fine... the very fact you have to question it shows you have no argument and aren't capable of a mature debate. I'm not a fanatic, I just genuinely love the films, as do the countless millions of other people out there who made it the worlds most popular Sci-Fi. Star Wars was WAY ahead of its' time, and still stands up today against any other as one of the most inventive and entertaining concepts ever produced.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,508
- Location
- Surrey
Dude, Serenity is nothing if you havent seen Firefly!
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 124
Watched Serenity a few years back and although i liked it i felt i didnt get the characters and things in it but have just watched it again having watched all the firefly episodes and it was an amazing difference. Loved the firefly series too, one of my fav's programs of all time i think.
I asked a simple question: why do you think the film is great? It seems to me that you spend several weeks avoiding the question, rather than answering it. You then attempt, rather feebly, to say that it's all my fault that you can't answer a simple question. My argument is simple: SW (the original) is badly scripted (using ideas mostly stolen from panto and given a painfully thin Science Fiction gloss which was actually completely irrelevant), terribly acted, averagely directed and with some mediocre special effects (even for it's day - the matting shadows are visible all over the place). I say it's a terrible film, and I'm waiting for someone to tell me why it's a great one. Something which I notice no-one has even attempted. I genuinely want to know.
And popularity is a terrible argument for greatness (although the various converse arguments are not true either): for a while Jeffrey Archer sold shed-loads of books and his writing is awful.
M
Fox cancelling Firefly was a crime compared to the crap that gets airtime these days. I so wanted that series to get its full 5-7 season run and flesh out the universe and back story. Yes, it was a 'western' in space, but the cast had chemistry and with Joss at the helm it could have been even better than Buffy and Angel.
Firefly, Babylon 5 and Deep Space Nine are my fav sci fi shows. Original Star Wars trilogy some of my fav films. So what if they are 'not acted well' and have 'crap special effects' according to some people. They were a huge part of my childhood growing up and are one of the most interesting 'make believe' universes that have been created. For those like me, who honestly didn't want to be a jedi like Luke or cool like Han growing up?
Firefly, Babylon 5 and Deep Space Nine are my fav sci fi shows. Original Star Wars trilogy some of my fav films. So what if they are 'not acted well' and have 'crap special effects' according to some people. They were a huge part of my childhood growing up and are one of the most interesting 'make believe' universes that have been created. For those like me, who honestly didn't want to be a jedi like Luke or cool like Han growing up?