Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Firefly
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 90 (172104)
12-29-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
12-29-2004 9:17 AM


Oh why have you summoned me to this thread? I really have no interest in this subject at all.
Taste is taste. That is not a derogatory statement, it is just a fact. There is no rhyme or reason for why anyone should like anything (though people like jar should admit when they just don't like something).
If you think Firefly is fantastic then it is fantastic.
I agree that it is derivitave. Whedon is quite good at setting us up in these familiar genres and themes for the purpose of tweaking and twisting them in unexpected ways.
I do not like Whedon very much. While things seem unexpected to you, they seem both expected and repetitious to me, perhaps because of their derivative nature.
Another gf of mine tried to get me into buffy. While I liked the movie I could only get a shortly passing interest in the show. I'll admit I have not seen Angel. My guess is I would not like it, but maybe I would.
Firefly seemed almost wholly uninspired. I guess I liked the hightech areas of that "universe" (the government ships) but felt the "every planet is a backwater" motif is moldier than a mummy. Indeed, space as western and as victorian age (the brother-sister thing) is done. Why can't space be something WHOLLY NEW?
I get what you are saying about derivative. Derivative does not necessarily mean bad, but when it doesn't take its source and move on, then there is a problem.
You mentioned before that his writing is more about relationships. That is what I felt. I felt this could have been anywhere. Heck, they could have saved a bundle and made it a ship rolling around on the modern day ocean. Actually now that I say that, I would have liked that immensely.
In any case the space portion was useless except as gimmickry. Kind of like replacing magic with scifi tech to get a situation going.
But all of this is to explain why I don't like it. This is how it appears to me because of all the experiences I have had and so why it rubs me wrong. Believe me I'd love to be able to extoll the virtues of a show that has a prostitute as one of the positive main characters. I just can't.
On the flipside your experiences have set you up to enjoy that work. Great. Definitely try and get Fox to put it back on air. I will not try and stop you, nor say you are wrong about anything... except that it is objectively great.
I do recognize that it took talent. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 12-29-2004 9:17 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 2:36 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 12-29-2004 4:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 90 (172120)
12-29-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dan Carroll
12-29-2004 2:36 PM


Quick pedantic note... that's not the case in Firefly. Only the border planets on the rim of the galaxy are backwater. The core planets are exceedingly wealthy, and highly futuristic and shiny.
Okay now, firefly is not real. It is made up.
I did make mention that they did happen upon some futuristic stuff now and then (it was mainly government spaceships though). However the main portion of the series takes place as you mentioned... outside the core.
It does not matter what writing device they used to craft a necessity to hang around backwater planets, the result for the story is the same. In the end "every planet is a backwater".
The stainless steel rat was a thief and an outlaw but managed never to stray into the old west. Ughhh... and I have to say whoever did the wardrobe for the show was not helping. The secondary characters were almost always looked like they were from old west & apocalypse R us.
Not if you didn't like Buffy, no.
I felt Buffy got stifled trying to hold on to its reason for existence. First there was a school and then the store (which seemed ripped off from the series Friday the 13th). It felt like people were forced to be together because they had to to keep it going.
I was thinking Angel might be free of that because it didn't have anything it had to hang on to, it could grow and create or destroy elements as it had to.
But maybe I am wrong. I'll stay away just to be safe. Thanks for the tip.
Never read Fray. I suppose I should ask if you've read the stainless steel rat series?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 2:36 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 4:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 90 (172136)
12-29-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dan Carroll
12-29-2004 4:08 PM


When the plot needs them in a place that, technologically, is backwards by even our standards, there they are. So they set up a galaxy that allows for the characters to be in whatever setting they needed for the episode.
This statement allows you to deconstruct the show exactly how I said. When the plot needs them to be somewhere they can be anywhere. Almost all shows are backwater. Hence the writers keep needing plots which need backwater planets.
And let me explain something. I do get that they'd need to be on fringe planets. That is not the same as backwater. There have been excellent examples of fringe planetary systems which do not rely on backwater settings. Even Star Wars stayed away from that easy standard.
Never heard of it. Who's it by?
Stainless Steel Rat is a series of novels by Harry Harrison. I wish someone would make those into movies. Its all humor, but includes great examples of how technology is how you use it, not whether you have it.
Personally I never bought into the idea that planets would be colonized by people that would then choose to act like they are cowpokes in Texas.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 4:08 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 4:42 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 90 (172141)
12-29-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
12-29-2004 4:22 PM


Huh, you thought that everybody speaking English and Chinese was expected, or that it wasn't odd to be galloping on horseback to catch your spaceship wasn't unexpected, or that in the future a trained prostitute is considered an important, reputable fine lady?
Yes, none of these are unique, even if having a prostitute being a good guy on TV is relatively unique these days.
None of these elements are repetitious, however the scenarios they find themselves in certainly were.
I will note that I did not say boring, though will admit their tired PC moral values were quite boring. I'd have been more impressed if the prostitute was free enough to actually have sex for... could it really happen?... FUN? No, she had to have sex in order to fulfill people's lives in some emotionally charged way.
No, there was nothing new in the way of characters... with the exception of the space assassin, which is the one episode I liked.
When has it been done like this, though, with real characters that have depth?
To me these are cardboard characters. They are going through complex situations, but there is no real depthto the characters themselves.
So my answer would be just about anywhere.
The show is obviously derived from Star Wars (western in space) but it is nothing like Star Wars in feel. The characters in star wars are written broadly and are iconic, and they are supposed to be, which is nothing like the characers or relationships in Firefly.
Actually star wars was based on a feudal japanese movie which was based on a medieval european play (shakespeare to be exact). You are correct that the characters are more iconic.
Star Trek was the series that was meant to be like a western... pitched as Wagon Train in space. I like the characters in several of the ST series, better than anything I saw in firefly.
Like I said, the show is only incidentally sci-fi.
We are in agreement on this point. That is why I think it failed for me. On top of the characters not being deep, the surroundings seemed like meaningless props from old west & apocalypse R us. More attention needed to be paid to how space interacts with the people and changes them.
Yeah, but a ship rolling around on the open ocean is visually repetitious and BORING.
Oh ye of little creativity! Ocean shots would cost MONEY!. Have them always in a harbor, or hugging a coast. That would be very unique all the time. And when they are out on the ocean, stick to interior shots as much as possible. That would accentuate the claustrophobia... and mean you never had to leave a set.
Every world that is created for a fictional show or play or whatever is a kind of gimick that serves to provide context for the characters.
Yes and no. When the environment is developed along with the characters then they are not just gimmicks. The Star Wars and Star Trek universes became very real and took on a life of their own. I will admit some of the ST series fell into the same problems I am talking about with Firefly, Deep Space Nine was a good example.
is consistent with how things might be like 600 years in the future.
I cannot believe so. The genius of Star Trek is that the people were different, and held different beliefs than most of society at the time it was made. Star Wars used old... iconic, or legendary... characters.
The people on firefly might as well have come out of a PC press machine. Even those that were unPC, managed to fill every PC role nicely. They represented no change whatsoever.
Space, and the experience of space exploration/colonization, will indoubtedly create a more interesting (read DIFFERENT) culture, than the singularly PC universe seen in Firefly.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 12-29-2004 4:22 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 12-30-2004 8:29 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 90 (172143)
12-29-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dan Carroll
12-29-2004 4:42 PM


Well, that's not strictly true. Be warned, I'm going to prove my true nerd now.
Whoops. I admit I exaggerated and deviated from my initial point. I was originally talking about backwater planets. The planets... when encountered... are generally backwater.
I spoke out of turn to say make it seem like almost all shows were on planets.
I will say I preferred the ones in space alone, and the only episode I really liked was (I think) only in space. Was it Out of Gas? I can't remember the title, but it had the assassin/bounty hunter that was going insane from spending to much time alone in space.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 4:42 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 5:16 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 90 (172385)
12-30-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
12-30-2004 8:29 AM


when else have you seen chinese and English spoken
Well there are variations on this using other languages. You really don't think any sci-fi author has noted that chinese might be an important language in the future?
Perhaps you should see Blade Runner. I think it included a mash of Japanese-Chinese and spanish.
when have you seen people galloping on horseback to catch their spaceship??
This is going to get very tiring. Do you really need me to explain where I have seen elements you feel were new to you? I'll admit it was not specifically their spaceship. Does it make a difference?
See, like Dan said, I don't find the scenarios repetitious for the most part.
I did, and the magic of art is that we are all right. That is why this whole thing is ridiculous.
Also, she's not a prostitute, she's a Companion.
Yes, that about says it all. In the end, she is not just about fun. They made that pretty clear. The series is fully loaded with sex=love.
This removes the guilt associated with the sex that she would have.
Wow, do we have different perceptions of reality.
Yes, that is why art is completely subjective. We look at different things in different ways. Thus a flat character to me may look 4D to you. We pick up on different aspects.
Not a single one of the main characters in several of the Star Trek incarnations was ever allowed to be less than supremely noble and morally pure.
You simply have not read the stories nor watched the episodes. At least I cannot believe so. How many instances must I name before you'd switch on this?
The original series broke many grounds and that was far beyond the interracial kiss which was due to force and I assume you were referencing.
None of the characters in Firefly, with the exception of maybe Wash, Kaylee and Inara, are all that nice, and not a single one is particularly noble or morally pure.
Of course they are all nice. They are all cut in the mold of the new Addam's family. They look bad and pose bad, enough to be antiheroes (the PC hero), but heaven forbid they actually are bad.
So, you figure that the characters on Firefly have no more depth that those on, say, "Walker: Texas Ranger", or "Full House"?
I don't know as I never watched either of those shows. I will note they don't have to be worse than other shows in order to be flat. They are flat to me, based on the criteria I use to judge characters.
Uh, please explain. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Very simply Firefly is today's issues played out by today's PC characters, in the far future.
When I look at speculative fiction, which scifi is, I usually expect it to reflect that societies change with time. What's more the nature of space will alter perspectives.
This show seems to suggest nothing will change at all people wise. Perhaps that is comforting to you. I find it very limited in imagination.
And yes, even the people that are supposed to be unPC, never actually go far enough to upset the PC crowd. I am talking about the main characters of course.
If you want to see a tired PC universe, try the Star Trek world.
It depends on which series. The first was totally not. The second was a mix though usually not. Deep Space Nine was completely. Voyager was a mix, mainly PC. Enterprise is a mix, mainly not PC.
Firefly is PC, it just plain is. And I don't think that is a subjective statement. Whether that should count against the show is subjective.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 12-30-2004 8:29 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 12-31-2004 7:25 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 31 by Zhimbo, posted 12-31-2004 9:57 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 90 (172503)
12-31-2004 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by nator
12-31-2004 7:25 AM


Only you, holmes, would fault a TV show for having a character who is a prostitute and is also considered in that created world to be a high-class, very well-respected, fine, educated lady because she doesn't conform to your particular views on sex... This is the subject that you grind your axe upon.
Hahahah... you got me wrong. If that was the only issue I would not be faulting the show. I used that as an example of the PC nature of the show. There is not a one that shows a real diversity of thought, even the prostitute.
Believe it or not I like shows and movies that are completely anti or nonsexual. I just don't like all my characters to be molded from the same form.
I see that you ignored my two examples (one with Inara and one with a regular whore) in which the women ARE having sex for fun.
I was not ignoring it out of some devious scheme. If it is important, I was not saying that they did not have fun with sex. My point was that it was not just for fun. Specifically with the main character. Her passion is humourless. Yes she can have fun when she has sex, but that it is not what it is all about. I believe she delivers a lecture on that very point.
Kaylee clearly considers sex a great deal of fun.
She is the only character I liked on the show. But she was still an emotional wreck.
Kirk, Picard, Riker, Troy, Wesley, Spock, Bones, LaForge, and Worf can all be counted on to come through and do the right thing in the end. Any bad thing they do is generally due to extreme circumstances or some kind of strange influence of a drug or alien force. I wouldn't consider a single one of these characters anything other than morally pure and noble. Their characters are pretty shallow because they don't really seem to ever screw up royally so that anything really terrible happens, or act in a purely self-interested way. They all have the prime directive to guide them.
I asked you to tell me how many examples you wanted before crying uncle. While it is true that they may do the right thing in the end, that is not synonymous with having done the right thing all along, and more importantly it has NOTHING to do with being PC.
As far as the prime directive goes there are multiple infractions. Enterprise (the latest series) comes before the PD.
I guess you could call them "progressive" instead of PC.
That is a more appropriate term. And indeed they are still not completely PC today. Its interesting that the next generation and all future series had to change things to be more PC and less progressive.
And again, only you would fault a TV show for turning the idea of a prostitute, who in today's America are viewed as the lowest of the low but in the show are higly repected and the pinnacle of high-society, because she doesn't have sex in the way you think everybody should.
If that was the only issue, I would not care.
Nothing about Jayne is nice and he is nost certainly pretty bad. Remember, he sells out Simon and River to the Alliance but is double crossed. Mal is constantly having to keep an eye on Jayne because Jayne is pretty much an amoral mercenery.
These are all acceptable PC bads, emotional and relational doublcrosses. These people do not have any unsavory aspect, any really unsavory aspect. They are all acting (even while being "bad") from the same moral center.
The rest of your list are non bads. I am very uncertain how River would escape the very same label you threw on the ST criticism. Everything she does is essentially like alien possession.
Look, I really don't want to pursue this much further. You like the show and think it is great. I do not. I also do not like trying to explain my criticisms because they have the nature of sounding like I am right and you are wrong. There are a few objective truths, but they do not matter one way or the other if the show is good or not.
It looks to me like you don't mind what to me is a "flat world". That is that all the characters play against the same moral fabric. I desire a chaotic moral terrain. I don't think Whedon works in that medium. Even Buffy was flat (though that was more excusable to me as the characters were pretty limited to vapid high schoolers without introspection).
Some people may hate cheesy space effects and aliens being humans with different bulges on their face and so hate ST (especially the original). Fair enough.
Some may hate iconic figures (black and white stories) and so hate Star Wars. Fair enough.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 12-31-2004 7:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 01-02-2005 6:58 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 32 of 90 (172505)
12-31-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Zhimbo
12-31-2004 9:57 AM


On the other hand, simply holding a moral viewpoint that is typical of a college educated liberal in the U.S.A. can't be held against it. That's just a viewpoint, and calling it "P.C." is just name calling in my book. While I can see that Firefly holds to certain educated-liberal moral viewpoints
I'm calling things PC that happen to have the common generic lowest (or broadest) common denominator moral outlook.
Calling such a thing educated-liberal moral is to be inaccurate. I am an educated liberal (particularly with respect to social morals) and share very few PC opinions.
Indeed I think PC is actually based in overeducation on a very limited worldview, not seekingt outside education (traditional liberal), and banking off of an accepted conservative moral bent.
If that differs from your definition, that does not matter as I brought up the term and was not talking to you.
I should make clear that I was not trying to say that the show was a PC machine. I am saying that all of the characters within it share one moral reference frame, and that is the PC one.
I view the show as more of a relationship show. Not a moralizing one, or one investigating human diversity.
While Star Trek did moralize, the first series especially investigated the nature of moral diversity. They did not all act from the same moral frame.
Firefly is far less ambitious in fundamentally rethinking society, to be sure. Mostly it's a story that uses sci-fi and western settings to add flavor and to provide conventions that can be "tweaked" and twisted. (Wheedon says he loves doing "genre" because it provides built-in story-conventions to be subverted).
I think this says everything I have been trying to say all along. Yes, this is not my cup of tea and I never said anyone should agree with me. I think its great that schraf likes Firefly.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Zhimbo, posted 12-31-2004 9:57 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 90 (172985)
01-02-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
01-02-2005 6:58 AM


Maybe I should stop using the term PC. Intriguingly enough I thought I was essentially using your husband/friend/alterego's definition, only that I did not consider it to be educated-liberal.
If it is about change then yes ST was definitely PC, and the rest were less so.
Anyway, you are still insisting that the demeanor of a companion and this particular character narrowly conform to your views on how she should have sex. Besides, she does have fun sex, with the female client.
No, no I am not. Honestly I was just pointing out that they didn't depart from a singular moral outlook on one of the characters they really could have played with.
Here is a counterexample of your claim... I happen to like JAG. Not a one of the people espouse my philosophy on life at all, and I would guess they are all prudes.
Prostitutes with hearts of gold, or are in it for something greater than sexual fun, are something I can deal with. And I was glad to see a show with a prostitute (maybe we should say escort with real GFE) as a lead.
As a viewer I found the lack of depth in all the characters (based on what I look for) not entertaining.
Kaylee was an emotional wreck to me. Sorry.
And anyway, I'd love to hear how Jayne's morality is anything like Kaylee's.
No you are missing my position, and that is why you may not be able to understand my saying an unPC character can still be PC.
There are many different moral systems in the world. It really is a diverse place. Just because someone is bad and someone is good, does not mean they are coming from diverse moral systems. In the end they may all be playing from essentially an identical moral outlook and reinforcing it by their actions.
ST is almost exclusively devoted to looking at diverse life and actual moral systems. Those in Firefly are all players within one single moral system, even if they fill different niches of that system.
Perhaps you can give a couple of examples of the unsavory aspects and diverse moral landscape of the wharacters on the first Star Trek series, just so I can understand what you mean when you say that that show was not PC at all.
Actually you already quoted one very interesting example (even if it was not one of the very main characters). The one where Troy's mom went to marry the guy that then had to die because he reached a certain age was showing how savory to one is unsavory to another and what actual acceptance of diversity means, and how different moral viewpoints talk past each other.
I really don't want to go into a list of all the unsavory characteristics or diverse moral outlooks but here are a few: Riker is an unabashed womanizer (he would be fired from any office today as a harasser), McCoy was basically a bigot and remained one (despite overlooking it to work), Spock was also a bigot and he exhibited a completely different moral outlook (which was then repeated to some lesser degree in Data), Wesley actually got a person killed and had to pay a price for it (everything was NOT fine in the end). Worf (sic) was shown to have very different moral practices which were unacceptable to some of the crew, and they did interfere with his work.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 01-02-2005 6:58 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024