Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8950 total)
38 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,353 Year: 22,389/19,786 Month: 952/1,834 Week: 22/430 Day: 22/63 Hour: 9/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Firefly
nator
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 90 (172088)
12-29-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dan Carroll
12-29-2004 9:44 AM


Re: Holmes, Firefly is derivitave, but so what?
"You know, they tell ya to never hit a man with a closed fist but it is, on occasion, hilarious."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 9:44 AM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 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 responded

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

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 90 (172108)
12-29-2004 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
12-29-2004 2:17 PM


I'll admit I have not seen Angel. My guess is I would not like it, but maybe I would.

Not if you didn't like Buffy, no.

the "every planet is a backwater" motif is moldier than a mummy

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.

Mal's crew, being exceedingly poor, doesn't spend much time on the wealthy planets. And being outlaws, they really don't spend much time near the government centers on the core planets. The only episodes that come to mind where they are on wealthy planets (that come to mind at least, I might be brain-farting) are "Trash" and "Ariel".

On a tangential note... anyone here read "Fray"? It's a comic written by Whedon a few years ago that takes place in the Buffy/Angel world. Good stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 2:17 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 3:49 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 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 responded

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

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 90 (172126)
12-29-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
12-29-2004 3:49 PM


Okay now, firefly is not real. It is made up.

Uh... yeah, I did catch that. I figured that was why they billed it as sci-fi and not as a documentary.

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.

Well, two out of thirteen episodes were on the core. It's one of the reasons the space setting helps the show... when the plot needs them to be in a futuristic setting, there they are. 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.

Even apart from that, I think it's usually a sign of a good writer that they build a world that keeps going, even if they characters in question aren't involved with it at the moment. In about eleven episodes, they barely acknowledge the core planets. But what's going on there is vital to the plot with Simon and River, and we get back to the developments there as the plot needs it.

Sadly, that plot got cot-strangled, but you see my point. The involvement of a shiny new future is a big part of the show, just not one that shows up all the time.

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.

Eh, that happens in any show where the characters turn 18. "Oh, fuck, how are they gonna keep 'em all in the same place?" syndrome. But in fairness to Buffy, the only character I didn't buy staying around was Willow. It made sense that Buffy would go to state school, and that Xander wouldn't go to college at all. It doesn't really make sense that Giles would hang around forever, and... well, he leaves, sixth season.

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.

Angel was cursed by bad writers. There were about five really good episodes per season, and that was about it. I enjoy it, but lord, it isn't good.

I suppose I should ask if you've read the stainless steel rat series?

Never heard of it. Who's it by?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 3:49 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 4:32 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 90 (172133)
12-29-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
12-29-2004 2:17 PM


Before I begin, I totally get that you, of course, don't have to like anything just because anybody else says so. Taste is taste. I am not trying to get you to like it. I just want to respond to your thoughts. Feel free to respond back or not, I won't expect it.

quote:
While things seem unexpected to you, they seem both expected and repetitious to me, perhaps because of their derivative nature.

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?

I'm not being sarcastic or snotty, I'm truly rather startled that anyone would think that these things are boring or repetitious.

quote:
Indeed, space as western and as victorian age (the brother-sister thing) is done.

When has it been done like this, though, with real characters that have depth?

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.

I've never seen another show like it.

quote:
Why can't space be something WHOLLY NEW?

Like I said, the show is only incidentally sci-fi.

quote:
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.

Yeah, but a ship rolling around on the open ocean is visually repetitious and BORING.

quote:
In any case the space portion was useless except as gimmickry. Kind of like replacing magic with scifi tech to get a situation going.

Well....right. Like being on a ship is setting the scene to get a situation going, such as in Master and Commander.

I really don't understand why this is a fault. 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.

In the case of Firefly, the space aspect allows for quick change and is consistent with how things might be like 600 years in the future.

Anyway, good to hear your thoughts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 2:17 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 5:07 PM nator has responded
 Message 36 by Trae, posted 01-14-2005 4:01 PM nator has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 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 responded

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

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 90 (172137)
12-29-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
12-29-2004 4:32 PM


Almost all shows are backwater. Hence the writers keep needing plots which need backwater planets.

Well, that's not strictly true. Be warned, I'm going to prove my true nerd now. Out of the fourteen (my bad) episodes:

Serenity: Flips back and forth between high-tech and backwater
The Train Job: Backwater
Bushwacked: Middle of space, far from planets
Shindig: Semi-technologically advanced planet with civil-war era culture
Safe: Backwater
Our Mrs. Reynolds: Middle of space, far from planets
Jaynestown: Backwater
Out of Gas: Middle of space, really really far from planets
Ariel: Really high tech planet
Trash: Really high tech planet
War Stories: Factory-style space station
The Message: Middle of space, ends up on an uninhabited ice planet
Heart of Gold: Backwater
Objects in Space: Middle of Space, far from planets

So when you get down to it, only four of the episodes really focus on the backwater areas of the future.

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.

Cool, I'll check 'em out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 4:32 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 5:12 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 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 responded

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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 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 responded

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

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 90 (172144)
12-29-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
12-29-2004 5:12 PM


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.

That was Objects in Space. Out of Gas is the one where the ship breaks down.

I'd say those are the ones I like best too, except I'm such a freak for the show that I'll start saying, "Oo, except for Jaynestown. Oh, and Ariel! Oh, and..." until the only episode left is Safe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 5:12 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 90 (172235)
12-30-2004 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Silent H
12-29-2004 5:07 PM


quote:
Yes, none of these are unique, even if having a prostitute being a good guy on TV is relatively unique these days.

Huh, when else have you seen chinese and English spoken, and when have you seen people galloping on horseback to catch their spaceship??

Call me sheltered, but those were certainly new to me.

quote:
None of these elements are repetitious, however the scenarios they find themselves in certainly were.

See, like Dan said, I don't find the scenarios repetitious for the most part.

quote:
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.

She did, with the female client from War Stories.

But anyway, why do you think it fits with the character that she would actually want to let herself go to the extent that she would take a client only to have "fun"? It seems to me that Inara is very wary of feeling too emotionally attached or out of control in general, so it fits that she would mostly choose clients that she could remain emotionally distant from and be in a superior position to.

Also, she's not a prostitute, she's a Companion.

Also, in Heart of Gold, at least the whore who is with Jayne is having a pretty good time.

quote:
No, there was nothing new in the way of characters... with the exception of the space assassin, which is the one episode I liked.

Uh, the super-assasin/bounty hunter who is also a bit crazy and cruel, fooled by the weakest member of the group who is also the one he is hunting?

I am afraid that this didn't, for the most part, seem original to me at all. The writing was great, but the writing is pretty much always good. The basic scenario has been done many times in the past.

quote:
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.

LOL!

Wow, do we have different perceptions of reality.

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. They had to be posessed by some alien or otherworldy force to ever do anything bad.

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.

quote:
To me these are cardboard characters. They are going through complex situations, but there is no real depthto the characters themselves.

Again, wow, we have very different perceptions of reality.

So, you figure that the characters on Firefly have no more depth that those on, say, "Walker: Texas Ranger", or "Full House"?

quote:
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.


Uh, please explain. I have no idea what you are talking about.

All the characters are PC? The chatacters that are not PC are still PC?

I don't get it.

If you want to see a tired PC universe, try the Star Trek world.

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-30-2004 08:31 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 5:07 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 12-30-2004 8:18 PM nator has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 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 responded

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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 90 (172489)
12-31-2004 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Silent H
12-30-2004 8:18 PM


quote:
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.


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.

You have every right to, but I have got to say that in retrospect, I am not surprised. This is the subject that you grind your axe upon.

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.

Also, Kaylee clearly considers sex a great deal of fun. Remember what she was doing when she was offered the job of ship's mechanic? She obviously wasn't in love with the guy, and once the talk turned to mechanics she ignored him completely.

quote:
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?

I watched ST:TNG pretty religiously for years, and have seen many reruns of the original ST.

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.

quote:
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.

Well, yeah, I know it broke ground with race, and with having a russian on the crew during the cold war, etc. But then you say:

quote:
Very simply Firefly is today's issues played out by today's PC characters, in the far future.

How is the original ST not doing exactly what you fault Firefly for?

It's not like nobody was talking about race in the 1960's, for goodness sake. Or the Cold War and the USSR and China. Or gender roles, or Vietnam. Those were all extremely hot social and political issues of the day, right there on the screen.

The original ST simply was the issues of the 1960's played out by that era's PC characters, in the far future, if there was such a thing as PC back then. I guess you could call them "progressive" instead of PC.

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.

quote:
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.

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.

Book appears very nice but we see glimpses of his past life that make us think that he may have been very, very not nice.

River is crazy so we don't know if she is inherently bad or not, but she did pick up a knife and slash Jayne in the chest.

The show wasn't on long enough to really get into any of those past stories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 12-30-2004 8:18 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 12-31-2004 9:56 AM nator has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4164 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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019