Post by: snowcat on February 06, 2010, 11:53:14 AM
Did Serenity start a sci-fi revolution for which it has never been credited?
Let the arguments and discussion begin!
Post by: Najemikon on February 06, 2010, 01:34:07 PM
Whatever Serenity did or didn't do, it was actually an extension of Firefly and I think you can see a shift in tone in that series that has gone on to be an influence. Of course it was cancelled before anyone really noticed, but Serenity -simply by being a movie- had more exposure to a more generalised audience. It was able to take the style and streamline it and I think find a more adult tone for science fiction.
Because of what had gone before, it spends very little time on exposition and just gets on with it. While you could argue it doesn't quite work (Emma's comments will be interesting as she is starting with Serenity), this is far more sophisticated than big-hitters like The Matrix and from all accounts, Avatar. A more elegant example would be Star Wars in that the narrative is incredibly simple, but the background is rich with complicated history that importantly, is not forced upon the viewer.
Serenity's dropped-in-the-middle plot might have been forced by circumstance, but Firefly had already built itself in that manner. Small details like the fact they speak a common language of Chinese, suggesting that super-power influence has changed dramatically. Interesting that China seems to have weathered the recent recession better than anyone and may be considered more healthy than most. "Ta ma de!" (http://fireflychinese.kevinsullivansite.net/index.html) indeed... ;)
As well as a brave approach to modern narrative, at least so far as being character driven and flying in the face of spoon-fed blockbuster nonesense, the use of special effects is pretty radical too.
In the making of Wall.E, they specifically built computer programs to mimic cameras. By which I mean they recreated the "faults" and limitations of traditional lighting, lenses and weighty cameras to create a realistic film feel despite it all being CGi and therefore technically unlimited in such ways. They asked for help from cinematographers, who found it funny, because you could say that photographers have been trying to hide depth-of-field and focusing defects since day one!
I think Firefly might have started this way of thinking and as before, Serenity demonstrated it theatrically. Pay attention to albeit brief moments where action is almost handheld, with middle-distance ships dropping in and out of focus. You can trace some of these elements back to anime like Akira and Ghost In The Shell, but they are smoothly stylised whereas Firefly, Serenity and Wall.E are old fashioned.
That of course, is not a critiscm. Rather it makes science fiction more approachable by being familiar.
I think it's time to pay the piper. Joss Whedon gets a lot of quiet respect for Firefly. Quiet, is boring.
Post by: goodguy on February 06, 2010, 02:04:45 PM
Because of what had gone before, it spends very little time on exposition and just gets on with it.
I think I mentioned a few times that I like the TV series better than the movie, but I have to admit that the multi-layered opening is pretty impressive. It actually doesn't just get on with it; there are roughly 10 minutes of exposition that never feel that way, because the context is changed abruptly at least three times and it pushes and pushes forward and never loses momentum.
Post by: snowcat on February 06, 2010, 07:41:20 PM
interestingly enough, (I watched a couple of minutes yesterday) I think im going to compare it to other films... the bits I watched just kept reminding me of something
Post by: Critter on February 07, 2010, 12:09:31 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on February 07, 2010, 03:42:39 AM
Post by: snowcat on February 13, 2010, 10:47:52 AM
Post by: Tom on February 17, 2010, 12:22:00 AM
Title: Serenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_%28film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/BluRayLogo.png)
Year: 2005
Director: Joss Whedon
Rating: 15
Length: 119 Min.
Video: Widescreen 2.35
Audio: English: DTS HD Master Audio, Spanish: DTS 5.1, French: DTS 5.1, Japanese: DTS 5.1, French: DTS 5.1, German: DTS 5.1, Italian: DTS 5.1, Spanish: DTS 5.1, Commentary: Dolby Digital Surround, Commentary: Dolby Digital Surround, Commentary: Other, Commentary: Other
Subtitles: Chinese, Commentary, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish
Stars:
Nathan Fillion
Gina Torres
Alan Tudyk
Morena Baccarin
Adam Baldwin
Plot:
Joss Whedon, the Oscar® and Emmy-nominated writer/director behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, now applies his trademark wit in this breathtaking epic. Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, now ekes out a living aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew, but when Mal takes on two new passengers - a young doctor and his telepathic sister - he gets much more than he bargained for. The pair are fugitives from the coalition dominating the universe, and so Serenity finds itself caught between the unstoppable military force of the Alliance, the horrific, cannibalistic fury of the Reavers - and another danger lurking at the very heart of the spaceship...
Awards:
| Empire Magazine Awards | 2006 | Nominated | Best Newcomer | Nathan Fillion |
| Empire Magazine Awards | 2006 | Nominated | Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy | |
| Hugo Award | 2006 | Won | Dramatic Presentation, Long Form | |
| Saturn | 2005 | Nominated | Best Science Fiction Film | |
| Saturn | 2005 | Won | Best Supporting Actress | Summer Glau |
| Scream Awards | 2006 | Nominated | Best Sci-Fi Movie |
Extras:
BD-Live
Commentary
Deleted Scenes
Featurettes
Outtakes
PiP
Scene Access
My Thoughts:
In preparation for watching this movie I have watched the complete Firefly series for the first time these last few days. Of course being a big Buffy fan and also a Sci-Fi fan, I had given this series a chance when it first aired. But I had stopped watching after the first three or four episodes because it just didn't click for me. I am not a fan of western and I didn't like the western setting this series chose to do.Now having giving this series a second chance, I must admit that I enjoyed it. Although still not keen on the western setting, it did work well in this series. As a matter of fact, it hardly feels like a science fiction series, it is just set on a spaceship. Great exchange in the last episode:
Wash: "It sounds like science fiction"
Zoe: "Honey, you are living on a spaceship"
Wash: "And your point being?"
So I can definately recommend this series to Western fans.
I love how the series has a real life feel to it instead of some futuristic feeling to it. I especially liked the Serenity set. It just really feels like a "lived-in" ship. And the characters were fun also (and you definately see that the actors had fun doing this series). I also like the fact that the series had the guts to do a soundless space, even with action scenes in space.
As I said, this series had a great ensemble cast, which were used very well. Sadly they didn't get around to really start the River storyline. Which brings us to the Serenity movie.
As I hoped, the movie finally brings the River storyline to the foreground. What started slowly building up in the series, is just now fully there.
The movie starts of great, though then it felt to me more like the standard sci-fi fare. Almost gone is the western ambiente, this movie feels more like the standard science fiction movie. This is how I originally hoped the Firefly series to be, but now I just feel like it missed capturing the series.
Also I don't feel like this movie is a good place to start. There is no introduction to the characters. It just continues on where the series left off. Good for the fans of the series, bad for the casual movie audience.
Besides River the other characters just don't seem to recapture the series. It was not obviously out-of-character, but they feel more one-dimensional here. In my opinion the captain was the most out-of-character. He was more the captain like Joss Whedon originally imagined him (if I go by what they said in the making of of the Firefly set), and not really the same as Nathan Fillion made him out to be in the series.
I also didn't like the fact
(click to show/hide)
Though it sounds like I didn't enjoy this movie all that much, this isn't correct. I liked it, but I would have liked it more if they followed more the spirit of the series. More drama than action. I give this four stars, but barely.
One thing I forgot to mention: I love the theme song of the series. It just captures the mood of the series perfectly.
Rating:
Post by: Achim on February 17, 2010, 04:49:22 AM
I also didn't like the fact.(click to show/hide)
Same here! Almost made me press Pause for a moment when I first saw this happening, I was in utter disbelief.
Post by: Dragonfire on February 17, 2010, 05:14:01 AM
I also didn't like the fact.(click to show/hide)
Same here! Almost made me press Pause for a moment when I first saw this happening, I was in utter disbelief.
Me too. I saw the movie in the theater and I actually heard most of the others there react to it. And yes it made me cry. I'm still ticked about that.
Post by: lovemunkey187 on February 17, 2010, 11:23:36 AM
One thing I forgot to mention: I love the theme song of the series. It just captures the mood of the series perfectly.
It is indeed awesome.
Post by: DJ Doena on February 17, 2010, 12:27:34 PM
Post by: Tom on February 17, 2010, 08:46:15 PM
Even sadderI also didn't like the fact.(click to show/hide)
Same here! Almost made me press Pause for a moment when I first saw this happening, I was in utter disbelief.
Me too. I saw the movie in the theater and I actually heard most of the others there react to it. And yes it made me cry. I'm still ticked about that.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: snowcat on February 17, 2010, 10:44:13 PM
Post by: Najemikon on February 20, 2010, 01:13:20 AM
Tom has already mentioned how they obey the laws of physics and not blockbusters, bravely using silence correctly. The first clip is from the pilot’s post credit sequence as the crew salvage a wreck and shows this perfectly. Completely not spoilerific, people! Fun sequence anyway.
While that clip does show what I’ve been talking about in regards to adding photography faults, the second clip from the Firefly pilot is much better. It’s when Mal asks Wash to pull a Crazy Ivan. While still not spoilerish, it is better enjoyed in the episode. But what I’m trying to show you is only 20 seconds or so in.
Look at how the chasing ship is roughly switched into focus and how they use zooms to avoid cutting. I think it’s quite superb and not something seen in Stars Trek or Wars, Babylon 5 or the original Battlestar at least. It has been seen since though (WALL.E, Avatar). It gives the CGi a rawness and character and a willingness not show the carefully rendered footage perfectly, helps disguise that it is CGi at all. Is this point in particular that I think Firefly has influenced the genre without recognition or even success.
The third clip is very brief, but a cute little three step zoom, again silent and again avoids cutting, as Serenity docks with a stranded ship in Bushwhacked.
Post by: RossRoy on February 20, 2010, 03:27:53 AM
There should be a mechanism for friend requests, going by the message given in the video
Post by: Najemikon on February 20, 2010, 03:47:05 AM
I wondered if it might let them play if I gave a specific link and it just hid them from searches.
Post by: Achim on February 20, 2010, 03:18:28 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192632723f.jpg) Title: Serenity
Year: 2005
Director: Joss Whedon
Rating: PG-13
Length: 119 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, French: Dolby Digital 5.1, Commentary: Dolby Digital Surround
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish
Stars:
Nathan Fillion
Gina Torres
Alan Tudyk
Morena Baccarin
Adam Baldwin
Plot:
A passenger with a deadly secret. Six rebels on the run. An assassin in pursuit. When the renegade crew of 'Serenity' agrees to hide a fugitive on their ship, they find themselves in an action-packed battle between the relentless military might of a totalitarian regime that will destroy anything – or anyone – to get the girl back and the bloodthirsty creatures who roam the uncharted areas of space. But the greatest danger of all may be on their ship. From the mind of Joss Whedon (TV's 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', 'Angel') comes a new edge-of-your-seat adventure loaded with explosive battles, gripping special effects and fantastic new worlds!
Extras:
Scene Access
Audio Commentary
Deleted Scenes
Featurettes
Outtakes/Bloopers
-------THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW HERE-------
My Thoughts:
While it does work as a standalone film it is clear that the director is grabbing his chance to give the TV show that Fox had prematurely cancelled a proper finish. Introductions to the many of the characters is extremely limited or non-existant, making it at times difficult to the uninitiated. For example Inara and Shepherd are thrown in there without further explanation of their strong history with the Serenity; on the other hand the obvious history of Mal and Mr. Universe is left to our imagination all the same.The film does a beautiful job though in the first 10 minutes to set up basic relationships. Simon's original rescue of River, which we hadn't seen before (at least not in such detail), which includes a dream sequence of River's past, which in turn sets up the universe, leading to the introduction of the film's plot with the Operative. I found it amazing at what breakneck speed the film moves along, giving us a very condensed plot and lots of the character interaction. The dialog is extremely witty and I found it highly enjoyable. Realizing the speed I was even more surprised that Whedon was still able to crank it up even more during the climax. The Reavers are set up so superbly (Jon mentioned it in relation to the TV show before) that we never actually see them "in action" (doing the unspeakable stuff) and therefore fear them even more.
Serentity shows that it is a labor of love for Cast & Crew, made for the fans who hold the TV series so dearly. Thanks to Universal for getting this made.
Post by: Achim on February 20, 2010, 03:31:01 PM
Did Serenity start a sci-fi revolution for which it has never been credited?
No.
Maybe I am missing it, but to "start" a revolution means that there was a revolution afterwards. I am not seeing it :shrug: What did it supposedly revolutionize? Yes, few other went for the "no sound in space", but certainly not the droves the word "revolution" implies. The used universe? That became popular in 1977... Or the "realistic" universe, where people fly in space ships but everything evolved still at a reasonable pace? Again, I amy not see enough Sci-Fi to judge that, but I am not seeing a revolution here.
The film is clearly a very able continuation of a story previously told in a very different format: TV. If you take out some of the scale at which things happen here you can still see the TV specific pacing in many parts of the film. The plot is very condensed and more room is giving for the characters to interact. Only in the final act this is somewhat reversed, when we get into full action gear and at times it appears that anyone may be killed off any second.
Post by: Najemikon on February 20, 2010, 04:04:12 PM
There's nothing about the story or the way it's told that I think influenced anyone in particular. The structure is a bit Star Wars, the used, dirty look might be Alien and Bladerunner (Ridley Scott was at pains to not show a "Shiny" future ;)), and mixing sci-fi with western is more obvious here, but as such stories were already western so far as genres are concerned, it's hardly worth mentioning.
No, I purely mean visually in the CGi and purposefully creating defects in the photography. I can't think of anything else that did it before Firefly and by that rationale, Serenity was the big screen demo of how to do it. Since then we've had similar tricks in The Host, Wall.E and Avatar at least.
I think part of the reason I focused on this is that one of my favourite shows is Red Dwarf and actually the format isn't hugely different to Firefly. Before Firefly, I hadn't noticed that whenever there was call for model and cgi effects in Red Dwarf, they looked so good and the other scenes were just typical sitcom, I was subconsciously making excuses for them to fit together. In Firefly, it's far more organic, obviously because on one hand the CGi is much better quality, but on the other, the direction doesn't alter except for it to be even more haphazard. Normally effects sequences are so smooth.
I think making CGi organic is essential to it being taken seriously by film-makers and making it such a realistic tool that it is taken for granted. All credit to James Cameron that he took this approach (regardless of where it came from) in Avatar because I think the 3D side is a case of running before they can walk for most directors. We still get shit like I Am Legend which was a good story ruined by its own effects, yet they're already looking at the next generation.
Post by: Achim on February 20, 2010, 05:13:28 PM
No-one seems to picking up on my reason for that statement. I've even made videos, dammit! :slaphead: I don't know if I'm even right, it's just something that piqued my interest.:-[
Short memory and such somehow prohibited that I want back to any post above my review...
So, yes, I saw your videos (:thumbup:) and they illustrate your point very well.
Quote
There's nothing about the story or the way it's told that I think influenced anyone in particular. The structure is a bit Star Wars, the used, dirty look might be Alien and Bladerunner (Ridley Scott was at pains to not show a "Shiny" future ;)), and mixing sci-fi with western is more obvious here, but as such stories were already western so far as genres are concerned, it's hardly worth mentioning.Well, actually even Lucas already went for the "used" look. While most stuff on the Death Star is shiny, that is because it's new; it does however have a trash compactor! Then there is the Millenium Falcon...
Quote
No, I purely mean visually in the CGi and purposefully creating defects in the photography. I can't think of anything else that did it before Firefly and by that rationale, Serenity was the big screen demo of how to do it. Since then we've had similar tricks in The Host, Wall.E and Avatar at least.So, yes, that is indeed something they may have initiated (although "revolution" may be a bit much of a word here). In my recent viewing of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy I very much noticed how, especially in The Two Towers, Gollum often sticks out way too much, because his CGI body is lacking all the trouble that comes with proper film (grain for starters...). While they improved it already for Return of the King it still popped out occasionally.
What is the measure though? The style in particular (as underlined by the videos) or the fact that it conceals the CGI much better? The latter would be much more difficult to determine who went first, since you'd be looking for something that you can't see ;)
I think Avatar is arguable as an example though, as here the 3D was actually the limiting factor to a large part...
Post by: Najemikon on February 20, 2010, 10:03:42 PM
No-one seems to picking up on my reason for that statement. I've even made videos, dammit! :slaphead: I don't know if I'm even right, it's just something that piqued my interest.:-[
Short memory and such somehow prohibited that I want back to any post above my review...
So, yes, I saw your videos (:thumbup:) and they illustrate your point very well.
:laugh: Much obliged! :phew:
Quote
So, yes, that is indeed something they may have initiated (although "revolution" may be a bit much of a word here). In my recent viewing of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy I very much noticed how, especially in The Two Towers, Gollum often sticks out way too much, because his CGI body is lacking all the trouble that comes with proper film (grain for starters...). While they improved it already for Return of the King it still popped out occasionally.
What is the measure though? The style in particular (as underlined by the videos) or the fact that it conceals the CGI much better? The latter would be much more difficult to determine who went first, since you'd be looking for something that you can't see ;)
I think Avatar is arguable as an example though, as here the 3D was actually the limiting factor to a large part...
"Revolution" is a big word, but sparks the imagination. :P
I think a lot of effects heavy movies fall into the trap of concentrating so much on how cool the effects are, they end up with nothing more than an elaborate cartoon, frequently bested by movie clips in video games. They forget they are making a film and should really consider more attention to the rules of genre, mise en scene and as you say, the natural limitations of proper film like grain, that forever separates the medium from anything else. It gives it a soul.
You're right about Star Wars being the used look and I don't know why I split it in my last post. Interesting though that is a point I hadn't considered between the trilogies before. The prequels are so CGi heavy they lose the "dirtiness". I think I have heard it commented on before that perhaps Lucas was trying to show that the world isn't quite so worn out and suffering as in the original trilogy. More likely he couldn't be bothered to do anything more than standard CG footage!
If they were to remake Lawrence of Arabia (the very thought of this should make you feel physically ill, but go with it for a moment!) and recreate Omar Sharif's entrance via CGi, would they bother putting the line down the centre of the screen, caused by the sun? Because they should, but to do so would be to ask animators to understand why sunlight affects film like that. The Wall.E animators thought it so important they asked live action cinematographers to help them basically handicap the software as if it were utilising a heavy camera with traditional lenses.
And that's why I mentioned Avatar. It's very effects heavy, of course, and often the 3D is a distraction as Karsten said in his review, so therefore the exact opposite of what I'm describing. Except occasionally (very occasionally!) there are moments that suggest Cameron didn't forget to direct the CGi just as he would live action. Slow motion is very difficult to get right (always right with Kurosawa, hardly ever for Woo!), but he nails it. Plus there is a blurred shot of some vehicles at one point, that sort of come into focus via a handheld zoom. And there we have it. "Handheld" and "zoom" have to manufactured in CGi. They bother because they're learning it matters and I felt there was a tangible difference between some scenes in Avatar because of it.
The measure will be when we finally stop noticing CGi at all and while the Na'vi looked incredible, I still made that conscious recognition that they looked incredible. Ironically, if he hadn't bothered with 3D at all, Cameron might well have done it on this occasion. :shrug:
Post by: lovemunkey187 on February 21, 2010, 04:12:03 AM
The measure will be when we finally stop noticing CGi at all and while the Na'vi looked incredible, I still made that conscious recognition that they looked incredible. Ironically, if he hadn't bothered with 3D at all, Cameron might well have done it on this occasion. :shrug:
There are some films, where you just don't (or at least I didn't) notice the use of cgi, the most notable for me was Sahara.
I remember watching this at the cinema and really, really enjoying it, as after it seeming like everything had become too reliant on cg stuff this had gone old school in it's effects and the stunts and what not were done for real.
The shine was taken off of this a little for me when I was told that an awful lot of the gags were computer generated rather than live.
Post by: Achim on February 21, 2010, 08:21:26 AM
...although I that is going off on a tangent...
Post by: Najemikon on February 21, 2010, 01:53:20 PM
I haven't seen Sahara and while it got poor reviews, they were also indifferent and actually, it does sound like an enjoyable little flick.
Post by: Achim on February 22, 2010, 05:47:13 AM
If the result of this concludes that Michael Bay is actually a responsible and thoughtful director, I may just withdraw now! :laugh::laugh:
...
:-\ No.
Post by: snowcat on February 22, 2010, 08:57:02 PM
and Ok now... you could say of course its unrealistic, but I mean.... in Star Wars the characters were believable in there little world :S ... I couldnt believe any of the characters... and I didn't even end up liking them :S I watched just over an hour of it :/
Post by: Tom on February 22, 2010, 09:02:22 PM
I couldnt believe any of the characters... and I didn't even end up liking them :S I watched just over an hour of it :/
I think it's because you started with Serenity instead of Firefly. I very much liked them in Firefly. Not so much in Serenity. I think they are out-of-character there.
Post by: Achim on February 23, 2010, 05:04:01 AM
¬_¬ Guys... I ve tried three times to watch Serenity and I can't get in to it. Ill keep trying though.... I think the problem us, it just seems.... uhh, borring... and unrealistic...:redcard:
and Ok now... you could say of course its unrealistic, but I mean.... in Star Wars the characters were believable in there little world :S ... I couldnt believe any of the characters... and I didn't even end up liking them :S I watched just over an hour of it :/
You suggested it! :hysterical:
Otherwise I agree with Tom. I can see where a first time viewer can be alienated by the characters.
Post by: lovemunkey187 on February 23, 2010, 09:21:22 AM
If the result of this concludes that Michael Bay is actually a responsible and thoughtful director, I may just withdraw now! :laugh:
I haven't seen Sahara and while it got poor reviews, they were also indifferent and actually, it does sound like an enjoyable little flick.
It's well worth a watch, it fits nicely into a similar vein to the National Treasure films and Before The Sunset, well I think so anyway.
Post by: Najemikon on February 23, 2010, 09:56:14 AM
¬_¬ Guys... I ve tried three times to watch Serenity and I can't get in to it. Ill keep trying though.... I think the problem us, it just seems.... uhh, borring... and unrealistic...:redcard:
and Ok now... you could say of course its unrealistic, but I mean.... in Star Wars the characters were believable in there little world :S ... I couldnt believe any of the characters... and I didn't even end up liking them :S I watched just over an hour of it :/
You suggested it! :hysterical:
Otherwise I agree with Tom. I can see where a first time viewer can be alienated by the characters.
Actually I suggested this one! Sorry Emma... :bag:
But in my experience this is bucking the trend. New viewers of serenity usually love it and go after firefly.
Post by: Critter on February 23, 2010, 02:11:09 PM
I am one of those people who watched Serenity before I saw the Firefly series and loved it from the opening to the closing scene. I did not know any of the characters but the style of the film, especially the music and sci-fi/western twist had me hooked instantly.¬_¬ Guys... I ve tried three times to watch Serenity and I can't get in to it. Ill keep trying though.... I think the problem us, it just seems.... uhh, borring... and unrealistic...:redcard:
and Ok now... you could say of course its unrealistic, but I mean.... in Star Wars the characters were believable in there little world :S ... I couldnt believe any of the characters... and I didn't even end up liking them :S I watched just over an hour of it :/
You suggested it! :hysterical:
Otherwise I agree with Tom. I can see where a first time viewer can be alienated by the characters.
Actually I suggested this one! Sorry Emma... :bag:
But in my experience this is bucking the trend. New viewers of serenity usually love it and go after firefly.
Post by: Achim on February 23, 2010, 04:05:08 PM
Actually I suggested this one! Sorry Emma... :bag:Oops, sorry 'bout that. I ony followed the actual voting thread; I knew there was another thread somewhere but was too lazy to look. :-[
Post by: snowcat on February 23, 2010, 09:07:15 PM
Ill post my views soon though
Post by: lyonsden5 on February 24, 2010, 12:05:04 AM
LOL.... i tried again today :p I just can't do it!:bash:
Post by: Achim on February 24, 2010, 05:51:14 AM
LOL.... i tried again today :p I just can't do it!´
:o
Post by: snowcat on February 24, 2010, 11:30:54 AM
:/ The only time ive had this much trouble watching a film was Pirate of the Caribbean.
Post by: lyonsden5 on February 24, 2010, 12:25:46 PM
Im sorry... my eyes are actually glazing over....:hysterical:
c'mon... it can't be that bad! :laugh:
Post by: Critter on February 24, 2010, 12:38:17 PM
Im sorry... my eyes are actually glazing over....:hysterical:
c'mon... it can't be that bad! :laugh:
It isn't. It's actually quite a fantastic film in my opinion. I've never heard of someone disliking it as much as you seem to be Emma. And I once studied it in a class of bored Year 10 kids who didn't really want to watch it, but by the end all of them liked it quite a bit. About half the class even went out and bought it on DVD for themselves. The only time I've ever had as much trouble watching a film as you seem to be having was Step Brothers. To this day I still haven't finished it and everytime I try it makes me fear for humanity.
Post by: goodguy on February 24, 2010, 12:39:04 PM
Post by: Najemikon on February 24, 2010, 01:28:22 PM
Earlier you compared Serenity to Star Wars in that the latter had deeper characters. Add to that your comments that people haven't got the attention span to give a two-hour pilot a chance and I think you're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle. I reckon this just ain't your bag!
I'm just flabbergasted you claim it's so boring you can't watch it! I mean it has bloody spaceships and fights! Even then I can't remember ever being so bored I literally couldn't watch something.
Post by: Achim on February 24, 2010, 02:59:37 PM
Post by: snowcat on February 24, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Wow, I mean I duno.... :shrug: im just not getting it.
..I had the same problem with 300.... I just couldn't stand it... I literally fell asleep.
:p and, yep watching the right film Achim
I love space, and fights! I love Star Wars XD ive been a fan club member for years! I love Star Trek, I like what ive seen of Battlestar.... I even tried to watch Firefly on the internet today... I had the same problem... Im sorry guys... its just not happening.... its not that I haven't given it a chance... Im just not enjoying it... and I mean.. even films I don't like... Citizen Kane being a good example, I sat through it and enjoyed the story... even if I ended up not liking the film.
Post by: Jimmy on February 24, 2010, 08:06:57 PM
I can understand if someone doesn't like it, but to be so bored that you can't even finish watching it? That's certainly a strange reaction.Why? That happen to me often... I had the same reaction with Peter Jackson's King Kong, Superman Return, Basic Instinct 2 and Hot Target just to name a few. Why lost our time with something we know bored us as we watch? We can watch something else better...
Of course I don't talk about Serenity that I haven't watch.
Post by: Najemikon on February 27, 2010, 11:18:36 PM
YouTube has blocked the Salvage clip for 'Copyright Infringement'. Strange the others were ignored, but I've taken them off anyway. I thought about emailing Fox and telling them it was for analysis purposes, but as they never gave a shit about Firefly even when it was on, I didn't bother.
Still, YouTube offers a lot of data about who watches the vids and the little map showed highlights in the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Australia and Taiwan. So I reckon it was only you lot anyway. :tease: The Crazy Ivan clip was far more popular, so god knows what methods the Fox snoopers use, but frankly, they're a bit rubbish...
I shall now go and flagellate myself until the stench of piracy has left me. ;)
Post by: snowcat on February 28, 2010, 12:17:01 AM
... ::) "copyright infringement" load of cobblers.... bloody Youtube.... sucking up to these companies so they don't have to give there "hard earned" money away.
Post by: Najemikon on February 28, 2010, 09:17:02 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/serenity.jpg)
Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, now ekes out a living aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew, but when Mal takes on two new passengers - a young doctor and his telepathic sister - he gets much more than he bargained for. The pair are fugitives from the coalition dominating the universe, and so Serenity finds itself caught between the unstoppable military force of the Alliance, the horrific, cannibalistic fury of the Reavers - and another danger lurking at the very heart of the spaceship...
Taken on its own merits, Serenity is a great film. A wonderful unique cast of characters, sharp, witty dialogue and action scenes that are literally breathtaking. Plus a well developed back-story that stands being picked at. The only problems with the film come from it being a compromised big screen version of Firefly, so it isn't quite the second coming the Browncoat massive were hoping for, but it does reward perserverance. New viewers don't have to persevere at all and just strap themselves in! If only it hadn't have been so tough to market, a worthy franchise could have been born and the real strengths of the series could have come through in a sequel. As it is, it must have been a hard film to get the balance right.
Most of the people I know who saw this film before Firefly, did enjoy it, did understand it and did look up the series afterwards, so that tells me it did a good enough job. Plot wise it does do well to present an intricate world and introduce the characters without getting bogged down in exposition, but it does undermine a lot of the work done by the series, and that is such a shame.
(click to show/hide)
Leading on from that specific point, the chemistry between all the crew is awkward. It didn't strike me as the same group of people Mal asked "will you still be here when I wake up?" at the end of the Out Of Gas episode. Interesting that when you watch the gag reel (which you must do; Fillion always does excellent gags!), that chemistry is clearly still there, but they just couldn't quite capture it in 'Movie World' until about halfway through. Deleted scenes also show moments more typical of the series (Mal and Inara flying back to Serenity), so its clear hard decisions were being made about this screenplay.
The thing is, a TV episode plot is frequently uncomplicated, but played by complicated characters who don't change much across that one story, but tease little details into an arc over the whole run. A film is usually the opposite, with less detailed characters who are visibly altered over the course of a narrative. Think of Rick in Casablanca, or Mal's pop-culture granddad, Han Solo. By essentially resetting the crew to default settings, the film has something it can work with immediately.
The other thing a film needs is a strong lead that makes things happen and for those things to have a tabgible cost. Captain Mal usually just deals with what's in front of him, but now he's the lead character in a movie, he needs a quest and a good reason for it. For my money, I think the screenplay in this respect is quite brilliant because it's usually the thing that causes TV-film adaptations to fail so spectacularly. I'm going on about this because...
(click to show/hide)
In fact, all the characters get something to have a journey about. I think Whedon has shown a great deal of maturity and skill through this screenplay and his direction. He could easily cut it with big boys, if only someone would let him have a go! The final moments of this film are the best, possibly of the whole run, series and film together. His conversation with River, the quiet lashing of the rain and then the beautiful image of Serenity plowing through a storm. Then a typically Firefly full stop! "What was that?" :hysterical:
I was disappointed that it had to lose some identity (it's a sci-fi action movie, with barely a sniff of a Western), but loved the film overall. The style of music is kept largely intact (all credit to David Newman, but why couldn't Greg Edmonson have got the gig?), as is the rougher CGI to some extent. And listen right to the end of the credits for a nice instrumental version of the Firefly theme...
Post by: lyonsden5 on March 21, 2010, 05:09:52 PM
Rating:
(Hard to believe for those of you who, when you watched it, your eyes glazed over :hysterical: )OK - a little late to the party but I finally finished Firefly and watched Serenity (again). It was good to fire up the old HD-DVD player. The video was perfect I thought. The sound was a bit strange though. It was a movie I had to keep turning up in the soft parts and then down in the loud parts. It was one of the 1st HD-DVDs I bought and was only recorded in 5.1 I guessing listening to so many 5.1 HD formats lately I've become spoiled. I'll have to check the Blu-ray version and see if it has a less compressed soundtrack. If so I guess I'll be triple dipping on this one :laugh:
Overall I enjoyed the movie even more this time than I had previously. Perhaps it's because I've been watching a lot of the actors play other roles and it was good to see them in the role where I originally watched them. With that in mind I'm going to focus a bit on the actors and their characters as compared to the movie itself since there really is nothing I can add that hasn't been said already by others, and more eloquently than I could say it.
Nathan Fillion as Captain Mal Reynolds. What a great job of casting for the role of Captain Mal Reynolds. I wonder if the role was designed around the actor. Very well could have been knowing the relationship with Fillion and Whedon. I also enjoy Fillions role as the detective Richard Castle. The two roles are completely different but his underlying personality in both is the same. In Castle he is a playboy who has everything he wants and needs and you get the impression he never had to work very hard for it. He is happy to take orders from Detective Beckett (although so would I :drooling: ) as well as from his daughter and his mother. As Captian Reynolds he is the man in charge. Granted he does have some of the same type of interactions with the ladies of Firefly he does with the ladies of Castle but in the end it is Captain Reynolds who calls the shots. My favorite role of his is of course the great Captain Hammer. "Haven't I seen you at the gym... wait a minute, I don't go to the gym!" :laugh: As Whedon said in the commentary (not "Commentary, the Musical" which in itself was brilliant if you ask me) "nobody does smarm like Nathan". So.. back to Captain Reynolds (I know, I ramble on sometimes :-[ ) The character of Captain Reynolds was a bit more intense in the movie compared to the TV series. Fortunately this was something they addressed and I give Whedon credit for that (he was very good at adressing things that weren't quite right in Buffy and Angel too). After the opening heist scene he and Zoe were discussing the escape.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
It wasn't a big deal. As has been pointed out movies are different than TV shows and the characters are developed differently. I like what they did with Captain Reynolds and am glad they did it for the movie. Nathan Fillion is someone who I will watch for in the future. In fact I follow his tweets. Most of them I get a chuckle out of.
Jewel Staite as Keylee Jewell Staite is perfect as the cute naive young lady who has a gift for engines. They just "talk to her" I believe is what she says in an early episode. She never quite pulled off the role in Stargate Atlantis of the Doctor. Someone who reaches the rank of a lead doctor for a facility like that one would be more confident and agressive iin their personality. In order to make her character work they should have brought her in as an assistant first and then promoted her with a "we have faith in your abilities and know you can do this" kinda thing when they lost Fr. Beckett ( :( ). It would have made her character much more believable as you could watch her grow. As Kaylee she was awesome. The Firefly episode where she accompanies Mal to formal party was great. The other women snubbed her but after a while it was her who had all the men in the place surrounding her and hanging on her every word. She played the simple girl so good you almost believe she was raised that way. There was a scene in another Firefly episode where they were in a store. She saw something she thought was pretty and wanted to get it for Simon. Simon then comes in and is appalled by it. I think it was good they addressed the never happened love affair between Simon and Kaylee in the movie. I love the line " I ain't had nothin twixed my nethers for over a year that wasn't battery operated" :hysterical: Jayne liked it as well :laugh:
We know they kept Simon and Kaylee apart in the TV series so they could hopefully continue the sexual tension for a while. I'm sure they would have eventually got together but they couldn't have just done that in the 1st 13 episodes. Had the series been pickled up you would have lost a lot of opportunity for the back story of their relationship. Again I give Whedon credit for addressing it for the fans of the TV show. The way they address it was perfect too and brought a smile to my face.
(click to show/hide)
Gina Torres as Zoe With the exception of her role in Angel she basically plays the same part (at least from what I've seen her in). She is good at it but her role in Firefly was nothing spectacular. I wont go out of my way to watch her but certainly wouldn't not watch something because she is in it. I liked Standoff a couple of years ago but again, her role could have been played by anyone.
Alan Tudyk as WashAlan Tudyk = Steve the Pirate. :laugh: Nothing more needs to be said.
Summer Glau as River Tam. I've now seen her in Firefly, The Unit, Terminator and Dollhouse. Regarding Firefly/Serenity I think it's a shame they had to go to her kick-ass role in Serenity so quick. I enjoyed her role in Firefly better as their was tiny hints here and there of what she was but we also got to see her re-discover the world (like the dancing scene in whatever episode of Firefly it was). I know the character could have developed over a couple of years into the role they had her in in Serenity.The Serenity River is completely kick ass and 100% awesome. I liked everything about her. Fromthe final fight scene to her sobbing as all of the thirty million pls voices are saying nothing but are all inside her head (just how does that work anyway :stars: ). I have to say though my favorite role for Summer is that in Terminator: TSCC. She is perfect at being a terminator. I still haven't seen the final few episodes... have to do something about that. :hmmmm:
Morena Baccarin as Anara Morena Baccarinis a beautiful, talented actress but she needs to grow her hair again! :yucky: I'm sorry but the short hair she has in V doesnt' cut it. At least do like she did in Stargate SG-1 and put it up. The whole 'companion' thing I still find bizarre. If there ever was something like that I could see it being just how Anara is. She is... heh - i was just about to write "she is the perfect companion".... :bag: But she is!. Get rid of the Firefly definition of companion and just think of what it means today. She would be a great companion! I throughly enjoyed her character in Firefly as well as Serenity. Unlike many of the others they didn't do much with her in the movie different than the TV show. They did show her trying to help Mal in the fight when he came to rescue her. I can't recall her doing that before. And her solution to help them escape was a side of her you hadn't seen before but it was something you could easily believe was always there.
I have to wonder what Whedon's intent was when he had Anara leave the ship in Firefly. Was she just going to be gone a few episodes? Was fate going to keep bringing her and the Firefly crew back together over the course of time? It seemed too early for her to leave for good that's for sure. Even her relationship with Captain Reynolds was a bit rushed in the TV show I thought. They had only know each other for a few months. As a trained companion I don't think she would have been as taken by someone as she seemed to be with Mal. Although her part in the "Mrs. Reynolds" episode was :hysterical: so... never mond. I guess she was smitten by her smarmy captain.
OK, who's left. *click on preview* :laugh: Holy crap am I babbling on or what! :bag:
Ron Glass as Shepherd Book I watched him in the 70 as a cop on Barney Miller. I was surprised when I saw his name as a cast member in Firefly. He played his part well in both the TV show and the movie. I loved the scene in the TV show where River saw him with his hair down. :laugh: In the movie they seemed to show more of a relationship between he and Mal then you saw in the TV show. There were very few scenes in the TV shoe (that I can remember) where the two of them talked. Of course this doesn't include the MR.s Reynolds episode where the shepherd kept repeating the same thing :laugh: I didn't have a problem with the Serenity relationship but. like some of the others, it just felt rushed. Yea yea, I know. They had to rush it. It's just a shame that there is yet another example of what would have been developed naturally over time had the show not been cancelled. (I do sound bitter still, don't I :whistle: )
Sean Maher as SimonProbably the easiest of the cast to replace. They could have put someone else in for the movie and I don't think it would have mattered. I don't know if it is the actor himself or the character but I never did connect with him. He didn't pull off the "i'm better than you" part of his character he seemed to show in the early episodes. There were hints of it here and there (like the scene in the store I mentioned earlier) but it wasn't consistent. Sometime he looked down on the crew while other times he showed his gratitude and then there were times when you couldn't tell what he thought. Even when he helped with the heist at the hospital he was back and forth I thought. It is unusual for a Whedon character to flounder around so much so it leads me to believe it was the actor. :shrug:
Adam Baldwin as Jayne Looking at his IMDB profile I see he has been in a lot of things I wasn't aware of, including shows I have watched (X-files and Angel). I remember seeing My Bodyguard (his first movie) when it first came out. I'm not sure why I remember it but I do. He has the distinction of playing two of my favorite TV characters now. Jayne Cobb and Col. John Casey in "Chuck" Chuck is, without a doubt, my favorite TV show that is currently running (BTW - tune in Monday nights on ABC before it gets cancelled!!!!!). Casey is a lot like Jayne. The big difference is one fights for money and the other fights for love of his country. Neither character gets hung up with relationships (they recently explained that in Chuck :weep: ) and are both focused on the job at hand. Jayne was one in the movie that I thought was exactly like he was in the series. Perhaps it's because there really is no depth to his character. WYSIWYG! The only part in the movie where I feel they dropped the ball was when Mal gave his 'you're with me or you leave my crew stay here' speech. Jayne, who fights for money and has already said he wasn't going to die for the Tam's should have said something. A simple promise of keeping the shares of anyone killed by Mal would have made sure Jayne went along, or even one of the other characters saying if they die he can have their share of whatever would have worked. I feel it should have been addressed. Look at how he ended up being on the crew!!!! :laugh:
Adam Baldwin in real life is one of the few conservative actors out there. He really does come across as John Casey in real life. I hope Chuck does get renewed for another season and Adam Baldwin is a big part of why. If it doesn't I will certainly watch for his next show more so than any of the other characters. One more thing on him... can you imagine being in hollywood with the name of Baldwin but not being related to 'the' Baldwins. You have to wonder just how many times he's had to answer the "are you related to" question. :laugh:
I believe that about covers it. I'm glad there are no rules around here as I'm sure I would have broken a few of them with my "review". And I guess I never answered the question this topic was supposed to discuss so here goes:
Did Serenity start a sci-fi revolution for which it has never been credited?
No :tease: