SERENITY--Writers are evil! ("Serenity" Spoilers)
Ken from Chicago
writers, at least the good ones, especially the great ones, are evil.
-- Ken from Chicago (who loved FIREFLY and SERENITY and *because* of that
hates what Whedon's done)
P.S. So when's SERENITY 2?
electr...@gmail.com
I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
hanging on a cliff.
troy
Ken from Chicago
<electr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128203140.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
> I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
> hanging on a cliff.
>
> troy
No. BAD writers would end a movie on a cliffhanger--at least not if they
don't know there's gonna be a sequel (ala LOTR).
-- Ken from Chicago
ack
Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
ST/TOS Writer in a script session:
"Hell, somebody's gotta die to sell the Evility of (insert your favorite
ST/TOS badbeing here), let's make it a dumb-ass Security guy... The
audience hasn't developed any kind of bond with him/her..."
I walked away from "Serenity" with the feeling that this was REAL. This
was how life might be 500 years in the future.
It was very unlike "ST-The Motion Picture" -- 15 minutes of swirling gas
clouds with synthesized organ music chords puntuating the view while the
cast stared stupidly at the bridge viewscreen.
That was like watching Paint Dry.
--Ack
tomcervo
done--better to end them than to make them throw-them-a-bone walk-ons,
no matter how much you might like them--more dignity that way. (See
also Chekov, Sulu).
I also wearied of the now-inevitable boss-battle at the end. How about
a little sugar instead? I can't be the only one with second hand
blue-balls from the never ending Mal/Inara crossed signal.
But that's only in comparison with the rest of the movie, as fresh and
cool as the best eps of the series. Is it too early to pre-order the
DVD?
Ken from Chicago
"ack" <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_QD%e.2266$Fi3...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> If you saw the movie (or BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER or ANGEL) you know why
>> writers, at least the good ones, especially the great ones, are evil.
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago (who loved FIREFLY and SERENITY and *because* of that
>> hates what Whedon's done)
>>
>> P.S. So when's SERENITY 2?
> Ken:
>
> Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
> MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the infinitely-predictable
> RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act writing style. That kind of
> writing reduces the value of life, of all the character's "being-ness" to
> zero in the story.
Note my postscript.
> ST/TOS Writer in a script session:
> "Hell, somebody's gotta die to sell the Evility of (insert your favorite
> ST/TOS badbeing here), let's make it a dumb-ass Security guy... The
> audience hasn't developed any kind of bond with him/her..."
>
> I walked away from "Serenity" with the feeling that this was REAL. This
> was how life might be 500 years in the future.
>
> It was very unlike "ST-The Motion Picture" -- 15 minutes of swirling gas
> clouds with synthesized organ music chords puntuating the view while the
> cast stared stupidly at the bridge viewscreen.
>
> That was like watching Paint Dry.
>
>
>
> --Ack
And then came the awesomeness that was STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN.
-- Ken from Chicago (who enjoyed STI even while allowing for its many, many
flaws)
Beth Smarr
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> If you saw the movie (or BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER or ANGEL) you know
>> why writers, at least the good ones, especially the great ones, are evil.
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago (who loved FIREFLY and SERENITY and *because* of
>> that hates what Whedon's done)
>>
>> P.S. So when's SERENITY 2?
>>
> Ken:
>
> Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
> MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
> infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
> writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
> the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
>
> ST/TOS Writer in a script session:
> "Hell, somebody's gotta die to sell the Evility of (insert your favorite
> ST/TOS badbeing here), let's make it a dumb-ass Security guy... The
> audience hasn't developed any kind of bond with him/her..."
>
> I walked away from "Serenity" with the feeling that this was REAL. This
> was how life might be 500 years in the future.
Yes - this was life as it could be - not sanitized or pretty-fied.
> It was very unlike "ST-The Motion Picture" -- 15 minutes of swirling gas
> clouds with synthesized organ music chords puntuating the view while the
> cast stared stupidly at the bridge viewscreen.
>
> That was like watching Paint Dry.
As much as I waited and wanted Star Trek as a movie, I felt during the
movie that it was more about what could be done with $40 million than
about the characters and a story.
I had to wait until The Wrath of Khan to get that.
>
>
>
> --Ack
--
Beth
erilar
<jcam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I walked away from "Serenity" with the feeling that this was REAL. This
> was how life might be 500 years in the future.
Maybe that's part of why I felt as if I'd been working hard the whole
two hours when I walked out. I was TIRED from the emotional ups and
downs. And I continue to love the way humor is used. It increases those
ups and downs. And I find the use of humor at tense moments a real
thing, too, as well as something most writers of dialogue nowadays seem
to have forgotten. Anyone here remember "I Spy"?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
electr...@gmail.com wrote:
> So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
> I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
> hanging on a cliff.
What cliffhanger? It concludes. It just leaves an opening.
Ken from Chicago
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-49E9...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> In article <_QD%e.2266$Fi3...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, ack
> <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> I walked away from "Serenity" with the feeling that this was REAL. This
>> was how life might be 500 years in the future.
>
> Maybe that's part of why I felt as if I'd been working hard the whole
> two hours when I walked out. I was TIRED from the emotional ups and
> downs. And I continue to love the way humor is used. It increases those
> ups and downs. And I find the use of humor at tense moments a real
> thing, too, as well as something most writers of dialogue nowadays seem
> to have forgotten. Anyone here remember "I Spy"?
Peter Allen David
ALL his stories has liberal use of humor to ENHANCE the drama and action and
highlight the tragedy involved in a given story. Be it Star Trek: The
Original Series, Star Trek: The Pike Generation, Star Trek: The Next
Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, X-Men, Aquaman, Captain
Marvel, Supergirl, King Arthur, Werewolf-bitten Wolf, Psi-Man, Fallen Angel,
etc. And he writes in layers, for newbies and veterans alike. The more you
know, the more you'll enjoy, but extensive historical knowledge of a subject
is not needed.
> --
> Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
>
> You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
> is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
>
> Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
-- Ken from Chicago (who is in no way biased merely because Peter David is
his favorite writer. Not. One. Bit.)
Atlas Bugged
news:xqudne35oad...@comcast.com...
> Peter Allen David
I have followed him from his first emergence when he worked in Marvel
Comics' mail room. I believe his first published writing was WEB OF
SPIDERMAN, can't remember the issue number, but I have several copies.
In an early publicity stunt, he agreed to personally answer any fan who
wrote to him. I still have his return letter, which gave upcoming plot
points and artwork on an upcoming issue of THE HULK that he was penning at
the time.
>
> ALL his stories has liberal use of humor to ENHANCE the drama and action
> and highlight the tragedy involved in a given story. Be it Star Trek: The
> Original Series, Star Trek: The Pike Generation, Star Trek: The Next
> Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, X-Men, Aquaman, Captain
> Marvel, Supergirl, King Arthur, Werewolf-bitten Wolf, Psi-Man, Fallen
> Angel, etc. And he writes in layers, for newbies and veterans alike. The
> more you know, the more you'll enjoy, but extensive historical knowledge
> of a subject is not needed.
> -- Ken from Chicago (who is in no way biased merely because Peter David is
> his favorite writer. Not. One. Bit.)
In all these years, there have been some serious deviations from greatness.
But he started out with a bang and can still tell a hell of a story.
Don Sample
erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1128203140.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> electr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
> > I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
> > hanging on a cliff.
>
> What cliffhanger? It concludes. It just leaves an opening.
It ends (as it begins) with a piece falling off Serenity, and Mal asking
"What was that?"
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
J. Clarke
> In article <dsample-0EEDED...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
>> > > So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
>> > > I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
>> > > hanging on a cliff.
>> >
>> > What cliffhanger? It concludes. It just leaves an opening.
>>
>> It ends (as it begins) with a piece falling off Serenity, and Mal asking
>> "What was that?"
>
> And yet, somehow, I don't see thousands of people anxiously waiting for
> a couple of years for a sequel to answer the burning question "What was
> that thing that fell off the ship?"
Well, there's the pure adolescent joy of watching River clean out a bar.
And I know just the bar . . .
Then there's the whole River/Jayne dynamic--for some reason I'm sensing a
romance of some kind in the making, although it's likely to be Jayne
playing Xander to River's Buffy.
At long last Simon has gotten a clue with regard to Kaylee--I was expecting
that to be Xander and Willow forever.
And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to be
fun.
Then there is River's continued growth--are her capabilities fully developed
or is she just warming up?
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Cyde Weys
J. Clarke wrote:
> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to be
> fun.
What?! You think Zoe is going to be involved with Mal? I don't even
see how that's remotely possible.
Ken from Chicago
"Dylan Winslow" <dyl...@xmission.dot.com> wrote in message
news:dylanw-C759F2....@news.supernews.com...
> In article <dsample-0EEDED...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
>> > > So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
>> > > I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
>> > > hanging on a cliff.
>> >
>> > What cliffhanger? It concludes. It just leaves an opening.
>>
>> It ends (as it begins) with a piece falling off Serenity, and Mal asking
>> "What was that?"
>
> a couple of years for a sequel to answer the burning question "What was
> that thing that fell off the ship?"
>
> Dylan Winslow
> If you can't be part of the solution, be part of the problem.
That piece was Mal's father!
-- Ken from Chicago
James Gassaway
I don't know, Ken. The last line _was_ "What was that?!" :P
(Just got back from seeing 'Serenity'.)
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
Multiversal Mercenaries
You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
Ken from Chicago
"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128299967....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mal comforting the grieving "widow" turns into talk about that time when Mal
and Wash were captured and tortured and <chuckle> Wash insisted on Mal
bedding his wife to get the tension out of the wife. Ridiculous.
Preposterous. Ludicrous.
And then Inara walks in on them.
And some reaver--with a passing resemblance to ... Wash!?!!!
-- Ken from Chicago
Lurch
I don't think he means romantically, but just as in the Mal/Zoe/Wash
triangle Zoe's devotion to Mal on a personal/professional level has the
potential to complicate things.
Ken from Chicago
"Lurch" <goa...@leavemealone.net> wrote in message
news:C_ednU8lwsZ...@comcast.com...
Are you sure he didn't mean romantically?
-- Ken from Chicago
Jeanne Douglas
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
> > If you saw the movie (or BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER or ANGEL) you know why
> > writers, at least the good ones, especially the great ones, are evil.
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago (who loved FIREFLY and SERENITY and *because* of that
> > hates what Whedon's done)
> >
> > P.S. So when's SERENITY 2?
> >
> >
> Ken:
>
> Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
> MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
> infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
> writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
> the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
>
> ST/TOS Writer in a script session:
> "Hell, somebody's gotta die to sell the Evility of (insert your favorite
> ST/TOS badbeing here), let's make it a dumb-ass Security guy... The
> audience hasn't developed any kind of bond with him/her..."
Or, far far worse--killing off a major character and then hitting the
proverbial reset button and pretending it never happened. Horrific
cheating.
Jeanne
--
JD
"Baseball is a dull game only for those with a dull mind"--Red Smith
jayembee
> Well, there's the pure adolescent joy of watching River clean out a bar.
I didn't enjoy that so much, because it wasn't clear that anyone there
deserved it. Now River doing Reaver cleanup duty...*that* was
satisfying.
The real disappointment, as my wife said afterwards, is that unless Joss
does a prequel, we're unlikely to ever find out Book's backstory.
-- jayembee
Jeanne Douglas
> So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
> I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
> hanging on a cliff.
There's no cliffhanger. It's just that we all loved the movie so much we
can't wait to see more of the story of these characters we love so much.
Jeanne
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
> > If you saw the movie (or BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER or ANGEL) you know why
> > writers, at least the good ones, especially the great ones, are evil.
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago (who loved FIREFLY and SERENITY and *because* of that
> > hates what Whedon's done)
> >
> > P.S. So when's SERENITY 2?
--
Jeanne Douglas
> In article <erilarloFRY-D1C3...@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
> erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1128203140.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > electr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
> > > I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
> > > hanging on a cliff.
> >
> > What cliffhanger? It concludes. It just leaves an opening.
>
> It ends (as it begins) with a piece falling off Serenity, and Mal asking
> "What was that?"
Which just takes us back to the beginning of the film when another piece
of the ship falls off as they're coming through the atmosphere.
Everything's changed but some things never change.
jayembee
> So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
> I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
> hanging on a cliff.
Why must you take everything so literally?
-- jayembee
jayembee
> -- Ken from Chicago (who enjoyed STI even while allowing
> for its many, many flaws)
And I thought I was the only one.
STTMP was the only one in that series that to me felt like a
*movie* rather than just a double-length TV episode.
(Please, no wisecracks about it being just a remake of "The
Changeling". I mean in execution, not in story.)
And that's one of my disappointments with SERENITY: it felt
like another episode of the series. I was expecting a Big Damn
Movie to be a Big Damn Movie, not a Big Damn Episode.
-- jayembee
J. Clarke
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Well, there's the pure adolescent joy of watching River clean out a bar.
>
> I didn't enjoy that so much, because it wasn't clear that anyone there
> deserved it. Now River doing Reaver cleanup duty...*that* was
> satisfying.
Nobody in a bar fight ever deserves it. Bar fights are not about Truth,
Justice, and the American Way, they're about blowing off steam.
> The real disappointment, as my wife said afterwards, is that unless Joss
> does a prequel, we're unlikely to ever find out Book's backstory.
>
> -- jayembee
--
Robert Uhl
>
>> > > So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If
>> > > so, I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months
>> > > (years?) hanging on a cliff.
>> >
>> > What cliffhanger? It concludes. It just leaves an opening.
>>
>> It ends (as it begins) with a piece falling off Serenity, and Mal
>> asking "What was that?"
>
> for a couple of years for a sequel to answer the burning question
> "What was that thing that fell off the ship?"
You've not spent _nearly_ enough time with fans. No doubt entire
volumes will be written on the subject. Sad 35 yr. old men living in
their parents' basements will argue for years about which piece of
non-existent technology the debris was from; each will post 97-page-long
screeds to Usenet pointing out the virtues of his argument and the mixed
simian/canine heritage of any who disagree. Eventually Joss will be
forced to tell them that it's just a show.
It is, of course, a plasmic reticulator, and anyone who says otherwise
is a twit:-)
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does
not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
--Robert Heinlein
jayembee
> You've not spent _nearly_ enough time with fans. No doubt entire
> volumes will be written on the subject. Sad 35 yr. old men living in
> their parents' basements will argue for years about which piece of
> non-existent technology the debris was from; each will post 97-page-long
> screeds to Usenet pointing out the virtues of his argument and the mixed
> simian/canine heritage of any who disagree. Eventually Joss will be
> forced to tell them that it's just a show.
>
> It is, of course, a plasmic reticulator, and anyone who says otherwise
> is a twit:-)
Is that right? A plasmic reticulator? Sorry, Mr. Know-It-All, that's not good
enough. If you want us to take you seriously, you're going to have to
furnish us with the part number.
-- jayembee
Ken from Chicago
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:9s81k1laecl63jm6f...@4ax.com...
You have radically different standards than many. SERENITY amped up with Mal
and crew were taking on. In the series Mal limited his confrontations with
the Alliance, this time he ran straight at them--tho he jigged and zagged.
Moreover the CONSEQUENCES of their actions were far greater than what they
had done before.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "You can't stop the signal."--SERENITY.
Ken from Chicago
"Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@pacbell.netr> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd-CF8F74...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
There's always fanfiction.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Literature is fun.
-- Ken from Chicago
Commodore LXIV
"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128299967....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mal and River ... they both have a lot in common...
They don't need Zoe and Jayne anymore, just keep Kaylee around
to keep the engines running and Simon around to keep the people
going... since River can fight better than Zoe and Jayne put together.
seriously though... River / Mal...
J. Clarke
It was really more of a full-season story arc compressed into two hours.
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. "You can't stop the signal."--SERENITY.
--
Paul Vader
>> So what you're saying is - the movie ends on a cliffhanger? If so,
>> I'll probably skip it. I don't like waiting several months (years?)
>> hanging on a cliff.
>
>Why must you take everything so literally?
'Cause he's a big dork. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Paul Vader
Spoiler
>Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
>MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
>infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
>writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
>the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean can
never show your face in public again. *
Michael Alan Chary
Where did you stand on The X-Files movie, because I noticed some stuff in
"Serentiy" that they could never have gotten away with in television.
Long, set characterpieces. Extended action sequences. Some overtly sexual
material, though if they can't get Gina Torres, Jewel Staite, Summer Glau,
and Morena Baccarin naked, I don't really see the point of a movie.
Certainly the level of violence was pretty huge. The main problem is that
with the possible exception of Jewel Staite, who surprised me, and Ron
Glass, nobody in the cast really has "it." The indefinable quality that
makes Julia Robert sand Cary Grant, for instance, movie stars, and people
like Gina Torres who is every bit as talented and much more attractive,
not.
I was actually astonished at how much presence Staite had on the big
screen. I'd only ever seen her in secondary roles on tv, but if she ever
gets into a non-genre, big budget roles, say the type of part that usually
goes to Drew Barrymoe or Ashley Judd, she's going to be a breakout
international star.
--
An experiment in publishing:
http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
whodunit
> ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Spoiler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
>>MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
>>infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
>>writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
>>the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
>
>
> Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
> CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean can
> never show your face in public again. *
Yes, I was having flashbacks to the Alamo as well! Yikes!
Glad it turned out better though.
George W Harris
wrote:
:ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
:
:Spoiler
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:>Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
:>MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
:>infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
:>writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
:>the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
:
:Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
:CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean can
:never show your face in public again. *
When Simon got shot, right? That's been
referred to as the 'Hamlet moment'.
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
George W Harris
:
:"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
:news:1128299967....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:>
:> J. Clarke wrote:
:>
:>> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to be
:>> fun.
:>
:> What?! You think Zoe is going to be involved with Mal? I don't even
:> see how that's remotely possible.
:>
:
:Mal and River ... they both have a lot in common...
No, Jayne and River. River gets intrigued by
what she sees Simon and Kaylee doing, and makes
Jayne her bitch. He's helpless, but Simon and Mal are
both furious with him.
:
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Paul Vader
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:37:32 -0000, pv+u...@pobox.com (Paul Vader)
>wrote:
>
>:ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>:
>:Spoiler
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:>Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
>:>MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
>:>infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
>:>writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
>:>the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
>:
>:Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
>:CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean can
>:never show your face in public again. *
>
> When Simon got shot, right? That's been
>referred to as the 'Hamlet moment'.
Yup, that was it. I figured if Simon goes, River has to go too, then the
hole heart of the storyline is over, and besides that, there's not enough
people left to make even a minimal stand. I don't know why, but River doing
what she did (and living through it!) didn't occur to me until she was
already through the hatch. I got faked out of my shoes by Joss. *
J. Clarke
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:50:12 GMT, "Commodore LXIV" <x@x.x> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :news:1128299967....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :>
> :> J. Clarke wrote:
> :>
> :>> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to
> :>> be fun.
> :>
> :> What?! You think Zoe is going to be involved with Mal? I don't even
> :> see how that's remotely possible.
> :>
> :
> :Mal and River ... they both have a lot in common...
>
> No, Jayne and River. River gets intrigued by
> what she sees Simon and Kaylee doing, and makes
> Jayne her bitch. He's helpless, but Simon and Mal are
> both furious with him.
You really think River's going to go for Jayne? The other way I can
see--River's a _lot_ more dangerous than Vera.
> :
jayembee
>> And that's one of my disappointments with SERENITY: it felt
>> like another episode of the series. I was expecting a Big Damn
>> Movie to be a Big Damn Movie, not a Big Damn Episode.
>
> Where did you stand on The X-Files movie,
Big Damn Episode. Moreso than SERENITY, because I don't
believe it worked as a standalone story, independent of the
series. That's where Carter went wrong. He was so enamored
of his Mythology that he had to make the movie a part of it
instead of going for a strong, independent story.
> because I noticed some stuff in "Serentiy" that they could
> never have gotten away with in television. Long, set
> characterpieces. Extended action sequences. Some overtly
> sexual material, [...]
Could you provide examples of what you mean, with an
explanation of why you don't think they could've gotten
away with them on TV? Because I'm not seeing it.
*Especially* the "overtly sexual material".
> Certainly the level of violence was pretty huge.
Enh. That's not what I look for in a movie as opposed to a
TV show. I can't really explain it concisely (which is why I
could never make a living writing about film), but in terms
of story structure and frame composition, I think Joss'
writing & directing on "Serenity" (the series pilot) and
"Objects in Space" were far more cinematic than on SERENITY.
> The main problem is that with the possible exception of
> Jewel Staite, who surprised me, and Ron Glass, nobody
> in the cast really has "it." The indefinable quality that
> makes Julia Robert sand Cary Grant, for instance, movie
> stars, and people like Gina Torres who is every bit as
> talented and much more attractive, not.
>
> I was actually astonished at how much presence Staite had
> on the big screen. I'd only ever seen her in secondary roles
> on tv, but if she ever gets into a non-genre, big budget roles,
> say the type of part that usually goes to Drew Barrymoe or
> Ashley Judd, she's going to be a breakout international star.
Sorry, but I don't see it. I adore Jewel. Always have. But she
was almost unnoticible in the movie. To me, the closest one
in SERENITY's cast to having "it" was Summer Glau, and
even she didn't actually have "it".
The odd thing is that having "it" doesn't necessarily make one
a star. I never quite understood, for example, why Chow Yun-Fat
never managed to succeed in America. I think he has more "it"
than just about anyone in the past 50 years.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Spoiler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
> CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean
> can never show your face in public again. *
I don't know about the *entire* cast, but during the final stand-off, I was
*this* close to thinking that Mal and Jayne were going to be the only ones
to make it out of the movie alive.
-- jayembee
Michael Alan Chary
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>
>>> And that's one of my disappointments with SERENITY: it felt
>>> like another episode of the series. I was expecting a Big Damn
>>> Movie to be a Big Damn Movie, not a Big Damn Episode.
>>
>> Where did you stand on The X-Files movie,
>
>Big Damn Episode. Moreso than SERENITY, because I don't
>believe it worked as a standalone story, independent of the
>series. That's where Carter went wrong. He was so enamored
>of his Mythology that he had to make the movie a part of it
>instead of going for a strong, independent story.
But the purpose of the movie was to develope the mythology. The next movie
is supposed to be stand alone.
>
>> because I noticed some stuff in "Serentiy" that they could
>> never have gotten away with in television. Long, set
>> characterpieces. Extended action sequences. Some overtly
>> sexual material, [...]
>
>Could you provide examples of what you mean, with an
>explanation of why you don't think they could've gotten
>away with them on TV? Because I'm not seeing it.
A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't devote
fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one conversation. In
a movie, you can and Whedon did. The scene at the retreat with Mal and the
Operative would have had to be half as long on tv. The scene with river
clearing out the bar would have been over in thirty seconds on tv. The
whole scene with Serentity navigating the asteroid field, er, space
battle, would have been much much shorter.
>*Especially* the "overtly sexual material".
"I'll be in my bumk" is subtle enough to pass at 8 p.m. Fridays. "I
haven't had anything in my nethers that didn't run on batteries" wouldn't
have made it past standards and practices.
>> Certainly the level of violence was pretty huge.
>
>Enh. That's not what I look for in a movie as opposed to a
>TV show. I can't really explain it concisely (which is why I
>could never make a living writing about film), but in terms
>of story structure and frame composition, I think Joss'
>writing & directing on "Serenity" (the series pilot) and
>"Objects in Space" were far more cinematic than on SERENITY.
Fair enough.
>
>> The main problem is that with the possible exception of
>> Jewel Staite, who surprised me, and Ron Glass, nobody
>> in the cast really has "it." The indefinable quality that
>> makes Julia Robert sand Cary Grant, for instance, movie
>> stars, and people like Gina Torres who is every bit as
>> talented and much more attractive, not.
>>
>> I was actually astonished at how much presence Staite had
>> on the big screen. I'd only ever seen her in secondary roles
>> on tv, but if she ever gets into a non-genre, big budget roles,
>> say the type of part that usually goes to Drew Barrymoe or
>> Ashley Judd, she's going to be a breakout international star.
>
>Sorry, but I don't see it. I adore Jewel. Always have. But she
>was almost unnoticible in the movie. To me, the closest one
>in SERENITY's cast to having "it" was Summer Glau, and
>even she didn't actually have "it".
>
Well, all I can say is you'll never make it as a casting director. :):)
She didn't have a large part, but she stole several parts of the movie,
including the final fight scene and the bit in the bar.
>The odd thing is that having "it" doesn't necessarily make one
>a star. I never quite understood, for example, why Chow Yun-Fat
>never managed to succeed in America. I think he has more "it"
>than just about anyone in the past 50 years.
"It" doesn't make a star, but nobody becmoes a star without "it." (Where's
Ferro Lad when you need him?)
Michael Alan Chary
Beowulf Bolt
>
> I don't know, Ken. The last line _was_ "What was that?!" :P
He's joking, Troy. Well, not about the line, but about the
implication.
(Felt that point needed to be made.)
Cheers,
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Invid Fan
<hlwdjsd-15485C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Jeanne
Douglas <hlw...@pacbell.netr> wrote:
> Or, far far worse--killing off a major character and then hitting the
> proverbial reset button and pretending it never happened. Horrific
> cheating.
>
This kind of happened with the ship itself in the movie. If it wasn't a
"character" Joss wanted to be in future stories they would have found
another way off planet. I hate "you pushed the magic button, so we're
no longer enemies" endings.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Invid Fan
> The odd thing is that having "it" doesn't necessarily make one
> a star. I never quite understood, for example, why Chow Yun-Fat
> never managed to succeed in America. I think he has more "it"
> than just about anyone in the past 50 years.
>
Did anyone try and put him in a "normal" US movie? One where's he's an
American who just happens to be Asian?
Velvet Elvis
> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to be
> fun.
I'd think that some kind of personal honor code would keep Mal from
hooking up with the wife of a slain crew member.
I can also see Zoe being somewhat frustrated by this.
Their shared frustration pushing Zoe and Inarra into a lesbian tryst is
probably too much to hope for.
Velvet Elvis
> It is, of course, a plasmic reticulator, and anyone who says otherwise
> is a twit:-)
It looked just like a Telefunkin U-47.
No 33 Secretary
news:031020051644051915%in...@localnet.com:
> In article
> <hlwdjsd-15485C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Jeanne
> Douglas <hlw...@pacbell.netr> wrote:
>
>> Or, far far worse--killing off a major character and then hitting the
>> proverbial reset button and pretending it never happened. Horrific
>> cheating.
>>
> This kind of happened with the ship itself in the movie. If it wasn't a
> "character" Joss wanted to be in future stories they would have found
> another way off planet. I hate "you pushed the magic button, so we're
> no longer enemies" endings.
>
It is sorta consistent with the operative's personality (what little he
had), though. They weren't a threat any more. (Assuming that Miranda was
the *only* secret the Parliment had, that is.)
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
No 33 Secretary
news:33h0f.9055$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
I say it's an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
George W Harris
<jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
For River, it wouldn't be an emotional
attachment, just physical experimentation. She
wouldn't go for Mal, 'cause he's a father figure,
and likewise wouldn't go for Simon. That leaves
Jayne.
Plus, it's funny.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
James Gassaway
news:434187...@shaw.ca...
> James Gassaway wrote:
>>
>> I don't know, Ken. The last line _was_ "What was that?!" :P
>
> He's joking, Troy. Well, not about the line, but about the
> implication.
>
> (Felt that point needed to be made.)
>
Which is why the tongue-in-cheek smilie was there at the end.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
Multiversal Mercenaries
You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
J. Clarke
Now there's a thought. Just remember that Mal and Zoe have a long
backstory.
J. Clarke
I'm kind of wondering if he's setting up a Xander/Buffy relationship with
Jayne as Xander.
KnobDoctor
news:33h0f.9055$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
With leather?
Hannibal Fortune
> jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>> The odd thing is that having "it" doesn't necessarily make one
>> a star. I never quite understood, for example, why Chow Yun-Fat
>> never managed to succeed in America. I think he has more "it"
>> than just about anyone in the past 50 years.
>>
> Did anyone try and put him in a "normal" US movie? One where's
> he's an American who just happens to be Asian?
If memory serves, that was true of his character in THE CORRUPTER,
but then, that was just more of the type of crime thriller that he was
famous for in HK.
I had hoped that ANNA AND THE KING would be his American
breakout film, but alas, it was not to be.
I have to say that when he first made the transition to the US, I
was hoping his American debut would be in something more akin
to AN AUTUMN'S TALE than HARD-BOILED.
-- jayembee
Hannibal Fortune
> jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
> >pv+u...@pobox.com (Paul Vader) wrote:
> >
> >> ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>
> >> Spoiler
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
> >> CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean
> >> can never show your face in public again. *
> >
> >I don't know about the *entire* cast, but during the final stand-off, I was
> >*this* close to thinking that Mal and Jayne were going to be the only ones
> >to make it out of the movie alive.
> >
>
> I figured Simon and River were going to be left alive.
My thinking is that leaving Mal alive would've been cruel. And leaving
Jayne alive would've been perverse.
-- jayembee
Hannibal Fortune
>>> because I noticed some stuff in "Serentiy" that they could
>>> never have gotten away with in television. Long, set
>>> characterpieces. Extended action sequences. Some overtly
>>> sexual material, [...]
>>
>> Could you provide examples of what you mean, with an
>> explanation of why you don't think they could've gotten
>> away with them on TV? Because I'm not seeing it.
>
> A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't devote
> fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one conversation.
You can if it's a 2-hour/2-part episode.
>>*Especially* the "overtly sexual material".
>
> "I'll be in my bumk" is subtle enough to pass at 8 p.m. Fridays. "I
> haven't had anything in my nethers that didn't run on batteries" wouldn't
> have made it past standards and practices.
I've heard worse on FRIENDS.
-- jayembee
Ken from Chicago
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:11k2k1s...@news.supernews.com...
> ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Spoiler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
>>MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
>>infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
>>writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
>>the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
>
> CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean can
> never show your face in public again. *
> * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> like corkscrews.
But then the Blake's 7 or Red Dwarf fans would cry foul / rip off.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> And that's one of my disappointments with SERENITY: it felt
> like another episode of the series. I was expecting a Big Damn
> Movie to be a Big Damn Movie, not a Big Damn Episode.
What makes it less cinematic than other SF movies? My only grip with the
movie is that Joss directs the quieter scenes like he's still on TV. His
framing is wrong in those sequences. Is that what you're talking about?
--
You Can't Stop The Signal
Robert Uhl
>
> A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't
> devote fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one
> conversation. In a movie, you can and Whedon did. The scene at the
> retreat with Mal and the Operative would have had to be half as long
> on tv. The scene with river clearing out the bar would have been over
> in thirty seconds on tv. The whole scene with Serentity navigating
> the asteroid field, er, space battle, would have been much much
> shorter.
No--they would have all been very much _longer_. Because, you see, it's
not a case of one movie vs. one episode, but rather one movie vs. a
dozen or more episodes. In fact, the material in Serenity could very
well have filled three seasons of television (with a lot more filler and
side-adventures, naturally). But of course neither Whedon nor we had
that choice.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in
doing it. --G.K. Chesterton
Robert Uhl
>
>> This kind of happened with the ship itself in the movie. If it wasn't
>> a "character" Joss wanted to be in future stories they would have
>> found another way off planet. I hate "you pushed the magic button, so
>> we're no longer enemies" endings.
>>
> It is sorta consistent with the operative's personality (what little
> he had), though. They weren't a threat any more. (Assuming that
> Miranda was the *only* secret the Parliment had, that is.)
I think the issue was that he no longer believed in the Alliance, having
seen what it did--hence Mal's insistence on showing him a 'world without
sin,' his refusal to give the kill order and so forth.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of
the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms. --Samuel Adams, brewer and patriot
Invid Fan
<eadm...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> writes:
> >
> >> This kind of happened with the ship itself in the movie. If it wasn't
> >> a "character" Joss wanted to be in future stories they would have
> >> found another way off planet. I hate "you pushed the magic button, so
> >> we're no longer enemies" endings.
> >>
> > It is sorta consistent with the operative's personality (what little
> > he had), though. They weren't a threat any more. (Assuming that
> > Miranda was the *only* secret the Parliment had, that is.)
>
> I think the issue was that he no longer believed in the Alliance, having
> seen what it did--hence Mal's insistence on showing him a 'world without
> sin,' his refusal to give the kill order and so forth.
Still, the logical way to have ended the film, if you didn't have to
keep the ship, was to not have the soldiers show up. After the Reavers
are killed the crew find a ship Mr. Universe or whatever his name is
had for just such emergencies, and sneak away before the Alliance
remember what they were there for before the battle. Joss wanted to
crash the ship real good then had to fix it again.
Naturally, given he'd want to be able to re-use the ship sets in any
future show you can understand why they had to get back to it :)
George W Harris
<eadm...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
:mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) writes:
:>
:> A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't
:> devote fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one
:> conversation. In a movie, you can and Whedon did. The scene at the
:> retreat with Mal and the Operative would have had to be half as long
:> on tv. The scene with river clearing out the bar would have been over
:> in thirty seconds on tv. The whole scene with Serentity navigating
:> the asteroid field, er, space battle, would have been much much
:> shorter.
:
:No--they would have all been very much _longer_. Because, you see, it's
:not a case of one movie vs. one episode, but rather one movie vs. a
:dozen or more episodes. In fact, the material in Serenity could very
:well have filled three seasons of television (with a lot more filler and
:side-adventures, naturally). But of course neither Whedon nor we had
:that choice.
Joss has said on more than one occasion that
the events of the movie are what would have happened
over the first two seasons, but greatly compressed.
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
Atlas Bugged
news:m364sdv...@4dv.net...
> mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) writes:
>>
>> A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't
>> devote fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one
>> conversation. In a movie, you can and Whedon did. The scene at the
>> retreat with Mal and the Operative would have had to be half as long
>> on tv. The scene with river clearing out the bar would have been over
>> in thirty seconds on tv. The whole scene with Serentity navigating
>> the asteroid field, er, space battle, would have been much much
>> shorter.
>
> No--they would have all been very much _longer_. Because, you see, it's
> not a case of one movie vs. one episode, but rather one movie vs. a
> dozen or more episodes. In fact, the material in Serenity could very
> well have filled three seasons of television (with a lot more filler and
> side-adventures, naturally). But of course neither Whedon nor we had
> that choice.
I tend to agree - movie scenes are shorter. Consider Simon's speech to the
crew in the Pilot and compare Mal's speech to the crew in SERENITY. A movie
director, I think, is under even greater pressure to keep things moving
along. (Then again, the Pilot got killed by Fox.) Possibly for good
reason, too; my least favorite scene in SERENITY was Simon comforting the
chained-up River. It seemed to go on way too long. But I could have used a
twice-as-long speech from Mal which ends with "They won't see this coming!"
Ken from Chicago
> gha...@mundsprung.com writes:
>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:37:32 -0000, pv+u...@pobox.com (Paul Vader)
>>wrote:
>>
>>:ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>:
>>:Spoiler
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:>Although I can understand (really!) where you are coming from in this, I
>>:>MUCH prefer this kind of writing as opposed to the
>>:>infinitely-predictable RedShirt-is-dead-by-the-end-of-the-second-act
>>:>writing style. That kind of writing reduces the value of life, of all
>>:>the character's "being-ness" to zero in the story.
>>:
>>:Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
>>:CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean
>>can
>>:never show your face in public again. *
>>
>>referred to as the 'Hamlet moment'.
>
> Yup, that was it. I figured if Simon goes, River has to go too, then the
> hole heart of the storyline is over, and besides that, there's not enough
> people left to make even a minimal stand. I don't know why, but River
> doing
> what she did (and living through it!) didn't occur to me until she was
> already through the hatch. I got faked out of my shoes by Joss. *
> --
> * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> like corkscrews.
I just figured when Simon would die River would go loco on the Reavers.
Hamlet moment?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:pg03k1146t3qatv3b...@4ax.com...
> pv+u...@pobox.com (Paul Vader) wrote:
>
>> ack <jcam...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> Spoiler
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean
>> can never show your face in public again. *
>
> was
> *this* close to thinking that Mal and Jayne were going to be the only ones
> to make it out of the movie alive.
>
Jim Belushi was in a great remake of SAHARA in the mid 90s about a squad of
soldiers travelling thru an African desert on a tank where much the same
thing happened. Greak flick. Oh the original in the 40s starred some actor
name Hugo Bogard or Humphrey Bollart, oh and a Lloel Bridger or something.
-- Ken from Chicago (who thinks the Sahara is in Africa, geography being an
Achilles heel)
Ken from Chicago
"Hannibal Fortune" <hannibal...@terra.com> wrote in message
news:idl3k1pthigmt05i9...@4ax.com...
Two words:
Anya.
Andrew.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Joss can be perverse when he wants to.
Ken from Chicago
"Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:xwct34c1jspm$.t7uetbakfmau$.dlg@40tude.net...
Examples?
-- Ken from Chicago
Paul Vader
Spoiler
>I think the issue was that he no longer believed in the Alliance, having
>seen what it did--hence Mal's insistence on showing him a 'world without
>sin,' his refusal to give the kill order and so forth.
Right. The Operative got to see what he was defending, and couldn't keep
doing it anymore. When the Operative told Mal that "you've seen all there
is to see of me", he was admitting that his entire mission in life was
based on a lie, so there's nothing left. *
Michael Alan Chary
Hannibal Fortune <hannibal...@terra.com> wrote:
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>
>>>> because I noticed some stuff in "Serentiy" that they could
>>>> never have gotten away with in television. Long, set
>>>> characterpieces. Extended action sequences. Some overtly
>>>> sexual material, [...]
>>>
>>> Could you provide examples of what you mean, with an
>>> explanation of why you don't think they could've gotten
>>> away with them on TV? Because I'm not seeing it.
>>
>> A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't devote
>> fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one conversation.
>
>You can if it's a 2-hour/2-part episode.
Actually, no, you can't. With a television audience they can change the
channel if the pace slows. In a movie, they've paid and they're somewhat
captive.
>
>>>*Especially* the "overtly sexual material".
>>
>> "I'll be in my bumk" is subtle enough to pass at 8 p.m. Fridays. "I
>> haven't had anything in my nethers that didn't run on batteries" wouldn't
>> have made it past standards and practices.
>
>I've heard worse on FRIENDS.
You mean the number one comedy on the highest rated network on television
got away with something that a cult show on Fox might not have? Shocked, I
am.
--
An experiment in publishing:
http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Michael Alan Chary
I figured we were in for the downer ending in which the others are killed
but Simon goes back to his Alliance life, and River becomes an assassin.
erilar
(Paul Vader) wrote:
> Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off the ENTIRE
> CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by interesting you mean can
> never show your face in public again. *
I was really wondering how many would durvive toward the end. Killing
off Wash was bad, but I was beginning who else was going to die!
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
Alan Chary) wrote:
> I figured Simon and River were going to be left alive.
> --
I had serious doubts about Simon!
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> writes:
>>
>>> This kind of happened with the ship itself in the movie. If it wasn't
>>> a "character" Joss wanted to be in future stories they would have
>>> found another way off planet. I hate "you pushed the magic button, so
>>> we're no longer enemies" endings.
>>>
>> It is sorta consistent with the operative's personality (what little
>> he had), though. They weren't a threat any more. (Assuming that
>> Miranda was the *only* secret the Parliment had, that is.)
>
> I think the issue was that he no longer believed in the Alliance, having
> seen what it did--hence Mal's insistence on showing him a 'world without
> sin,' his refusal to give the kill order and so forth.
>
That is at least as good an interpretation. Perhaps we're both right;
perhaps he no longer believed in the Alliance, but knew they'd believe him
when he said she was no longer a threat because the secret was already out.
No 33 Secretary
news:041020050148047599%in...@localnet.com:
> In article <m31x31v...@4dv.net>, Robert Uhl
> <eadm...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> This kind of happened with the ship itself in the movie. If it wasn't
>> >> a "character" Joss wanted to be in future stories they would have
>> >> found another way off planet. I hate "you pushed the magic button, so
>> >> we're no longer enemies" endings.
>> >>
>> > It is sorta consistent with the operative's personality (what little
>> > he had), though. They weren't a threat any more. (Assuming that
>> > Miranda was the *only* secret the Parliment had, that is.)
>>
>> I think the issue was that he no longer believed in the Alliance, having
>> seen what it did--hence Mal's insistence on showing him a 'world without
>> sin,' his refusal to give the kill order and so forth.
>
> Still, the logical way to have ended the film, if you didn't have to
> keep the ship, was to not have the soldiers show up. After the Reavers
> are killed the crew find a ship Mr. Universe or whatever his name is
> had for just such emergencies, and sneak away before the Alliance
> remember what they were there for before the battle. Joss wanted to
> crash the ship real good then had to fix it again.
>
> Naturally, given he'd want to be able to re-use the ship sets in any
> future show you can understand why they had to get back to it :)
>
Plus, Whedon considers the ship a character, and rightly so. And while he
will - obviously - kill characters, he doesn't do so for no reason.
jayembee
>>> A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't devote
>>> fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one conversation.
>>
>> You can if it's a 2-hour/2-part episode.
>
> Actually, no, you can't.
Actually, yes you can.
> With a television audience they can change the channel if the pace slows.
> In a movie, they've paid and they're somewhat captive.
Irrelevant. There are more than enough examples of TV shows with that
slow a pace.
>>>> *Especially* the "overtly sexual material".
>>>
>>> "I'll be in my bumk" is subtle enough to pass at 8 p.m. Fridays. "I
>>> haven't had anything in my nethers that didn't run on batteries" wouldn't
>>> have made it past standards and practices.
>>
>> I've heard worse on FRIENDS.
>
> You mean the number one comedy on the highest rated network on television
> got away with something that a cult show on Fox might not have? Shocked, I
> am.
Again, irrelevant. We weren't talking about a specific type of show on a
specific network. The original point was whether it could be gotten away
with on television. It can because it has.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> >> >> Spoiler
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> > My thinking is that leaving Mal alive would've been cruel. And leaving
> > Jayne alive would've been perverse.
>
> Two words:
>
> Anya.
>
> Andrew.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. Joss can be perverse when he wants to.
I don't disagree, That's why I was thinking that Mal & Jayne might be
the only ones left alive.
-- jayembee
Commodore LXIV
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:M42dnViowNI...@comcast.com...
> Hamlet moment?
>
Yeah I think that even could have been me who said that
when Simon gets shot I was seriously wondering if Joss was
pulling a "hamlet" and EVERYONE was going to die.
because like at the end of Hamlet ... everyone dies.
hope I didn't spoil Hamlet for you there.
George W Harris
wrote:
:Robert Uhl <eadm...@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
:
:
:Spoiler
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:>I think the issue was that he no longer believed in the Alliance, having
:>seen what it did--hence Mal's insistence on showing him a 'world without
:>sin,' his refusal to give the kill order and so forth.
:
:Right. The Operative got to see what he was defending, and couldn't keep
:doing it anymore. When the Operative told Mal that "you've seen all there
:is to see of me", he was admitting that his entire mission in life was
:based on a lie, so there's nothing left. *
Actually, he says "there's nothing left to see".
Slightly different meaning.
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx
Invid Fan
Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
The Alliance is far enough away at the moment that it doesn't matter,
and I assume he's going to kill himself once the ship is fixed. He did
go on about how people who fail should fall on their sword...
Atlas Bugged
> Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>> That is at least as good an interpretation. Perhaps we're both right;
>> perhaps he no longer believed in the Alliance, but knew they'd believe
>> him
>> when he said she was no longer a threat because the secret was already
>> out.
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:041020051715161122%in...@localnet.com...
> The Alliance is far enough away at the moment that it doesn't matter,
> and I assume he's going to kill himself once the ship is fixed. He did
> go on about how people who fail should fall on their sword...
That's a good point. Where's the honor-suicide, Mr. "good-death?"
Interestingly, after the Alliance appears at the conclusion (after River
beats the crap out of the Reavers and Operative says it's over), Operative
then orders Alliance soldiers to "patch up" Mal and company, according to
the Novelization.
No 33 Secretary
news:XsGdnV97J_k...@comcast.com:
According to the movie, as well. Well, according to Mal, at any rate.
Invid Fan
<atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <Xns96E56D63A3ED9ta...@216.168.3.64>, No 33
> > Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> >> That is at least as good an interpretation. Perhaps we're both right;
> >> perhaps he no longer believed in the Alliance, but knew they'd believe
> >> him
> >> when he said she was no longer a threat because the secret was already
> >> out.
>
> "Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:041020051715161122%in...@localnet.com...
> > The Alliance is far enough away at the moment that it doesn't matter,
> > and I assume he's going to kill himself once the ship is fixed. He did
> > go on about how people who fail should fall on their sword...
>
> That's a good point. Where's the honor-suicide, Mr. "good-death?"
He commented Mal wouldn't have to worry about seeing him again.
Ken from Chicago
"Commodore LXIV" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:mzB0f.13$OL5.6@trndny05...
To spoil or not to spoil, that is the question. Spoiling is such sweet
sorrow. I spoil something rotten in Denmark.
-- Ken from Chicago (who neither a spoiler seeker, um, be)
Ian Galbraith
> Examples?
Any dialogue heavy scene. They're filmed in extreme close up.
Jason Maxwell
Jason
Jack Bohn
>What makes it less cinematic than other SF movies? My only grip with the
>movie is that Joss directs the quieter scenes like he's still on TV. His
>framing is wrong in those sequences. Is that what you're talking about?
All I have to go by so far are the commercials and previews
they've been showing during Firefly. I must say I didn't see any
difference between them and the show around them.
--
-Jack
Michael Alan Chary
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>
>>>> A television episode is 48 minutes long or thereabouts. You can't devote
>>>> fifteen of them to one fight scene or ten of them to one conversation.
>>>
>>> You can if it's a 2-hour/2-part episode.
>>
>> Actually, no, you can't.
>
>Actually, yes you can.
No, really, you can't, because even in a two parter you're still stuck
with a commercial break coming up at the same point as a normal episode
during each part. If, say, "Friends" had a one hour episode, they would do
things differently because the logistics were different. Even a three hour
episode would have to be structured differently than a movie with the same
amount of screen time because you have to take breaks and such into
account.
>
>> With a television audience they can change the channel if the pace slows.
>> In a movie, they've paid and they're somewhat captive.
>
>Irrelevant. There are more than enough examples of TV shows with that
>slow a pace.
I beg you to name even one action oriented space opera that has spent ten
minutes on a conversation like that? Even Babylon 5 was never *that*
self-indulgent. (Well, okay, "V", name another.)
>>>>> *Especially* the "overtly sexual material".
>>>>
>>>> "I'll be in my bumk" is subtle enough to pass at 8 p.m. Fridays. "I
>>>> haven't had anything in my nethers that didn't run on batteries" wouldn't
>>>> have made it past standards and practices.
>>>
>>> I've heard worse on FRIENDS.
>>
>> You mean the number one comedy on the highest rated network on television
>> got away with something that a cult show on Fox might not have? Shocked, I
>> am.
>
>Again, irrelevant.
Geez, did you get assimilated by the Borg? No, it's not irrelevant. To
begin with, I'd like to know what you heard on "Friends" that NBC
standards and practices would have thought worse.
> We weren't talking about a specific type of show on a
>specific network. The original point was whether it could be gotten away
>with on television. It can because it has.
Well, that might have been what you were talking about. I was talking
about standards and practices. I mean, if we are talking about two
different things, then fine, we can't really have a conversation. If we
are talking about the same thing, well, I'd ask for one or two examples of
people on "Friends" talking about sex toys, because, well, I'd at least
like to try to find the episode. I do remember one time prison rape joke
on "Friends," well, two or three, but those seem to be par for the course
these days which I find a bit bizarre.
Of course, incest seems to coming further into vogue as comedy fodder.
It's a running theme on "Arrested development," and the new WB show
"Twins" seem to be mining it pretty hard for humor as well.
Jeff Walther
<jcam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> It was very unlike "ST-The Motion Picture" -- 15 minutes of swirling gas
> clouds with synthesized organ music chords puntuating the view while the
> cast stared stupidly at the bridge viewscreen.
>
> That was like watching Paint Dry.
Nah. When I'm watching paint dry, I at least have the satisfaction of
knowing that I've painted something.
Serenity and ST-TMP have very little in common except being projected on
screens.
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
jayembee
>>> With a television audience they can change the channel if the pace slows.
>>> In a movie, they've paid and they're somewhat captive.
>>
>> Irrelevant. There are more than enough examples of TV shows with that
>> slow a pace.
>
> I beg you to name even one action oriented space opera that has spent ten
> minutes on a conversation like that? Even Babylon 5 was never *that*
> self-indulgent. (Well, okay, "V", name another.)
I can't. But then, I wasn't thinking of just action-oriented space opera.
>>>>>> *Especially* the "overtly sexual material".
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'll be in my bumk" is subtle enough to pass at 8 p.m. Fridays. "I
>>>>> haven't had anything in my nethers that didn't run on batteries" wouldn't
>>>>> have made it past standards and practices.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard worse on FRIENDS.
>>>
>>> You mean the number one comedy on the highest rated network on television
>>> got away with something that a cult show on Fox might not have? Shocked, I
>>> am.
>>
>> Again, irrelevant.
>
> Geez, did you get assimilated by the Borg? No, it's not irrelevant.
Yes.
> To begin with, I'd like to know what you heard on "Friends" that NBC
> standards and practices would have thought worse.
What *they* would've thought worse? I haven't the faintest idea what NBC's
S&P think. Back in the second season, there was an episode where the gals
had found a copy of the porno movie that Joey had been in, and started to
watch it. The basic idea of the movie was that a woman was interviewing
for the job and ended up screwing the interviewer (Joey didn't get any action
-- he was a repairman who was fixing the copier while that was going on.)
Either Monica or Rachel said, "Gee, after all this, I hope she got the job."
Ross (who'd walked in a little earlier) said, "Actually, it looks like he's the
one getting the job."
Is it worse than what Kaylee said? That's up to you to decide. To me, it
is. And it was on TV *ten years ago*.
>> We weren't talking about a specific type of show on a specific network.
>> The original point was whether it could be gotten away with on television.
>> It can because it has.
>
> Well, that might have been what you were talking about. I was talking
> about standards and practices. I mean, if we are talking about two
> different things, then fine, we can't really have a conversation.
Well, I started this tangent with "And that's one of my disappointments
with SERENITY: it felt like another episode of the series. I was expecting
a Big Damn Movie to be a Big Damn Movie, not a Big Damn Episode."
My point was, in essence, a comparison of the two mediums. That the
film seemed to me more like a TV show than a movie.
Then, to quote you, "...I noticed some stuff in "Serentiy" that they could
never have gotten away with in television."
You didn't say "gotten away with in FIREFLY", so there was nothing to
suggest that you were narrowing the scope of the discussion.
I'm still talking about film vs. TV, not SERENITY vs. FIREFLY. If you're
discussing the latter, then I guess there really *is* not point in continuing,
Mike Van Pelt
erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <11k2k1s...@news.supernews.com>, pv+u...@pobox.com
>(Paul Vader) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Heck, for a while there I thought Joss was going to kill off
>> the ENTIRE CAST. That would have been ... interesting. If by
>> interesting you mean can never show your face in public again. *
>
>I was really wondering how many would durvive toward the end. Killing
>off Wash was bad, but I was beginning who else was going to die!
The very real dramatic function of killing off Wash the way
he did was, from that point on, you *knew* none of the
characters necessarily were endowed with Authorial Immunity.
It was clear that Josh was fully capable of killing off any
and all of them.
--
Tagon: "Where's your sense of adventure?" | Mike Van Pelt
Kevyn: "It died under mysterious circumstances. | mvp at calweb.com
My sense of self-preservation found the body, | KE6BVH
but assures me it has an airtight alibi." (schlockmercenary.com)
Ken from Chicago
"Velvet Elvis" <NOgamb...@NOsofthomeSPAM.NOnetSPAM> wrote in message
news:b1h0f.9054$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to be
>> fun.
>
> I'd think that some kind of personal honor code would keep Mal from
> hooking up with the wife of a slain crew member.
>
> I can also see Zoe being somewhat frustrated by this.
>
> Their shared frustration pushing Zoe and Inarra into a lesbian tryst is
> probably too much to hope for.
Zoe probably can't afford Inara and I doubt Inara gives freebies.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:dhsbj...@news4.newsguy.com...
> Velvet Elvis wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to
>>> be
>>> fun.
>>
>> I'd think that some kind of personal honor code would keep Mal from
>> hooking up with the wife of a slain crew member.
>>
>> I can also see Zoe being somewhat frustrated by this.
>>
>> Their shared frustration pushing Zoe and Inarra into a lesbian tryst is
>> probably too much to hope for.
>
> backstory.
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mal is merely comforting Zoe.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:n1q2k1dqf6fpogft9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:50:12 GMT, "Commodore LXIV" <x@x.x> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :news:1128299967....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :>
> :> J. Clarke wrote:
> :>
> :>> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that promises to
> be
> :>> fun.
> :> What?! You think Zoe is going to be involved with Mal? I don't even
> :> see how that's remotely possible.
> :>
> :
> :Mal and River ... they both have a lot in common...
>
> No, Jayne and River. River gets intrigued by
> what she sees Simon and Kaylee doing, and makes
> Jayne her bitch. He's helpless, but Simon and Mal are
> both furious with him.
> :
> --
> Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
>
> George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Only River can truly understand a man called Jayne.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> George W Harris wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:35:32 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> :George W Harris wrote:
>> :
>> :> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:50:12 GMT, "Commodore LXIV" <x@x.x> wrote:
>> :>
>> :> :
>> :> :"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> :> :news:1128299967....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> :> :>
>> :> :> J. Clarke wrote:
>> :> :>
>> :> :>> And we now have a whole new triangle--Mal/Zoe/Inarra--that
>> promises
>> :> :>> to be fun.
>> :> :>
>> :> :> What?! You think Zoe is going to be involved with Mal? I don't
>> :> :> even see how that's remotely possible.
>> :> :>
>> :> :
>> :> :Mal and River ... they both have a lot in common...
>> :>
>> :> No, Jayne and River. River gets intrigued by
>> :> what she sees Simon and Kaylee doing, and makes
>> :> Jayne her bitch. He's helpless, but Simon and Mal are
>> :> both furious with him.
>> :
>> :see--River's a _lot_ more dangerous than Vera.
>>
>> For River, it wouldn't be an emotional
>> attachment, just physical experimentation. She
>> wouldn't go for Mal, 'cause he's a father figure,
>> and likewise wouldn't go for Simon. That leaves
>> Jayne.
>>
>> Plus, it's funny.
>
> I'm kind of wondering if he's setting up a Xander/Buffy relationship with
> Jayne as Xander.
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
OF COURSE River would go for Jayne. He's mentally uncomplicated. His
emotions are obvious and straightforward, not confusing like the others who
say and do one thing but feel and think differently.
Aside from that whole knife-slashing incident, River doesn't look down on
Jayne or try to use or con him. Plus she can kick butt barehanded and
barefooted or with toys.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96E4917EAFD46ta...@216.168.3.64...
> Velvet Elvis <NOgamb...@NOsofthomeSPAM.NOnetSPAM> wrote in
>
>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>>
>>> It is, of course, a plasmic reticulator, and anyone who says otherwise
>>> is a twit:-)
>>
>> It looked just like a Telefunkin U-47.
>>
> I say it's an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
>
> --
> "So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
> -- William Hyde
> Terry Austin
> www.hyperbooks.com
Obviously it's a time flux capacitor!
-- Ken from Chicago