Serenity
A Review by Noah Antwiler
Here's how it is.
Buffy got stuck up, so he dreamed up a whole new series of vampire shows. Some were rich and full of smart dialogue and new characters. Some, not so much. The central audience, them as formed the Fanboys felt that Joss Whedon could do no wrong and waged war whenever anyone told the truth about their dull, uninteresting vampire-whacking dramedys. A few idiots tried to fight it, among them myself. I'm Noah Antwiler, writer of A Gamer's Rant. I got a good gig: fighting cheese where I see it. You got a movie, I can savage it. Don't much care what it is.
Sci-fi doesn't sell. Never has. Even when a network has a success on their hands, they tend not to believe that it'll last very long, or that it's appeal will extend far beyond its cult following. Such is the tragic tale of Firefly. I was never a fan of the "aw shucks!" quirkiness of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer or the slightly more-brooding spinoff Angel; I felt that the chirpy, chipper quips rather undermined any real chance at drama the shows might have had, and in Buffy's case, that the series was fundamentally flawed in execution. Why did none of the vampires carry guns? Buffy can know all the mallrat kung-fu in the world, and it won't save her from me if I got a Tec-9. And if they know that the one Slayer is in Sunnydale, why don't they just, y'know...leave? But I'm an angry old curmudgeon, and I was probably the only one around not watching the shows.
|
Even so, nothing good lasts forever, and so once Sunnydale was saved and Angel had run off to slay his dragon, all that remained was Firefly. The Fox network had been handed a bolt from Olympus from one of the hottest television writers around in the form of a sci-fi/western. What did they do with it? They screwed Firefly like it'd dropped the soap. Not only did they can the series after a partial run, they aired the shows out of order. It seems that history repeats itself like with J. Michael Straczynski's (praised be His name) Babylon 5 spinoff, Crusade. Never mind that Fox actually had a good show out of Whedon (for once), but that he was the best thing that ever happened to The WB and UPN. They didn't give him the benefit of the doubt, tinkered with his series, and sabotaged any chance Firefly had at success.
So it is with rising bile in my gorge and a steaming plate of crow that I tell you this now, even though it sickens me to do so: Firefly is probably the best sci-fi show in the last ten years (perhaps more). It's ten times the show that Enterprise could ever pray to be, and shows like Stargate: Atlantis and Voyager should be ashamed to even pollute the same medium. Why? Because it brings the one thing that's been lacking from the entire sci-fi genre ever since the Empire struck back: originality. Star Trek has never changed. For a time, that was the show's greatest strength, but as in evolution a lack of change also promotes stagnation. By changing the entire way that we see far-future space travel as a throwback frontier culture instead of some glistening sterile utopia, Firefly spares us the damning boredom of intergalactic politics, the never ending barrage of technobabble, and aliens whose only distinguishing features are the ridge patterns on their noses and foreheads. By minimizing the scale of the show to a skeleton crew of mercenaries in the brink of extinction, somehow the stakes involved become greater than yet another Borg cube or a Romulan plot to breach the Neutral Zone.
I personally enjoy the show for bucking so many accepted sci-fi conventions. Like the films of Takashi Miike, even if I don't like what I'm seeing, I can at least respect it for being rebellious and showing me something new. There are no dilithium crystals, no Jeffries Tubes, no positronic matrices, no aliens, and no warp speed limits. Hell, I don't even really know how the Serenity's "Go Real Fast" drive works, but I don't really care. Who would have thought you'd have a space show with horses and sixguns? No laser beams? I'm loving it. I even love the little touches. No sound in space? Have you seen any movie or television show ever that allowed the vacuum of space to remain silent other than 2001: A Space Odyssey? This is the kind of innovation that's so sorely lacking from television, when our current media's basic tactic is to latch onto some fad that's drawn some minor appeal, and mass-produce it until you're sick of even hearing the title (like, oh I don't know...Lost? Invasion? Surface?).
|
So you can all put your torches and pitchforks down, folks. At least for today. While I'm not signing up for any fan clubs, I have to give credit where it's due. Serenity is a better sci-fi film than any Star Wars prequel was, or crummy Aeon Flux adaptation is ever going to be. It ain't pretty, and it sure ain't artwork, but it doesn't have to be. It's a good time. You don't need to be a fan of the television show to enjoy the space opera at work, but if you're not, the movie doesn't really have time to remind you what drives the characters. At best, it puts the characters in black hats and white hats, no matter how hard they try to stay in gray ones. The opening narration was a necessity to inform the neophyte about the setting, but without exposure to the history, it all boils down to "Alliance bad, Serenity good."
The Alliance is a monolithic collective of Orwellian Lawful Good core worlds that've got it in their heads that everyone should join up with them and play nice, whether they like it or not. Like early American belief in Manifest Destiny, it doesn't really matter if the independent worlds oppose being annexed, because they're uncivilized and they'll understand later when they're taught how people are supposed to act. And like the Native American tribes, the Independents gave it a good shot, but were ultimately crushed under the wheels of progress. Only the Alliance doesn't want to stop there; they're not satisfied with people swearing allegiance and not really meaning it. They've got an ideal civilization of Shiny Happy People that they want to make, and by hook or by crook, they'll get it.
Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the junk freighter Serenity is being forced to deal with the Alliance's two main instruments to realize that plan: a black ops commando known only as The Operative, and River Tam, a waifish girl exposed to a nightmare battery of scientific experiments that have transformed her into a psychic kung-fu buzzsaw with a fractured mind. When the Serenity crew rescues River, they forget to grab her instruction manual and realize too late that she's far more than a harmless twitchy piece of baggage that spouts odd Vorlon wisdom every once in a while. Instead, while the Serenity is docked at an all-neon port-of-call pulled straight out of Blade Runner, she manages to singlehandedly dismantle an entire bar full of spacers and half the Serenity crew the instant she sees the Powerpuff Girls on the television. Actually I kind of understand that urge.
|
Wisely, Mal locks River in a closet and takes the remote control to the TV away while they plot what to do next. Their usual plan sounds pretty good (hide on some anonymous dirtball until the trouble blows over), so that's what they do. The Operative, rather interestingly, doesn't really care about River as Alliance property, or as some superweapon. All he cares about is the notion that she's psychic and may have been privy to certain government secrets from key parliament members that would cause trouble if made public. Stuff like the secret ingredient of Kentucky Fried Chicken and the reason why anyone thought it was a good idea for JBL to be WWE Champion for a year.
Mal tries to hide, but soon finds that he can't run forever. The Operative is ruthless and efficient, dynamiting every hidey-hole the Serenity's ever used in the past and killing every friend they ever had. The general consensus is that Mal & The Gang are righteously hosed, because The Operative believes what he's doing is right. One of the main messages of this film is that the power of belief is a force that can make anything possible. It soon becomes clear what the Shepherd's been trying to pry into Mal's thick skull all this time. He's not really talking about God. "I don't care what you believe," he says, "just that you believe in something." I think Fletch said it best: "I believe in a God that doesn't need heavy financing."
So begins the real journey of Serenity's crew. Until that moment they'd been content to float by and survive, but upon seeing the true horrifying lengths the Alliance would go to for true thought control, they needed to commit. If you ever saw Demolition Man, you could summarize the Alliance's fatal flaw with the memorable phrase, "You can't take away people's right to be a**h**es!" Though Mal's philosophy could be more politely summarized by "Don't tread on me." I tried thinking of my own ethos, but all I could come up with was "where's the beef." This is why I'm not a writer!
Again, I have to give credit to the storytelling. I was pleasantly surprised at how much the outcome of the movie was in doubt, when usually you know that no matter what, the characters are invincible simply because they're important to the plot. There was a moment quite late in the movie where I thought the film would end on a rather melancholy Butch and Sundance last stand. If I'm genuinely convinced that the characters in a long-running series are prepared and quite likely to die in the next coming minutes, that's some special storytelling right there. It's not like some comic book or lame Trek sequel where nobody stays dead, and there are a half-dozen outs to resurrect them if they need to tease a cast departure during sweeps week. If any of you believe for a moment that Data is staying dead, I've got a bridge I'd love to sell you.
|
To tell you the truth, I probably would have avoided Serenity if not for the Gamer's Rant. I felt obligated by duty to report on what could be the biggest gamer movie event of the year (at least until DOOM comes out! First-person Smackdown!), but you can imagine my reluctance since I consider myself to be the biggest Buffy-hater on the planet. I do hope this satisfies all my gorram detractors and their mantra "You don't like anything," because I liked this, and I speak to anyone who might be in the same boat with me when it comes to a certain vampire slayer: you'll like it too. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go set alight my cauldrons of pitch so I can burn all those Reaver-lookin' fanboys trying to get into my house for all those mean things I said about Voyager.
Worst. Trek. Ever.
All images blatantly stolen from a terrific RottenTomatoes Photoshop contest. Unfortunately I don't have the creators' names, so if you'd like to take credit for your work, e-mail me and I'll make sure your work is recognized.
{ 18 comments }
You’re right, Sci-Fi is definitely on its way out. Too expensive, alienates too many demographics, reality is supremely cheaper. I’m shocked Fox would even agree to host another one, much less TWO (SCC and Dollhouse). Why did they bother?
I’m not a Whedon fanboy, but I think Fox did a lot of damage to the genre when it axed Firefly. There’s so few examples of quality sci-fi now that the nineties are over. I’d almost blame Whedon for not shopping around for another network — maybe SciFi (sorry, “SyFy” >_< ) if the network wasn't so pitiful. Did they EVER produce an original series? Sometimes it seemed all they aired was SG-1 repeats and Anaconda IV.
Fox was the one with the budget, but it was devil's bargain and they castrated his work (again!!).
Whedon is, essentially, a comic writer with Sci-Fi leanings. He probably just doesn't have what it takes to have a long showbiz career.
I liked the film the first time I watched it, but after watching the Firefly series and then watching this film again, I can list many problems with this film. First, they put too much unnecessary action scenes where those time could have been used for plot development. If you look at many of the Firefly episodes, the action were there only when needed. Second, they started off making Mal a very, and I mean a VERY unlikeable character. In the series he was an asshole at the beginning, but starts to redeem himself after. In the movie, he has always been an asshole, and the ending where he let The Operator go seemed forced. Third, the scene at the beginning where The Operator kills the guards I found were unnecessary because it’s like the story is spoon feeding us the fact the Alliance is evil.
Still a great film though, better than 95% of the films out there. It’s better than Minority Report by far.
What’s wrong with Stargate Atlantis anyway?
I had a lot of fun.
You forgot the best part though! In the future PROSTITUTION IS LEGAL!!!!!!!!
I still fail to see what he means by originality.
It’s westerns, Star Wars, Star Trek, Cowboy Bebop, and yeah, they fly around and make deals and shoot at people and avoid people.
Sure it was plenty of fun.
I would’ve enjoyed Firefly more if River had less of a role, and less psychic stuff.
She’s annoying, boring and super-powered later on, essentially she’s the groups’ win button in tough situations. She’s getting very close to Mary Sue territory when she can shoot three alliance soldiers and once and take on a massive group of them as well.
serenity? well, what to say about it? its a pitty the operater character wasn´t played by forrest whittaker, an actor i adore. the movie is interesting is interesting in some regards, thinking of the akire review here on the site, espescially the comments, who argues wethere or not you need to read the mangas in order to understand the film.
i saw the film first, without any knowledge whatsoever about the series, and i felt fine. the movie explained itself, by the action unfolding. i guess thats the way it works, you dont show exposition – a narrator, text scrolls down in the beginning – you let people DO things. okay, they had narration in the start, but you actually saw what was going on.
a book is a different medium than moving picture, tread it like this and take advantage of the medium. what the people were doing and talked about explained the setting, and more importend, moved on the plot of the film itself.
recently i watched a few episodes of the series, and to be honest, its pretty standard in my eyes. the character work is pretty good, but i felt unsatisfied. in previous comments on this site, i pointed out why i like and endorse shows like babylon 5, stargate sg1 and battlestar galactica (the new series). or better, why i am more interested in sg1 and bsg, because they take on contemporary issues of our (class) society, and sometimes fail really bad in doing so. dont get me wrong, i dont need a red flag waved across the screen to be happy, i just ask for a little more balls to be shown. and firefly isnt nonpolitical altogether, its (so far i get) a little more subtle, or mute, in this matter. well, here is point: you cant avoid politics in a movie that has more than one person in it. face it. Out of the Past, Murder My Sweet and Gun Crazy, three titles from the so-called film noir, hard boiled social drama. these films were made time before various anti-communist witch hunts purged cultural live in america. politics there dominated film, in order to make the way clear for new conflicts between classes and nations, as it does today. you goin to tell me that tarantinos inglorious basterds has nothing to do with americas wars in iraq/afghanistan and soon pakistan? killing the ´enemy´ without court case, torture and selfjustice are the predestines of human spirit? this movie justifies abu graib and mazar i sharif. at least withhin sg1 and bsg, the bothered to take a stance against such crulity, espacially sg1.
i wandered off topic a little, or not, just wanted to tell.
Firefly and Serenity both were a breath of fresh air in what has become an otherwise stale genre. It isn’t really so much their originality, Olaf Stapleton had horses in starship holds in the 1930’s, but more the adhering to a more truthful set of rules for what could and should happen. There are no laser swords. (Mr Lucas gets mad if you call them lightsabers) What lasers there are rapidly run down on charge and are basically a waste of time and money. Instead you get solid proven technology and a simplicity of making things work when you are cut off from the technology available on the central planets.
While I like the Stargate Serieses, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5 and the other sci fi shows out there, they really can’t be measured against Firefly. To much of them rely on hokey gimmicks and technology that seem to defy any sense of logic.
concerning the technological aspects of sci fi shows, i show a certain tolerance. nevertheless, if they just rely on hokey gimmicks, like ST Voyager, i just turn away. the voyager novels on the other side were better than the series, to be honest. Olaf Stapleton, is certainly an interesting writer, so far i gathered: http://www.ralphmag.org/DL/starmaker1.html.
i cannot fully agree with The Hypnotic Dragon about Firefly is better than xyz show, because firefly dont rely to heavy on technology. here is one thougt: a fleet of spaceships (with no FTL capacity, and i guess just a small percentage of the actuall earth population) manages to get to another solar system and perform terraforming on dozens, if not hundred of planets and moons. thats cool, why not use this to rescue earth and urbanise our solar system instead?
i am sure you can list far more flaws concerning the “science” behind it, like in every spacer show, but i guess Hypnotic Dragon wanted to point out that there is more to a spacer show than the techno gimmick of the week. thus, Babylon 5, and BSG (inferior to B5 – but better than the last Star Treks), are standing out, just because they dont rely on a technological Deus ex Machina, especially its the case with Babylon 5, who bases itself solely on the matters and questions of characters and society. The new Battlestar Galactica attempts to deal with various problems and issues of contemporary society, like: religion, drug abuse, political power and exercise, society in a state of emergency, rebellion (both machines and humans), and so on. and the show fails to do so.
why? in my opinion, its the decline of liberalism and traditional democracy itself, considering democracy works only with a viable middle class, and progressive mediation between labor and capital. this is not the case anymore. Sci-Fi proved to be strong when capitalist society allowed progressive reforms to relief the plight of the working class and minorities, and amidst popular movements, progressive both in social and democratic matters.
As an unrepentent Browncoat and, yes, a Joss Whedon fangirl…(man can do no wrong by me. Buffy introduced me to TV as an art form (without it I wouldn’t have discovered many of the shows I love today…and quite possibly I would have a life), Angel was a great time, Firefly a masterpiece, Dollhouse shows great promise and EVERYONE should see Dr. Horribles Sing Along Blog. Even his Astonishing X-Men run re-booted the comic for me after it had become bogged down with convoluted story lines and bizarre costumes) I thank you for giving Firefly a chance…and even sorta love you for acknowledging what a brilliant show it is!
While I completely, 100% in every way disagree with your feelings on Buffy, I can understand how some people dislike the show (unlike people who like Twilight and Transformers…that just boggles my mind).
Anyway, in addressing the first commenter. Joss Whedon did in fact try to shop Firefly around to other networks…SyFy was only able to get syndication rights though as Fox network wouldn’t release the show to any other network (They were making to much money off of DVD sales to let the show go). The best Joss could do was make a movie and comics to keep the story alive.
And yeah, I’m one of THOSE fangirls…hell, I’ve attended conventions. I know far to much about this show and I need to get help.
“..Sunnydale was saved..”
Eh? The show ended with the town collapsing in on itself into a huge crater. That’s one of the furthest things from “safe”. (As for why, well Spike’s soul was so shiny it killed all evil in the last 4 minutes. Deux ex machina.)
My best friend from high school was a big fan of this show. I never really got into it. He got me the DVD set and the Serentiy movie. I just never got around to watching them. I started on the DVD’s, but only got a few episodes in. I should probably trust his judgement cause we were both huge Babylon 5 fans and we all know that is just about the best sci fi TV show ever made. Maybe i’ll revisit Firefly. It really isn’t that much to watch in comparison to B5.
Still puzzling over what type of originality he’s talking about.
No sound in space.
Six guns and horses.
And no laser guns, even though there is one.
And not having a lot of the types of stuff that is in other shows.
How is that original?
One of my favorite movies, and what brought my attention to Firefly, which is one of my top 5 favorite shows, and anyone else who’s introduced to it. This reminds me just how stupid the Fox execs are. I think I remember seeing two commercials for this show before it premiered. Both were very vague, and didn’t pique my interest in the slightest. Besides, on Friday nights I was more focused on getting out after a long work week. After watching Serenity, and then Firefly, I kind of wish I would’ve caught it when it was on the air. After looking it up to see what happened with the show, I found out that it was probably better for me seeing the show the way I did, considering the way Fox handled it while it was on the air. Man, Fox REALLY dropped the ball here.
Yeah, Firefly and Serenity were both pretty dam great,
HOWEVER, I would like to contest your “originality” point over the Stargate series…es. You say that it has weird aliens and tech that defies logic like that’s a bad thing. It’s SCIENCE FICTION (emphasis on the fiction). That’s the whole point of the genre: putting people in situations that require new sets of logic. So yeah, the hypertechno doodad of the week doesn’t make sense when using Real Life Logic, but if you use the logic that the show uses, then it makes more sense.
Yeah, Firefly and Serenity were both pretty freaking great,
HOWEVER, I would like to contest your “originality” point over the Stargate series…es. You say that it has weird aliens and tech that defies logic like that’s a bad thing. It’s gorram SCIENCE FICTION (emphasis on the fiction). That’s the whole point of the genre: putting people in situations that require new sets of logic. So yeah, the hypertechno doodad of the week doesn’t make sense when using Real Life Logic, but if you use the logic that the show uses, then it makes more sense.
Late comment, but I do feel I have to at least comment on this, as I very much like Joss Whedon. He can do wrong, no doubt about that, but for the most part I enjoy the shows he makes. Not so much movies, but hey.
Loved Firefly, hated the fact that since it got axed the show never actually got to grow into its potential. Serenity did a lot for concluding the show, but there are still so many open-ended questions (Hands of Blue, YoSaffBridge, Book's really obscure past) that will never be addressed weaken the show as a whole, because it is so clearly incomplete. And while I love it for what's there, it will never be anywhere close to my top shows, simply because is so short and unfinished, which isn't a fault of the show, but is still a problem.
I am a bit shocked, not only by the lack of actual research you put into Buffy, but also by the fact that you thought your complaints about the plotholes had any actual merit. I'm usually somewhat impressed that even though you hate something, you're willing to try it and examine it (Looking at the Pumpkinhead movies here) before you call it utter trash. Yet, here you clearly didn't pay attention to Buffy. Now, I don't have a problem with you disliking it, that's fine. But complaining that the vampires don't use guns? Besides the issue that there are a lot more than vampires in the show, some of the vampires did use guns, in fact in the first season one of the vampires had two pistols (with a lot of ammo) and the climax of the episode was Buffy attempting to not get shot. In the first season they already featured something you complained about. You didn't even watch seven episodes? It is also addressed that most of the monster don't like using guns because they are either so old they don't realize they're effective weapons, they've never needed them before, or prefer to rely on their mystical abilities.
Additionally, as they mention in the second episode, the reason all the monsters come to Sunnydale is because of the Hellmouth. Buffy came to Sunnydale because of the monsters, not the other way around. Well, technically she came because her mom moved there, but it's clear that she was intended to go there. Seriously, both those complaints are at least somewhat addressed in the first half of the first season…you didn't even bother watching or paying attention to that much of the show before dismissing it out of hand? Disappointing, especially in a reviewer.
Oh well, not everyone can be reasonable about things, after all there are some things that I hate inexplicably as well.
Late comment, but I do feel I have to at least comment on this, as I very much like Joss Whedon. He can do wrong, no doubt about that, but for the most part I enjoy the shows he makes. Not so much movies, but hey.
Loved Firefly, hated the fact that since it got axed the show never actually got to grow into its potential. Serenity did a lot for concluding the show, but there are still so many open-ended questions (Hands of Blue, YoSaffBridge, Book’s really obscure past) that will never be addressed weaken the show as a whole, because it is so clearly incomplete. And while I love it for what’s there, it will never be anywhere close to my top shows, simply because is so short and unfinished, which isn’t a fault of the show, but is still a problem.
I am a bit shocked, not only by the lack of actual research you put into Buffy, but also by the fact that you thought your complaints about the plotholes had any actual merit. I’m usually somewhat impressed that even though you hate something, you’re willing to try it and examine it (Looking at the Pumpkinhead movies here) before you call it utter trash. Yet, here you clearly didn’t pay attention to Buffy. Now, I don’t have a problem with you disliking it, that’s fine. But complaining that the vampires don’t use guns? Besides the issue that there are a lot more than vampires in the show, some of the vampires did use guns, in fact in the first season one of the vampires had two pistols (with a lot of ammo) and the climax of the episode was Buffy attempting to not get shot. In the first season they already featured something you complained about. You didn’t even watch seven episodes? It is also addressed that most of the monster don’t like using guns because they are either so old they don’t realize they’re effective weapons, they’ve never needed them before, or prefer to rely on their mystical abilities.
Additionally, as they mention in the second episode, the reason all the monsters come to Sunnydale is because of the Hellmouth. Buffy came to Sunnydale because of the monsters, not the other way around. Well, technically she came because her mom moved there, but it’s clear that she was intended to go there. Seriously, both those complaints are at least somewhat addressed in the first half of the first season…you didn’t even bother watching or paying attention to that much of the show before dismissing it out of hand? Disappointing, especially in a reviewer.
Oh well, not everyone can be reasonable about things, after all there are some things that I hate inexplicably as well.
Comments on this entry are closed.