I agree with his points about religion, preachiness, and some of his points about sex. I disagree with him about the lack of technobabble -- I liked that they didn't care enough about that aspect of the story to waste time explaining.
But even if it's not very good science fiction in comparison to Ender's Game and Dune, it's still one of the best Televised science fictions we've ever had.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The comments section is pure gold.
"There are some loons out there like Book, but thankfully they're few and far between."
Book is many things, but he never struck me as a "loon". Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:First, in the TV show, there was just too much sex.
Is this guy sure he's watching Firefly?
quote:When two characters start a relationship, the first thing they do is have sex.
Does he mean Mal and Inara? Oh wait, no sex. Simon and Kaylee? Wait, no sex there either. Zoe and Wash? Can't be, they've been married for years by this point. Who the heck is he referring to? Did I miss something? Book and Jayne?
quote:By far, the worst things were the scientific flaws and holes in the technology and the lack of even any attempt to explain how and why the technology worked. ... And yet, Firefly has...? Never explained. The problem is never even addressed.
Some of us don't like "hard" sci-fi. Or technobabble sci-fi. I prefer them not to bug me with warp drives and just get on with the story. I think he also missed the fact that it's all within a single solar-system. Not intergalactic like SW or ST.
quote:And then, you have the fact that every planet they land on is like something from the western United States. No variety at all. No alien flora or fauna. No diverse climates.
What about Ariel? The central planets look more temperate, but as they explain in the show, Serenity has very good reasons to avoid those pretty planets.
The man can't even get the names of the characters right. All it sounds like is a person who never really paid much attention to the show he's trying to criticise. It's a junk review, in my opinion, only worth reading for the chuckles.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And yet, Firefly has...? Never explained. The problem [of faster than light travel] is never even addressed. About half of the episodes start out in the middle of some interstellar voyage, and yet it looks like the craft is just put put puttering along at sublight speeds. On the last episode, in fact, someone actually jumped out of his spaceship and landed on the Serenity as if it were the most natural thing in the verse. After all, it's not like they're going anywhere...
None of the voyages were interstellar. It's one star system. There isn't any indication that travel is FTL.
That doesn't explain the lack of communication lag, nor are the speeds every explained, but this guy has missed some pretty basic stuff in his critique.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The post works a lot better if one imagines it being delivered by the "Gavin" character from Kids in the Hall.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I only read the first bit, on the presumption that he made his strongest point first. If he did, his essay is pure bunk.
One of the wonderful things about "Firefly" is the variety of relationships it portrays. The idea that any character who begins to fall for anyone else immediately has sex with them is ludicrous, even considered as an exaggeration. I submit the following counter-examples(Minor Spoilers Ahead, if there's anyone left here who hasn't seen "Firefly"):
The most important romantic relationship in the series is not a sexual one (Mal and Inara) but both of them have sex with other minor characters.
Zoe and Wash have a tremendous romantic relationship of which sex is a relatively minor, but not insignificant, part.
Simon and Kaylee spend the entire series falling in love with each other and comepletely failing to do anything about it.
Mal has deeply loving relationships with both Zoe and Kaylee that are entirely non-sexual... despite the fact that Mal clearly finds them both attractive (cf. "War Stories" and the "I can't know that" comment from the movie).
Simon and River have, perhaps, the most loving relationship in the entire 'Verse, also, clearly non-sexual.
Book befriends, of all people, Jayne, and I'm sure someone will talk about the homoerotic subtexts of being workout buddies, but they clearly do bond and it is also clearly non-sexual.
Mal also clearly cares deeply about anyone who is "crew", a word that he regards as synonomous with, or even stronger than "family".
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: The comments section is pure gold.
"There are some loons out there like Book, but thankfully they're few and far between."
Book is many things, but he never struck me as a "loon".
And then a rebuttal in the same comments section says this:
quote: Anyone who can dismiss Book, the only really likeable character in the verse, as a loon, has sufficiently impeached himself as a loon that no further comment is needed.
What, Kaylee's not likeable? Wash? I mean, I like a lot of the characters on Firefly but I understand why someone might not characterize them as likeable. But Kaylee?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I only read the first bit, on the presumption that he made his strongest point first. If he did, his essay is pure bunk.
I don't think it was his strongest point.
quote:None of the voyages were interstellar.
Until it was explained in Serenity, I too always thought that the voyages wer interstellar.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Sure, but this guy watched Serenity first.
--Mel
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
I tend to agree with most of the sentiment posted here. He's basically wrong on every point. The sex issue in Firefly was no more or less prevalent than in every TV show on air now. He's comparing modern TV to TV of ten or 15 years ago, and frankly, a lot has changed. Even more so, he's comparing Firefly to Asimov. Asimov, genius though he was, was a well-known prude. If you toss in Heinlein, one of Asimov's contemporaries and (to many's minds) equals in SF, then Firefly comes off as incredibly square.
There are a lot of "good" sci-fi novels/universes where religion is a minor to non-existent issue. And besides, there was a fair bit of talk about religion, it just wasn't central to the plot because most of the characters were non-religious.
Technobabble? Technobabble is a requirement for good sci-fi? I'd laugh but it's not even funny. Technobabble is the bane of sci-fi everywhere! I know everyone doesn't agree, but the point of sci-fi is it can't be explained fully. Trying to explain it is just throwing up screens to deflect people's vision from seeing what's really there. Star Trek TNG was great until they started "solving" all their problems with technocrap. Bab5 was good because they didn't give more than the scantest explanations for what they did. Dune was great and its sequelae were bad because of the disparity in explanations. Technobabble is a crutch used by bad authors to throw smoke in front of bad writing.
In short, he's wrong.
[ June 28, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Raventhief ]
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: Sure, but this guy watched Serenity first.
--Mel
Oh, and so did I. I really didn't think Firefly could be any good. I was not a fan of Buffy and Joss Whedon doing sci-fi just seemed like a bad idea. Some friends took me to see Serenity, and I bought Firefly shortly thereafter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I tend to agree with the sentiment posted here. He's basically wrong on every point.
*Ahem.* The first sentiment posted here agreed with many of his points.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I love how he cites Ender's Game as an example of good sci-fi where the characters relate to each other without having sex.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm trying to remember - besides the married couple, did ANYBODY have sex over the course of the show besides the one getting paid for it and in flashback?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mal and...ohhh...I can't remember her name, Inara's friend from Heart of Gold. Also, it's pretty strongly implied that Jayne got sexed in HoG.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. Mal had sex with the Madam of the whorehouse.
Jayne also had sex there, and probably in Jaynestown.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
It's strongly implied that Inara had "relations" with one of her rare female clients.
Certainly, that's the conclusion Jayne drew. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Also, I'm wondering why you're excluding flashbacks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Did you find the approach to sex unrealistic?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I find it dificult to believe the commentator watched the same Firefly series I did. Given the profile, I wonder if the person has watched many modern non-lds tv shows at all, and been raised in a very, very sheltered environment pre-college. I think they are revealing far more about themselves than the series by their opinions on it.
AJ
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
See I always saw Kaylee's explanations of the propulsion system's particulars as very technobabblish.
As for Simon and Kaylee's relationship I think there is definately sexual tension there. Simon is too proper to jump into things but Kaylee clearly wants to be intimate with him, but obviously her feelings for Simon are not just sexual in nature she genuinely loves him.
Either way his point about sex seems to be without adequate merit.
As for religion. I just don't think the show went on long enough for religion to be fleshed out as much as I think it would have been. I thought Book was a VERY interesting religious character. Of course it helps he has some hidden special ops butt kicking past that we will never know about but is always hinted at.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Book and Jayne?
Gee, thanks for that mental image...
quote:None of the voyages were interstellar.
I also assumed that the voyages were interstellar, simply because it's hard to fathom one solar system in which *every* planet is virtually identical and "Class M". But, on the other hand, they don't have FTL engines, so...?
If it was explained in Serenity, I missed it.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I tend to agree with the sentiment posted here. He's basically wrong on every point.
*Ahem.* The first sentiment posted here agreed with many of his points.
Consider me suitably chastened and the words "most of" inserted into my post. In fact, I'll do that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree with the linked post that Inara's relationship with and reaction to sex didn't seem to be consistent or make sense.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I agree with the linked post that Inara's relationship with and reaction to sex wasn't believably consistent.
Do you know many women?
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Really, how many people have a consistent relationship with sex?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Is that a Freudian slip of some sort?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Her reaction in Heart of Gold made sense to me. She wants Mal but for whatever reason can't be with him (or believes she can't), and then he went and slept with someone else. She said the proper "enlightened" things about sex when they bumped into each other in the hallway, the things that Companions are supposed to believe, but in private she was hurt by it--she just didn't want him to know that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I disagree on pretty much every count. It's true that the science is flawed--though not for the reasons the author gives--but this really doesn't bother me. I mean, heck, Star Wars has sound in space, and Star Trek can accelerate beyond the speed of light just by wishing it so. (I frankly would have preferred that the planets not all be in one system. This strains credulity far more than any FTL workaround, because in the genre we're already used to giving creators FTL as a freebie, in order to make the rest of the plots workable.)
There are enough depictions of sex that I don't let my nine-year-olds watch the show. But his characterization of sex as the driving force behind the relationships fails on two levels. First of all, it's not an accurate representation of Firefly. Second, unfortunately, it is a pretty accurate description of a lot of modern relationships, so much so that a show which depicted relationships having such an arc would not be inaccurate, for a wide subset of people.
I found Firefly's treatment of religion respectful. Sure, you can deconstruct that treatment, as the author did, but I think it's better to look at the surface, at what the creators were trying to do, rather than condemning them for not doing it as one would have done it, given the opportunity.
I question the breadth of the author's exposure to science fiction, based on the repeated comparisons to the Ender series and Asimov, as if they pretty much defined sci-fi as a genre between them. Lessee . . . a book about children on a space station and a Golden Age series, from an era where explicit sexuality was not common in mass market books . . . yeah, that really proves a point--not.
And the most important place where the author of the blog has it wrong: Firefly is far better than Serenity. Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
You can edit or delete your previous post by clicking on the little paper and pen icon in the upper left of your post.
I've always considered firefly more of a human drama than a sci-fi series. To me sci-fi means annoying meaningless technobabble and aliens that look exactly like humans except for pointy ears or bumpy foreheads. Firefly is so much more than that, primarily it's a chance to examine consistencies in human nature under fictional circumstances. The reviewer seemed to have a ax to grind, it was a little too pg-13 for his tastes, so he threw in some fluff in order to make a coherent point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do you know many women?
There's no need for you to cross that line and be personally insulting. I have no interest in turning a conversation about Firefly into a competition of who can "get" whom. My conversation with you about this is over.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Don't you guys remember the Kaylee sex? I think that was one of the most "AAAAAGH!" moments in the series for me (in Out of Gas) when he walks around the corner and we find Kaylee and the mechanic.
anyway, just adding to the sex list. I won't even read this review as I may take the critiques personally.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Narnia -- that's the scene that Kat was excluding by excluding flashbacks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That wasn't a personal insult, porter. That was an emphatic disagreement with what you were saying. Inara's reaction was very consistent with many women I know, so much so that I am a little bemused that people could find it obviously unrealistically inconsistent.
You are a self-admitted prude, as, I'm guessing is the author of this review. I guess I'm suggesting that you may not have an understanding of the common worldview in which Inara's behavior is realistic.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Doesn't matter whether the voyages were interstellar. From the standpoint of a little tiny spaceship travelling immense distances through the black, relative velocity is nil. Whether someone can jump from one spaceship to another is also merely a matter of relative velocity.
I was bothered, however, by the fact that spaceships coming in opposite directions had the opportunity to look each other over as they meandered by. They should have flashed by in an instant.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: You can edit or delete your previous post by clicking on the little paper and pen icon in the upper left of your post.
I'm aware. My computer is acting... oddly. I'll take care of it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You could probably suggest he doesn't know women like Inara without being rude. To suggest he doesn't know many women at all is, I think. And, assuming that he does know many women, virtually all of whom are not like Inara, he could easily throw the same line back at you. You both obviously travel in different sample sets; attempting to universalize either of your experiences would be a mistake.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Don't you guys remember the Kaylee sex? I think that was one of the most "AAAAAGH!" moments in the series for me (in Out of Gas) when he walks around the corner and we find Kaylee and the mechanic.
I've always thought Whedon put that in there to give some perspective on Kaylee's relationship with Simon. Her language often discloses her as being sexually liberated, yet when it comes to Simon, she can't bring herself to be up front about her feelings. The "Out of Gas" scene makes it clear that Kaylee would have jumped Simon's bones if she hadn't cared that it might cheapen the relationship.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I appologize for my flippant remark. It wasn't intended rudely, but I could see how it could be taken as such.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was bothered, however, by the fact that spaceships coming in opposite directions had the opportunity to look each other over as they meandered by. They should have flashed by in an instant.
This always bothered me, too. The ships usually look as if they are moving slowly because the starfield changes so slowly due to distance. The ships should move very quickly relative to each other.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I figure that spaceship drives there put out some sort of effect that magnifies the ship for people viewing them proportional to the distance between them. So, they really are far away from each other and moving fast, it just looks like they are close and moving slow.
Yeah...that's the ticket.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The ships should move very quickly relative to each other.
Actually, no. there are several instances where it shows two ships in the same shot moving past each other at a snail's pace.
In fact, Whedon even comments on how that is utterly wrong in the commentary track to "Bushwacked".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, You're agreeing with what Dag said.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You're probably right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
First off, I think it's funny that he loved the movie and didn't like the series. Personally I love the series and find the movie to be average/mediocre.
Second, I think he's off on the sex. I agree that there IS a lot of sex, but as the author says, there's no more than in BSG, which I don't think anyone would call bad sci-fi. But I don't know what he is talking about with regards to the role of sex in on screen relationships. I don't recall that at all, considering the non-married main characters never have sex with each other, only with minor single episode characters. Further, I think he is cheapening a companion. He's accusing Joss of being preachy when Star Trek, which I think many would call the most widespread TV sci-fi had one of the first on screen kisses between two females when Dax on DS9 fell in love with a previous hosts' wife. It's not preachy, it's realistic. Companions aren't just hookers, like he says and Mal constantly abuses her with. There's more to it, and the more part is explored numerous times in the show, but he totally missed it.
And what the hell was the 'I'm only in it for the sex..." thing? Sure Jayne took advantage of that, and Mal ended up with what's her name, but clearly there was more between Mal and her than just payment. And clearly they weren't in it for the sex or the money, but just to help out, as is their wont to do. Mal and Inara (yeah that's right buddy, you cheated her out of a vowel) have a more complicated relationship, based on a lot of unsaid but fairly obvious emotions that is totally believable, and yet both sleep with other people. But I think it was specifically because Mal slept with that woman, who was both a friend of Inara's and another companion that upset Inara so much. Most sci-fi ignores sex entirely, it doesn't show the pro and the cons. It's only recent sci-fi that addresses it in a realistic way.
Third, okay, he has a point about some of the science. It's insanely unbelievable that even with extremely advanced terraforming that so many planets could be within the habitable zone of the solar system. Earth is barely within the habitable zone, and Mars, with some terraforming, could also be livable, but the rest of the solar system is dead so long as we have the star that we have, and will remain so for millions of years. The FTL thing is covered in Serenity where they explain all that, but for someone who hadn't seen the movie, I can see how that'd be extremely confusing.
The thing about it though, is that it was less about the science aspect, and more about the actual characters and story. The fact that it was set in space doesn't necessitate a lengthy explanation of the technology, though I too thought it was silly that EVERY planet with the exception of the very central core were all desert planets. It also made little sense that one of the nicest planets, Miranda, was the furthest away from the sun. But I can ignore bad science if the story is good, and the story IS good.
It really is more of a western than a Sci-Fi. It's closer I think to what Star Wars might have been if it had focused on Han Solo's early life as a smuggler.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The one point I do agree with him is the fact that 90% of the planets were basically Wyoming. After the 5th or 6th "American West" planet, I wanted to scream in frustration.
Most of his other points I disagree on.
However, it is worth noting that for me, the "Science Fiction" part of the show is perhaps the least interesting. I think if the show took place on a merchant vessel in the 18th century, very little would have to be changed, and that I'd have enjoyed the show just as much.
To me the character interaction and development were the best parts.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The problem is, as I see it, the author is defining bad as "disagrees with my moral code" as opposed to "possessing quality" or "is believable". If that's the criteria he's using, I can't really fault him, except for the numerous factual errors he makes. However, that's a pretty worthless distinction for people who are not him and who don't care about his moral code.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The one point I do agree with him is the fact that 90% of the planets were basically Wyoming.
90% of the planets they landed on, which were established as being frontier planets that were harder to terraform and given less support, so that they'd be kinda barren. In fact, these were the type of planets that the definitely grey legal status Firefly crew could work in.
There were plenty of core planets that were much different. This difference lent contrast to the different types of people/places and played an important part in some of the episodes.
I don't know, complaining about the planets sounds sort of like complaining that a show about smugglers has them always hanging out in seedy bars near ports.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
reading the white letters on black gave me a headache Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I think the fact that the outer planets represent the american west is entirely by design. Whedon was drawing a parallel to the whole genre of the "western movie" by giving frontier planets that western feel. The sense of lawlessness also fits right in.
Also, it's not so much the landscape, as the technology level and culture of the settlers. Jayne's town could have been set in Massachusetts, except for the western flavor of the locals.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I disliked Serenity more than Firefly, because I could not believe that people so under the influence of rage hormones that they'd as soon eat you as look at you, who used to be like us until the rage took over, could cooperate enough to run a starship, and calm down enough to do repairs on them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Why not? enraged mobs cooperate all the time...
and I don't think Reavers repair their ships, in fact isn;t a failure to maintain them properly ("running without containmnet") one of their defining features?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, I've often wondered about reaver "culture." Why don't they eat each other?
Are they addicted to the Pax? Or are they forever changed once exposed to it?
How do you make more reavers? Birth or "conversion"? And how would a reaver mother behave toward her child?
Enraged mobs only cooperate on a single purpose level. Running a spaceship requires a whole different mindset, even if it is poorly maintained.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
"Running without containment" could have its benefits (better speed or maneuverability, more access points for salvage purposes, etc..). They don't seem particularly concerned about the negative aspects of it, but that's hardly surprising; poster children for safety and well-being they're not.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: First off, I think it's funny that he loved the movie and didn't like the series. Personally I love the series and find the movie to be average/mediocre.
One reason the film might've been dissapointing in comparison to the series (but still good people, still good!)is because it was excellent seeing Whedon develop his story as a serial. When Zoe tells the crew about what witnessing River's remarkable abilities, there's much tension and it's a very exciting moment--all because we had to wait for it. But the film is like a season's worth of story told in two hours. Knowing how richer it would've been if told over a season kind of spoils it...
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Yeah, I've often wondered about reaver "culture." Why don't they eat each other?
Are they addicted to the Pax? Or are they forever changed once exposed to it?
How do you make more reavers? Birth or "conversion"? And how would a reaver mother behave toward her child?
Add that to the list of hundreds of questions that could have been answered, most likely to the ecstatic satisfaction of the viewers, if those Huh choo-shung tza-jiao duh tzang-huo didn't cancel the show.
quote: Posted by the_Somalian: Knowing how richer it would've been if told over a season kind of spoils it...
That almost makes me cry just thinking how much potential, and how much fun, another season would have been.
As for the SF standard of the show, I think you really would be hard pressed to find a show, at any point in history, that really did a better job balancing storylines with characterization (with 9 major characters, nonetheless!) and with gosh-darn pretty pictures.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Knowing how richer it would've been if told over a season kind of spoils it...
That almost makes me cry just thinking how much potential, and how much fun, another season would have been. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Don't worry, when I become a rich person, Firefly will live again...unfortunately the actors may be too old, so we'll have to animate the whole thing.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If one finds it difficult or impossible to separate sex from love, one would naturally find Inara's actions unlikely.
Even prostitutes can fall in love, can be hurt, can get jealous. I thought Inara's reaction was a wonderful glimpse into just how far Mal had gotten under her skin, past the cool and aloof mask she used for everyone else.
I disagree with just about every statement made in that essay, and I think MrSquicky nailed the bulk of it. "Bad" meant "not my moral code" to this person, which is fine for a personal opinion but meaningingless to me. The science was almost nonexistent but the stories, the people, the conflicts were very real.
Kinda like, say, a lot of Theodore Sturgeon stories I really like. I suppose he must not really have been a science fiction author, though (he wrote about sex!).
I might accept, based on the lack of hard science, it could be argued that Firefly isn't the best science fiction shows. But it remains, to me, one of the best television shows ever broadcast.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"Bad" meant "not my moral code" to this person
I do not think this is correct. At least, that's not how I read it.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: How do you make more reavers? Birth or "conversion"? And how would a reaver mother behave toward her child?
I thought for sure that was covered, and the answer was conversion only. Was it the episode where they found a colony ship that had been attacked by reavers? Or am I just remembering speculation? Clearly, it's been too long since I've watched the episodes.
--Mel
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:"Bad" meant "not my moral code" to this person
I do not think this is correct. At least, that's not how I read it.
It seems accurate to me.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Was it the episode where they found a colony ship that had been attacked by reavers?
Yes, but if I remember correctly, I don't know how much of it was actually explained.
*SPOILER ALERT*
If I recall correctly, Mal made it clear that the survivor they pulled off the ship was a threat because he was going to become a reaver, but I don't remember them explaining why he would become one. They simply made it seem like he was infected somehow just by being near them or something, or mentally pushed to that point merely by what he saw. It was extremely unclear.
Posted by Iain (Member # 9899) on :
Thus far the only Sci-Fi series I have seen without sound in space.
I like the Reaction Control Systems in BSG, I like the lack of sound in Firefly, River reminds me of my girlfriend...
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I've always enjoyed the explanation of the reavers made in this crossover fanfiction. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's how I read it.
"First, in the TV show, there was just too much sex." How does this define science fiction in any way? You'd have to chuck out Robert Heinlein, Ted Sturgeon, Spider Robinson, John Varley, Phillip Jose Farmer... That's a judgement call.
"Good science fiction isn't like that. Good sci fi (and also good fiction in general) have strong, well developed characters who relate to each other on many other levels than just the sexual level." I didn't see the show's relationships operating on solely a sexual level. Nor do I have problems with good scifi (or good fiction in general) focusing on sexual relationships if the story calls for it. Again, opinion based on his moral beliefs.
"Good sci fi, just like any kind of fiction, doesn't focus on the sex at the expense of other aspects of characters' relationships with one another." Considering one of the characters is a prostitute, how could it not? And I saw a lot more levels of interaction between Mal and Inara than just sex.
"Their job description is basically identical to escorts and prostitutes, except that they personally chose their clientele." Actually it's pretty much identical to the cortigiana onestas of 16th century Europe. Courtesans were powerful, often intelligent and schooled, and had opportunities and freedoms other women did not have.
"The problem I have with this is that the way it's portrayed, it's just not believable. Nara has sex with all kinds of people--of her own choice--and then, when the captain goes and sleeps with one of her friends, she cries her eyes out." As stated, I believed it. It's easy to intellectualize your feelings only to be surprised when your emotions betray you. And yes, prostitutes can fall in love.
Not sure why Inara taking female clients was preachy when presumably the author didn't approve of prostitution anyway. Why is it worse that someone who has sex for money would have same-sex for money?
"The TV show never really shows the emotional ramifications that follow from this kind of a lifestyle." Which lifestyle are we talking about? Prostitution? Promiscuity? Homosexuality? Apparently the depiction of a gay relationship is unbelievable or preachy if we don't stop and demonstrate that the people involved are ruining their lives.
Book's explanation of religion to River did not strike me as preaching a generalized view. He was, IMO, trying to reach River the only way he could. Trying to convince her of the empirical truth of the bible would be useless as she had just proven she could zero in on scriptural inconsistencies immediately. He was trying to reach her the only way he could.
The scientific holes are valid points, some of them, and had the essay stuck with those as reasons why "Firefly" is bad scifi I might have let it go. But the bulk of the essay looks at the attitudes towards sex, homosexuality, and religion and declares them to be lacking, and therefore bad scifi. I declare exactly the opposite. What differs? Our moral codes.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: It's how I read it.
"First, in the TV show, there was just too much sex." How does this define science fiction in any way? You'd have to chuck out Robert Heinlein, Ted Sturgeon, Spider Robinson, John Varley, Phillip Jose Farmer... That's a judgement call.
He'd have to chuck out OSC too...all that sex in the Homecoming series, after all. Shocking!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Please note, I have no problems with the person thinking it's bad fiction. What I don't understand is how the elements of "Firefly" -- aside from the shoddy science -- makes it bad science fiction, which is the whole point of the essay.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:"Good sci fi, just like any kind of fiction, doesn't focus on the sex at the expense of other aspects of characters' relationships with one another." Considering one of the characters is a prostitute, how could it not? And I saw a lot more levels of interaction between Mal and Inara than just sex.
"Their job description is basically identical to escorts and prostitutes, except that they personally chose their clientele." Actually it's pretty much identical to the cortigiana onestas of 16th century Europe. Courtesans were powerful, often intelligent and schooled, and had opportunities and freedoms other women did not have.
"The problem I have with this is that the way it's portrayed, it's just not believable. Nara has sex with all kinds of people--of her own choice--and then, when the captain goes and sleeps with one of her friends, she cries her eyes out." As stated, I believed it. It's easy to intellectualize your feelings only to be surprised when your emotions betray you. And yes, prostitutes can fall in love.
Not sure why Inara taking female clients was preachy when presumably the author didn't approve of prostitution anyway. Why is it worse that someone who has sex for money would have same-sex for money?
"The TV show never really shows the emotional ramifications that follow from this kind of a lifestyle." Which lifestyle are we talking about? Prostitution? Promiscuity? Homosexuality? Apparently the depiction of a gay relationship is unbelievable or preachy if we don't stop and demonstrate that the people involved are ruining their lives.
Excellent points.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Was it the episode where they found a colony ship that had been attacked by reavers?
Yes, but if I remember correctly, I don't know how much of it was actually explained.
*SPOILER ALERT*
If I recall correctly, Mal made it clear that the survivor they pulled off the ship was a threat because he was going to become a reaver, but I don't remember them explaining why he would become one. They simply made it seem like he was infected somehow just by being near them or something, or mentally pushed to that point merely by what he saw. It was extremely unclear.
I was under the impression they killed everyone except the one guy and they hideously tortured him to the brink of insanity so that he became just like them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I was under the impression they killed everyone except the one guy and they hideously tortured him to the brink of insanity so that he became just like them.
Except that doesn't make sense if the way you become a Reaver is by having a bad reaction to that drug.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I was under the impression they killed everyone except the one guy and they hideously tortured him to the brink of insanity so that he became just like them.
Except that doesn't make sense if the way you become a Reaver is by having a bad reaction to that drug.
Thats only how the original Reavers were formed.
Why can there only be one way for them to expand their numbers?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why would being tortured create the same effect as a bad drug reaction?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Iain: Thus far the only Sci-Fi series I have seen without sound in space.
I like the Reaction Control Systems in BSG, I like the lack of sound in Firefly, River reminds me of my girlfriend...
Doesn't BSG mostly have no sound in space?
I was VASTLY disappointed when in Serenity they added sound for the space battle. I don't mind sound in space. We know it isn't real, but it's fun. But if you aren't going to do sound, you can't just add it at the last minute to make your big space battle cooler, I think it cheapens it, not when you've made it a point to never have it before, and for that matter, EARLIER in the movie they made a point of making no sound as well.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Iain: Thus far the only Sci-Fi series I have seen without sound in space.
I like the Reaction Control Systems in BSG, I like the lack of sound in Firefly, River reminds me of my girlfriend...
Doesn't BSG mostly have no sound in space?
I was VASTLY disappointed when in Serenity they added sound for the space battle. I don't mind sound in space. We know it isn't real, but it's fun. But if you aren't going to do sound, you can't just add it at the last minute to make your big space battle cooler, I think it cheapens it, not when you've made it a point to never have it before, and for that matter, EARLIER in the movie they made a point of making no sound as well.
They got away with sound because they were in a cloud of particles that (according to the creator) allowed for sound to propagate.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm still rattled that Firefly was supposed to happen all in one star system. Huh? How many frequin' planets are in that system, and how do they all have earthlike atmospheres?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At some point in the next 500 years, they found a super system that had dozens of planets and moons that were terraformed over time.
Something to consider, by the way, sure they don't discuss FTL travel because they move around a single star system (which would STILL take a lot of time), but how the hell did they get from Earth to the new system they are currently in without a form of FTL? I guess it doesn't REALLY matter, but I'm curious.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:They got away with sound because they were in a cloud of particles that (according to the creator) allowed for sound to propagate.
It all depends on where you put the microphone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah...that's pretty flimsy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I let the battle sound go because they were just inside the planet's outer atmosphere.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Was it the episode where they found a colony ship that had been attacked by reavers? Or am I just remembering speculation? Clearly, it's been too long since I've watched the episodes.
I think the concept of the Reaver genesis and the Miranda discovery (the planet had to remain silent, because information that came from Miranda could be used against the alliance) is genius, but it's pretty clear to me that this is a concept that wasn't fully developed at the time this episode was shot. Not merely because the survivor began acting like a reaver without having been exposed to the pax, but because Mal shouldn't have been able to predict that he would act like a reaver based on his lack of information about how reavers were created in the first place.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Why would being tortured create the same effect as a bad drug reaction?
Why not? We ARE talking about science fiction here.
I'm sure I can get somebody angry just by being annoying, and I am pretty sure there are ways to stimulate the aggressive side of the brain into making somebody angry. Pills, electrodes, Rage Against the Machine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I let the battle sound go because they were just inside the planet's outer atmosphere.
In which case lets hope they never fire their space cannons on land, as the sound would probably shatter windows for miles and miles.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I let the battle sound go because they were just inside the planet's outer atmosphere.
In which case lets hope they never fire their space cannons on land, as the sound would probably shatter windows for miles and miles.
Makes sense. Those guns put out a lot of energy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure why the energy weapons really had any sound at all. If we're going to buy the whole outer atmosphere thing then fine, the projectile canons and such would make boomy sounds.
But lasers are light, and I can't remember the last time I heard a sound come out of my flashlight when I turned it on. Don't get me wrong, Firefly still gets the same pass for using sound where it shouldn't be that Star Wars gets for Lightsabers and blasters, and that Star Trek gets for phasers, but let's not whitewash it to make it seem better than it is, because it IS good, but whitewashing the minor flaws I think just ruins it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Why would being tortured create the same effect as a bad drug reaction?
Why not? We ARE talking about science fiction here.
Just because something's science fiction doesn't mean that any old thing can happen. The psyche of the average person in the Firefly universe is the same as the psyche of people in the real world. If torture of that sort wouldn't turn people into reavers in real life (and I think that it wouldn't), then it doesn't work in the context of Bushwhacked either.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
A high energy laser would make a noise from the transformer that powers it, but it shouldn't be coupled with a doppler shift that is so typical in sci-fi as the laser beam "zips by."
The fact is that energy weapons have a much bigger flaw. They travel at the speed of light, which means they shouldn't be visible at all until they reach the target. You can't "see the beam coming" and then dodge it, because you can't see the beam at all until it reaches you.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Thank you Jhai for that wonderful work of fanfiction.
This making me laugh quite a bit.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Do we know that the weapons in question are lasers, and not plasma-based?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
He didn't become a Reaver. He tried to emulate them.
This is a real world reaction that some victims of torture and brutalization go through. Stockholm syndrome is a specialized case of this. It has been noted in other individual instances as well as in group setings, such as when Nazi concentration camp inmates went so far as to fabricate faux-SS uniforms for themselves and adopt the mannerisms of their guards.
It's a power thing. Human beings often tend to identify with, idolize, and often emulate those they view as powerful. This reaction is often intesified in those who feel particularly powerless. Mixed in sometimes is the just world fallacy, where they assume that the strong are that way beause they are right. Torture victims can feel this impulse strongly and are looking for some sort of esacpe from the mental realities of their situation.
While an extreme case, the reaction of the guy in Bushwhacked is consistent with what I know about the behavior of some real life torture victims.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Very interesting.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Nazi concentration camp inmates went so far as to fabricate faux-SS uniforms for themselves and adopt the mannerisms of their guards.
Do you have any links to articles that discuss this, Squick? I'd like to read about it in more detail.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll see what I can find. I'm not sure if I came across it in a psych text, Viktor Frankl, or Erich Fromm, but I can probably pull up a reference. edit: But, it'll have to be over the weekend.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
A pointer to a book that discusses it would be welcome too, if that's easier.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm 99% sure that was in Viktor Frankl's work, probably Man's Search For Meaning. It shattered me when I read it as a child.
---
Edited to add: I'd read Anne Frank's diary and moved on to firsthand accounts of concentration camps: Frankl, Elie Wiesel, and Corrie ten Boom (a Dutch Christian who hid Jews during WWII and was herself imprisoned). The other one it might be from is Wiesel's Night, but I think I remember the relating of the incident in terms of Frankl's theories about humanity. It's been awhile, though, so if it isn't in Man's Search for Meaning, you might want to check Night.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think I own Man's Search for Meaning, actually. I'll look tonight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'm 99% sure that was in Viktor Frankl's work, probably Man's Search For Meaning. It shattered me when I read it as a child.
---
Edited to add: I'd read Anne Frank's diary and moved on to firsthand accounts of concentration camps: Frankl, Elie Wiesel, and Corrie ten Boom (a Dutch Christian who hid Jews during WWII and was herself imprisoned). The other one it might be are from Wiesel's Night, but I think I remember the relatign of the incident in terms of Frankl's theories about humanity. It's been awhile, though, so if it isn't in Man's Search for Meaning, you might want to check Night.
It shattered me a year ago when I read it for the first time. I think what we are talking about is indeed in the book.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm sure I can get somebody angry just by being annoying, and I am pretty sure there are ways to stimulate the aggressive side of the brain into making somebody angry. Pills, electrodes, Rage Against the Machine.
You might make me angry and agressive, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more for me to start killing people with sharp objects and eating their flesh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm sure I can get somebody angry just by being annoying, and I am pretty sure there are ways to stimulate the aggressive side of the brain into making somebody angry. Pills, electrodes, Rage Against the Machine.
You might make me angry and agressive, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more for me to start killing people with sharp objects and eating their flesh.
OK I'll annoy you for a VERY long time. I might even go beyond annoying you and actively anger you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It shattered me a year ago when I read it for the first time. I think what we are talking about is indeed in the book.
I've been meaning to reread it again, anyway.
Noemon, it's a race. To the death? No! To the pain.
---
Edited to add: As I hit "submit," I realized that was extraordinarily tacky and insensitive. Gah! I'm sorry.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Yeah, I've often wondered about reaver "culture." Why don't they eat each other?
Are they addicted to the Pax? Or are they forever changed once exposed to it?
How do you make more reavers? Birth or "conversion"? And how would a reaver mother behave toward her child?
Enraged mobs only cooperate on a single purpose level. Running a spaceship requires a whole different mindset, even if it is poorly maintained.
How do we know (other than "Bushwhacked", of course, where we don't know for sure he was becoming an actual reaver) that more reavers are ever made? It's not like they've been around all that long. I think Jayne points out in Serenity that they appeared 10 years prior (like the bogeyman out of stories).
Honestly, the most glaring problem was the density of the junk field around Miranda. If we're to assume the thing completely surrounds the planet, the population density of reavers in the field would be extremely low, to the point of rediculousness. Maybe it can be related to the same effect of the crawling pace of ships passing each other in space (which just happen to come within 100 yards(?) or so of each other.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have a hard time believing that the mindless reavers could survive for ten years in an environment as delicate and unstable as a space ship.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I were to write fanfiction explaining the Reavers, I would have each Reaver ship intimately tied to a Reaver who is a telepath.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have a hard time believing that the mindless reavers could survive for ten years in an environment as delicate and unstable as a space ship.
But why do they have to be mindless? Having your aggression go through the roof often leads to irrational actions, but MUST it be that way?
I admit however that the reaver culture has always bothered me alittle for the same reason you just stated.
I think if the writers had had more time they could have probable fleshed the reavers out to the point that we would have been OK with how they are.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I were to write fanfiction explaining the Reavers, I would have each Reaver ship intimately tied to a Reaver who is a telepath.
Sorry for the double post but that was the only way it could make sense to me as well. But perhaps the guy does not have to be reaver just a VERY strong telepath who also just happens to be a sociopath.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Well, this is true, but they obviously have some organization. Highly agressive, yes, but they didn't just kill, etc. the people on the personnel transport. They gathered them up in the one place. They also left traps, and they've shown the ability to track.
I suppose we could argue all day about which bits are inconsistent with which other bits, but I figure it's not all that important.
*edit* - this was in response to mph
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The Reavers aren't that far off from Vikings, you know.
Ship appears out of the vast open sea from ships fashioned to look menacing, marauders pour into a hapless village and brutally attack the inhabitants and either rape or take away the women, etc. Stories of babies being thrown into the air and caught with spears, etc.
The Vikings had a reputation for savagery and brutality across the north of Europe for decades - yet they were also the best seafaring culture of that time.
Now, granted, the Reavers are far more vicious than the Vikings ever were and clearly aren't attacking to pillage. But who's to say that there isn't a culture behind the outward mystique?
I mean, there could be a pack mentality - show enough aggression, and other Reavers leave you alone. There could be a grudging, simmering anger aboard the ship - or they could take slaves to be engineers, until they too go mad or commit suicide.
There are all kinds of possibilities - and it's possible that, much like sharks, they don't often attack each other. Or, even more like sharks, that they are more calm until they work themselves into a frenzy. (Also like stories of the berserkr Vikings).
Just random thoughts.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think the problem is that even if there is a satisfactory explanation for the Reavers (beyond a bad reaction to the Pax), it's never presented in the series or the movie. Everything else is just speculation. And the movie doesn't entirely jibe with the series.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I think the problem is that even if there is a satisfactory explanation for the Reavers (beyond a bad reaction to the Pax), it's never presented in the series or the movie. Everything else is just speculation. And the movie doesn't entirely jibe with the series.
Again Firefly did not even get a full season of episodes and the movie was constructed as a sort of farewell to the whole awesome idea.
Anything that makes Fox look bad and the writers of Firefly good is OK in my book.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm well aware that Firefly lasted for less than half a season. That doesn't change what I said.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
You'd think telepathic Reavers would've caught on to Serenity's little ruse in the movie.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: You'd think telepathic Reavers would've caught on to Serenity's little ruse in the movie.
No no a telepathic reaver who controls the rest. That means they all recieve orders but they only have access to the thoughts of whoever is in charge. But yes if the head reaver was somewhere in the proximity of Serenity the ruse would not have worked.
But this is all speculation on a possible explanation that has no evidence.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
As long as we're speculating, I'll do my own little fan-fiction:
The reavers aren't merely people who happened to have a bad reaction to the pax.
The pax is addictive, but most people weren't even aware it was being used on them. At the constant levels administered through the air processors, the result is total apathy and death. The reavers are people who discovered the source of the pax, and began using it intentionally, in high doses. Anyone can become a reaver given the opportunity to self administer the pax in this way. When they hit a certain limit, they go berzerk and act the way we see them in rape and cannibal mode. Once sated, they kind of go dormant, acting the way most people did when exposed to the pax, in this state they are incapable of anything, including administering pax to continue the apathy. Except that the pax wears off before they die, putting them into withdrawal. Then they begin readministering the drug, and the cycle begins all over again.
There are in-between periods when the reavers are fairly normal, and can attend to regular issues of survival, including the production of new pax to satisfy their cravings. However, they suffer from agoraphobia, and never venture out to inhabited planets except when they are in the berzerk state. This is in part due to their appearance as a result of the damage they inflict on their own bodies.
Note: the reavers that took part in the attack on Mr. Universe's planet were only those who were near the berzerk state at the time Serenity fired into their midst. There are still a large number of them floating in the outer rim.
After the battle around Mr. Universe's planet, the Alliance discovered (for the first time) some surviving reavers in the dormant state, and took them in for study. It will take awhile before they discover the entire mechanism, but once they do, they will renew their experimentation with the pax on a new planet, in order to determine how the drug can be controlled.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Something to consider, by the way, sure they don't discuss FTL travel because they move around a single star system (which would STILL take a lot of time), but how the hell did they get from Earth to the new system they are currently in without a form of FTL? I guess it doesn't REALLY matter, but I'm curious.
This is explicitely explained in the prologue to "Serenity" (the movie)- after Earth-That-Was became too crowded, a number of colony ships were launched to the star system in which Firefly takes place, with the colonists in cryosleep, much like River was in "Serenity" (the episode). No need for FTL to travel between star systems when you can use sleeper ships instead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember them ever specifically saying cryosleep. And I'm still not entirely sure that would jive with the timeline presented. Or reality for that matter.
Firefly takes place what, 500 years after today? How far away is this system? The closest system to us is Alpha Centauri, which is almost 26 trillion miles away. But I have to imagine whatever system Firefly takes place in is much further, probably not one of the half dozen brightest stars in the sky, so it's probably even trillions of miles further away. After getting there, it would take decades to terraform and build a society. Even in cryo sleep, using the technology seen in Firefly, I don't buy it.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Blackblade: No no a telepathic reaver who controls the rest. That means they all recieve orders but they only have access to the thoughts of whoever is in charge. But yes if the head reaver was somewhere in the proximity of Serenity the ruse would not have worked.
I was actually responding to Scott's post about a Reaver telepath tied to each ship.
The hive-mind-esqe idea, I think has some merit. Even the leader might not be able to sense beings outside the collective.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm just gonna add my voice to those who have pointed out: just cause you're insanely enraged and have your inhibitions removed doesn't mean you're not intelligent and doesn't mean you can't cooperate with others. Some of the most brutal and terrifying serial killers of history were also some of the most intelligent and hardest to track down. And were able to play well with others when not killing.
The way I think of the reavers is not as mindless zombies, as most people seem to be inclined to, but closer to the viking thing. What makes sense to me is that for the part of the population that went reaver after pax exposure they were already borderline serial killer/cannibal. The pax simply removed inhibitions and increased aggression to the point where it came out. And probably some of the reavers did attack each other at first, but if they'd all done that they'd have wiped each other out. So I'd posit that the reavers inclined to attack other reavers were wiped out and some sort of order or society formed -- similar to vikings or other societies of raider barbarians. I'd guess they only go berserker when in battle, just like the berserkers of the past here on Earth. And they probably stick to Miranda when not raiding because they know the Alliance won't come after them there. Or hasn't yet anyway. It could be an intelligent conscious decision on their part.
The viking analogy seems to fit them better than the mindless zombie one to me.
Also for the whole conversion thing: it could be a mix of the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing and that they only choose people who are, like they were, borderline sociopath - just repressed. The treatment they give the person brings out the sociopath and they join in reaver society.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:posted by Blackblade: No no a telepathic reaver who controls the rest. That means they all recieve orders but they only have access to the thoughts of whoever is in charge. But yes if the head reaver was somewhere in the proximity of Serenity the ruse would not have worked.
I was actually responding to Scott's post about a Reaver telepath tied to each ship.
The hive-mind-esqe idea, I think has some merit. Even the leader might not be able to sense beings outside the collective.
I would not like such an idea at all. The last thing I want in the Firefly universe are the Borg, or a Borg variant.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I finally read the blog post. I disagreed with pretty much the entire thing.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:posted by Blackblade: No no a telepathic reaver who controls the rest. That means they all recieve orders but they only have access to the thoughts of whoever is in charge. But yes if the head reaver was somewhere in the proximity of Serenity the ruse would not have worked.
I was actually responding to Scott's post about a Reaver telepath tied to each ship.
The hive-mind-esqe idea, I think has some merit. Even the leader might not be able to sense beings outside the collective.
I would not like such an idea at all. The last thing I want in the Firefly universe are the Borg, or a Borg variant.
Exactly. I think it's more likely, or simply more believable, that they were like Vikings.
But that's the worst part of missing Firefly. We'll never know.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure I buy the "Viking" argument. I think it still demands a certain level of crazy to rape and skin people like that with wild abandon, and to mutilate your own body to that degree. It's unprecedented I think in world history to go to that extreme, and considering they used to be regular citizens of an advanced society, I think there's a lot more to it, and it doesn't quite jive. But then it doesn't necessarily have to. Sure it'd be awesome if it did, but like anything else in sci-fi, we can give a pass to a lot of minor things if the story is good on a broader level.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The reavers sorta bugged me because of the connection the American frontier West that they were supposed to represent:
the 'savages.'
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
So...they're supposed to represent the Native Americans?
Huh. I've never heard that before. Are you sure? Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
If you wanna read it that way, I can see where you get it. But I'd be willing to bet a bunch that that's not how Joss Whedon intended it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The entire series is a purposeful juxtaposition/retake. It's a western, in space, and it recreates aspects of the frontier in whole. The Civil War, Gettysburg, the North and the South, the civilized East and the frontier West.
The reavers are the howling, scalping, raiding savages. They are even referred to literally as 'savages.' The representation is quite easily manifest.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
And yet, things in the show are definitely not a strict allegory, else Joss would have been left with no breathing room to create things (for instance) like the Companions.
Are you sure the Reavers are an allegory for the Native Americans? One could just as easily say they were the more extreme lawless elements of the Old West, especially considering they were originally immigrants who "went bad" somehow...not natives who were innately rotten from the start, as some old Western fiction once portrayed the natives.
I took them to be (like the Companions) to be something extra tossed in to remind is this isn't -just- "The Old West in Space!" Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yes it's a western in space, it borrows elements from the old western genre. But that doesn't mean that it's supposed to represent those elements. Reavers are not supposed to represent the Native Americans. They are the roaming, raiding barbarians.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The reavers sorta bugged me because of the connection the American frontier West that they were supposed to represent:
the 'savages.'
I wouldn't put it past Inara to call Mal a savage in a conversation, I think you are locking in on a connection that is not as intended as you think it is. Perhaps the reavers are a manifestation of the fears frontier folks of the real west had. Native Americans to them were boogeymen who could come for them at any time raping and pillaging and peeling their flesh from their bones (scalping).
Maybe the reavers are supposed to represent ideas not the actual people who lived there. Its obvious the actual settlers, traders, and explorers are FAR different from the actual people they are based off of.
I don't think Joss could have done a strict cross over of Native Americans into Firefly as there are no extra terrestrials who could be native to the planets that were terraformed, no alien remember? The reavers are not native to anywhere either they are immigrants just like everyone else.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can certainly see how Samp could make that jump though, it's not far fetched at all. To early American Western settlers, there's little difference, from the stereotype in stories that were told at the time, between what Reavers actually are and what they thought American Indians were. Of course it turned out that American Indians weren't like Reavers except in vague extremes, but that wasn't the image portrayed at first. They were viewed as bloody savages that killed for no reason and did horrible things to victims, sparing not even women and children.
I'd be surprised if Joss didn't at least take something like that into consideration when he created the Reavers, because the allusion is all too obvious.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
This is something Joss has said? This is definite?
Because that makes me want to reject the series, if he'd invoke such horrible prejudice and propaganda just because he needed good boogeymen for his little show.
I'm weird that way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think Joss could have done a strict cross over of Native Americans into Firefly as there are no extra terrestrials who could be native to the planets that were terraformed, no alien remember? The reavers are not native to anywhere either they are immigrants just like everyone else.
1. There is a significant amount of situational difference that makes it impossible for any 'strict cross-over' -- for instance, the original settlers did not abandon a blowing up, never-to-be-heard-from-again England That Was. New situations are created but are still intending to lead to a situational environment that turns this into a space western.
2. While I still maintain that the allusion is obvious, I understand the creative license. In this bizarro-West, it's the Confederates who are the goodguys and the Union that's dastardly and evil and controlling. It's no jump to say that the Indians have been turned into actually one-dimensional, irredeemable savages to create similar 'new' angles.
3. The Native Americans were 'immigrants' too, albeit ones that arrived tens of thousands of years before any paleface. You could have easily created natives who arrived in the same system by choice far before the Sino-Americans did. It's not impossible to allude to a sci-fi Bering Strait.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Even if it were true and conscious, I don't agree with your moral conclusion, Puffy. If he's invoking the fictional cowboy stories of our youth, it wouldn't be bad writing to invoke the savages that those stories had . . . as they seemed to us back then. They can fulfill the same role in this narrative, but, because it's in space and not in the old west, they aren't like actual Indians, but instead like what we all once mistakenly thought Indians to be like. In speculative fiction, it seems entirely appropriate to speculate on what it would be like if the stereotypes had been true. I' not saying Whedon did this, but it would in no way be prejudiced or have any bearing on actual Native Americans.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Whatever problems I might've had with the role of the Reavers were fixed when we learned how they came to be. I really don't think the metaphor works on any deep level.
quote:posted by Lyrhawn: The last thing I want in the Firefly universe are the Borg, or a Borg variant.
A good point.
I've always simply thought of the Reavers, aside from their obvious aggression, as just having an extreme in-group/out-group world view. They could even have a crude "morality" that they're operating under. That they have enough rationality left over to fly ships, keep them maintained, use weapons, and make coordinated attacks I don't actually find that troubling.
We call the Reaver's "crazy" because of the horrific acts they take, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "crazy" as meaning "unable to function."
We don't find fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter THAT unbelievable, or even real world horrors like Ted Bundy, who could, at different times, be charming or murderous and necrophilic.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Ok, the only place I can find anyone suggesting that Firefly Reavers were allegory for Native American's was Wikipedia, which got it from here:
quote:At the urging of many of my most trusted nerdfriends, I sat down to watch a DVD of the cancelled Joss Whedon series firefly. Woah. That is some heavy-duty right-wing stuff there. As science fiction, I must admit that this series is really quite remarkable. There are a whole bunch of great hooks on offer: technology that is believably janky and used-looking, the persistence of sociology (ie people still behave like people), and beautiful, soundless and time-consuming space travel. The characters are all individually interesting, and the dialog, as would be expected, is clever and crisp. However, the entire framework of the show is a bizarre masculine-libertarian fantasy, even worse than the original Star Wars trilogy.
quote:Space is infested with wild savages, humans who have gone feral, cannibalizing, raping and pillaging the beleaguered pioneers. This means harrowing battles with wild injuns, complete with “tribal” drum music whenever they are approaching. For some reason, people in the firefly universe can travel near the speed of light, but still have to use old-fashioned bullet-shooting guns. This means cool shoot-outs and cool low-slinging holsters.
quote:And then there is the Indian thing. In order to complete the Old West picture, they had to have Indians. Because this is not a race thing (see previous posts on Touchy White People) they made the Indians insane people-eating pirates. Lest you forget that they are Indians, however there is the drum music and phrases like “they’ll chase after you if you try to run, that is their way.” Christ.
Umm... what? I think I'm just gonna let the post speak for itself in Jon Stewart style.
quote: Firefly's Reavers - those murderous and bloody space savages existing on the frontier of space (an allegory for the American West...) - play essentially the same role as American Indians once did in the Western movie genre. They are “the other” that is feared by civilization and gossiped about it; known and feared for their strange, savage ways. Had the series lasted, one wonders if the Reavers might have been portrayed in a less villainous, more three-dimensional light, given their obvious inspiration in Native American culture. Also, fair is fair, it must be stated that the Reavers in design and execution very closely resemble the Martians of John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars. Both races are self-mutilators, and both are berserkers.
quote:It is interesting to note where Firefly diverges from American history. Slavery is indeed brought up in episodes such as “Shindig,” and it is clear that Mal doesn’t favor much the arrangement. In this universe, the Alliance - i.e. the United State's Federal Government - is turly an exploitative, fascist state out to squash all personal freedoms. It’s a police state, not the “shiny” democracy America dreamed of becoming at the turn of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. Of course, some social critics could cogently make the argument that the U.S. Government, with laws like “The Patriot Act,” is currently turning our country into an Alliance-like form of overreching government (and the series was produced post-September 11th...). So there's a lot to relate to here, but the references to our time and our history is not preachy or overdone.
I can deal a little more with that one's take on it. But I think I still disagree with some of it.
Note: both are blogs, both are just random people, neither got the idea from anyone who was remotely affiliated with making Firefly.
Personally I don't think the Reavers are meant to represent Native American's. If you must draw a parallel, it's like the guy in the second one said: they play the part of the same terrifying unknown or boogeyman that the indians played in old Wild West movies and shows. But that doesn't mean that the Reavers represent the Indians. They represent an idea, that the Indians were once used to represent.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
IIRC, Joss Whedon did specifically say that the Reavers were meant to initially evoke the "savage" stereotype of Native Americans in traditional westerns, but would, in allegorical fashion to reality, become more humanized as time passed, much as how "Buffy" introduced demons as the traditional fangy evil, and gradually humanized them as time passed. It was to be a commentary on how civilization tends to fear the outsider, whether or not the fear is actually justified. Unfortunately, the show was canceled before any fleshing out of the Reavers (no pun intended) could occur, and this aspect of the show's thematic underpinning was, by necessity, minimized in the movie. I suspect the victimization of Miranda's occupants would have been introduced far more slowly in "Firefly: Season 2," and we would have been placed in a position wherein we could empathize with them, even if they're still trying to eat our heroes' brains (think Spike with less chiseled jaw and more self-mutilation).
So, in summary: Reavers = Western civilization's conception of the foreign savage. Firefly = canceled before it could make good on this metaphor. Joss Whedon = not a racist.
Edit: I think the hoverbike.org blog writer is missing an essential point to remember when viewing ANY Joss Whedon show: what the protagonists think is not necessarily the same thing as what Joss Whedon thinks. Many of his characters, including and especially his heroes, have fundamental flaws and espouse viewpoints that he himself often disagrees with. For example, Whedon himself is very much a liberal Democrat in his political views, but Malcolm Reynolds is essentially a libertarian (he even says, at one point, "That's what governments are for: to get in a man's way").
Reading "Firefly" as a "masculine-libertarian" fantasy is to completely miss the point. When Mal treats Inara with disrespect, Whedon is pointing out that this sort of behavior is wrong, even if the hero is the one doing it. When Mal grouses about the Alliance, Whedon is saying, "This is a point of view that people have. Good people. They may be right, they may be wrong, hell, I might even think they're wrong, but they're all still human."
[ July 01, 2007, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I wonder if the Reavers would have been shown to take stimulants or hallucinogenics in order to induce a berserker-rage before battles.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:yes if the head reaver was somewhere in the proximity of Serenity the ruse would not have worked.
I don't think that it was ever established within the Serenity universe that telepaths were "on" all the time.
Agreed about not making the Reavers into the Borg. But I *still* think giving the Reavers access to a telepath is a good means to explain how they can operate a starship, not kill eachother, and raid effectively, and still behave the way they do.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I view the Reavers as something of a mob mentality, or a bunch of super-angry teenagers on really bad drugs. They have the ability to work towards a goal, even if the process if fueled by rage.
I've hit my thumb with a hammer while building something, and although I was really upset, I could still function. Imagine if everyone building a house were constantly hitting their thumbs. They might be able to complete the house, but it might also be really ugly, with no containment. And then they might skin and eat the neighbors after they finished.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:yes if the head reaver was somewhere in the proximity of Serenity the ruse would not have worked.
I don't think that it was ever established within the Serenity universe that telepaths were "on" all the time.
Agreed about not making the Reavers into the Borg. But I *still* think giving the Reavers access to a telepath is a good means to explain how they can operate a starship, not kill eachother, and raid effectively, and still behave the way they do.
I personally did not like the hive mind idea either, but I agree it would help me make sense of the reavers.
I liked the Viking explanation. I like the idea of the Alliance hosting some secret op where the reavers are gassed with some chemical designed to surpress rage and it going south. The reavers then getleft with a mechanism for temporarily turning the rage off, but instead they choose to employ their rage for when they are in battle.
Or heck make it so that once or even several times a day they have to "vent" and they lock themselves in chambers until they tire themselves out raging. All sorts of cool story dynamics with such a mechanic.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Imagine if everyone building a house were constantly hitting their thumbs. They might be able to complete the house, but it might also be really ugly, with no containment. And then they might skin and eat the neighbors after they finished.
If only Hatrack had .sigs . . .
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
D'you think the Pax could be transferred by extended physical contact and/or interchange of bodily fluids? Not sex necessarily, but blood or something. It would appear that the PAX had cleared the atmosphere of Miranda before Serenity showed up, because nobody aboard seemed to have problems... or is it because they weren't exposed to it for a long enough time?
Also what about a comparison of Reavers to Orcs or Uruk-Hai? That always seemed to be the closest to me. The strongest do impose their wills on the weaker in order to accomplish a goal, but the weak still have to be strong enough to survive... or they get eaten. (I don't think Sauron or any other uber-evil character can be equated to the earlier mentions of "hive minds" besides there were lots of orcs in the misty mountians with Bilbo in loose association with each other without a "greater evil" present to bind them to a larger strategic plan.
And I think the lack of a "larger strategic plan" with regards to the observed Reavers actions validates this point.
(sorry probably too many ideas jumbled together in this post)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)