posted
Is this the forum where we can post comments about movies? I am so excited! The movie "Serenity", based on the TV series "Firefly" is out! I JUST got hooked on this series last week, because a friend loaned me the 4 DVD set. Fox in its infinite wisdom ran only 11 episodes of this show then pulled it (seems they had a hard time building an audience since they refused to run the episodes in chronological order, skipped weeks and popped it into unannounced time slots.
At any rate, the show's premise is science fiction mingled with western... 500 years in the future and lots of travel to backwater planets where folks rely on horses to travel and guns to keep the bad guys at bay.
The characters are a lot of fun, and I was thinking about the mixture based on other forum topics about developing a cohesive group even though you have diabolically opposed personalities. The Firefly TV show is an excellent study in some fun characters.
Anyhow, I just had to share the excitement. If you have a NY Times (free) online subscription, it's in the 09/30/05 issue.
posted
A dozen people have told my husband and I that "Firefly" is an excellent series and we should watch it. These same people warned us that the first episode, the looooonnnnnngggggg pilot, isn't very good and may have been what stopped the rest of the show from succeeding on TV.
So we tried to watch it. I say tried because even with this warning, I simply could not sit through the first episode. In fact, after I tried to watch it the first time several people got even more insistent about how great the rest of the series was so we tried again, and again we could not get through the first episode.
I simply thought it was boring. I didn't care a lick about the characters, it was difficult to follow what was going on, and I found the conflict to be poorly developed at the outset.
I would love to give this series with such rave reviews from multiple people I trust another chance, but I'd rather peel wallpaper off the walls than watch that first episode. (I just had to do this last week. Just for the record, I think people who put wallpaper up in the first place should be shot. )
I may even watch the movie. Card gave it some rave reviews and I tend to agree with his opinions on movies.
posted
When they started the FIREFLY tv series, they didn't use the pilot as the first episode. (They didn't show it until last, I think.)
The DVDs list the actual dates the episodes were first shown. If you are willing to try it again, Christine, go watch the first episode that actually appeared on tv, "The Train Job" which is the second one on the first DVD. I think it will give you a better idea of why the series appeals to so many people.
posted
"Firefly" has been shown in different sequences in different countries, I'm pretty sure.
By "pilot", I'm assuming we're talking about the two-parter that features the introduction of Shepherd Book, Simon and (in the second half) River? That makes perfect sense as a starting point, I would have thought.
Or are you talking about the flashback episode in which we actually see the "backstory" of Serenity, and the arrival/recruitment of Wash, Kaylee, Jayne and Inara? I really liked that one, but it HAS to be later on in the series, once you know something about these characters, because it illuminates them in different ways (e.g. how uncomfortable Zoe feels about Wash - only has impact when you've seen their interaction as husband and wife for a while).
posted
I heard that the first episode shown on TV was not the first that Joss Wheedon (is that how that's spelled?) wanted to be shown. I gather the show is dependent on long story arcs...and if a network starts by showing an episode in the middle of the arc, that could be depressingly disruptive to what story Wheedon is trying to tell...
I don't approve of long story arcs---I think every episode of a TV series should stand by itself---but if it's gotta be done, it's gotta be started at the beginning, not in the middle...
posted
Yknow it's funny, over the years I've begun to develop the exact opposite reactions. Whereas I used to exclusively watch shows where every episode was completely standalone, I've found that I enjoy TV shows that area really more like 1 long movie than actual seperate shows.
I think it started with the first season of 24, any one episode of which probably doesn't make much sense. Since then I've hooked onto every *good* show that has long story arcs that I can find. To each their own
posted
Oh, I've enjoyed long story arcs, too. I just feel it's a cheat on the viewer. And after a point, a new viewer cannot just join in and watch and get it---he has to have seen the previous episodes (or bought the DVDs or read the books or somesuch).
I never took to the parts of "24" I've seen for other reasons (improbably-described plots, mostly---I'm not sure how it actually all played out.) The acting and writing and production seemed fine, though.
On the other hand, I also never took to the various "Law & Order" series on the air right now---though they're the leading example of "stand-on-your-own" episodic TV, the "crime / punishment" angle wasn't exactly new, nor was the "ripped from the headlines" angle.
posted
I agree that I've begun to really enjoy shows that grow and move like a movie in progress. The disadvantage being that you have to watch it from the beginning. I think television networks would be well served to try to aid people who hear halfway through a season that such and such a show is good by doing a marathon rerun or something.
I loved "24" until the very last episode, at which point I think they did something cheap and entirely ineffective that I won't go into for spoiler reasons.
posted
Christine - if you're talking about the first series of "24", I know what you mean.
There is an explanation. The writers had, in fact, been deeply uncertain whether "24" would be successful and so what they'd done was write "12", in effect, so that even if it was cancelled mid-season there'd at least be a sense of completeness. When it became clear that it was going to be a roaring success, they had to write the next 12 hours, and this may be why the plot become much more wildly internally inconsistent from that point on. It was winged, rather than planned.
I watched series 2, and found that that didn't make sense either (the main bad guys were still hanging around LA, long after a nuclear bomb was supposed to have gone off if their plans hadn't been foiled; rather foolish, one thinks). As a result, I paid no attention whatsoever to series 3 or 4.
posted
Yup, I read the same thing. I watched through season 1 in rather increasing disbelief (it was more a matter of "what will these guys think of next?"), sat through season 2 trying not to laugh, and at the end of season 2 decided I had had enough.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK... I've finally seen the movie, "Serenity". I don't know that I'd agree with OSC that it's the best science fiction movie ever. But I'm not sorry I saw it, and I don't regret paying theater prices.
It just felt... squished together. They did a good job of tying up a lot of loose ends from the TV series, but it sort of felt like that was the entire intention. I was disappointed with the ending for several reasons I won't delve into here.
The thing I admire about this series/movie is the skillful way I think the exposition was handled, and also the ability to render a unique dialect (not talking about the Chinese) into the dialog.
I am left with the feeling, however, that this show never reached its full flower. It was a fruit removed from the tree before it had a chance to fully ripen.
I suppose that's the difference between being an author, and a script-writer. Authors can at least finish the fruits of their labors and polish it as they see fit. Script-writers are doomed to be at the mercy of the studio execs.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited October 10, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
)
