Serenity vs. Star Trek

[I am not Spock]

I am a fan of both the Star Trek universe, and Joss Whedon's work. There's room in the verse for both.

One advantage Joss has is that he had a hand in all the productions, whereas Trek is a 40 year old empire with many divergent voices. Trek has so much content, and so many interpretations, that it sometimes becomes a bit incohesive.

I've got to say, in my opinion, that Joss' shows are much more imaginative and better-written and acted than any of the Trek series (except TOS, maybe). In the whole Berman era, only DS9 really comes close to Buffy, Angel, or Firefly. Even at their worst. Why? Character development. TNG. VOY, and ENT characters were just archetypes, rather than people. All of Joss' shows had strong characters. His writing may not be to everyone's taste, but I loved it.

Serenity was a great film, and I saw it before Firefly, so I got into the characters with no prior introduction.

As for Trek XI, it's hard for me to judge how well JJ introduced the characters, because in this case, I'd known them so well already for so many years.

I think that Joss' work is better suited to the TV medium. You can only develop a character so much in two hours of screentime. It's good to see him back on TV where he belongs (although Dollhouse still needs to find its legs).

Same with Trek. I enjoyed the new JJ film, but people have been complaining that its not deep enough. You are never going to get a deep Trek movie on the big screen. Paramount cares about bums on seats. TMP was a one-off attempt at a hard SF Star Trek movie, and it resulted in Roddenberry being reduced to a mere consultant role, and the subsequent films taking a more 'blockbuster' direction. Trek works better on TV, in my view. Always has, always will.

 

[trevanian]

Okay I have moved it up the list to purchase if: "dvd set in bargain bin at Target".

Your Target has a DVD bargain bin? Where is it and how do I get there?

I thought Goodwill was serving as Target's bargain bin ... they've been selling us lots of open DVD packages of unplayed unscratched stuff, mostly TV series sets, but also SW trilogy, TDK, and so on. Too bad employees have to wait three days to buy, otherwise I could have gotten the first 3 years of WEEDS for about $20.

 

[Infern0]

Serenity Budget: $40,000,000
Star Trek Budget: $150,000,000

Serenity has:
- A tough as nails but always morally in check Malcolm Reynolds as the main character. Even though he's going for the cash, he can still pull off being a character you can like and respect.

I think and have always thought Mal was a bit of an ass actually he tries to hard.

- Supporting characters actually have importance to the main character both in their abilities and in their companionship.

I dont see how Star Trek doesn't have this, plus its at the start so of course they dont have relationships.

- Lots and lots of creative, non-practical sets, including Serenity's engineering area.

What a room that looks like the inside of a garbage can?

- A unique villain who is dedicated to not only his job, but also in what he believes in. He is a foe who understands that he himself is and will go to great lengths to achieve what he believe is true. He doesn't look at himself as a hero, but as a tool to make his dreams come true, which he even admits he wants nothing to do with due to his dark nature.

He wasn't unique at all

- An epic space battle involving hundreds of ships and great visual effects moments.

Clearly you havent seen it on HD, it looks dreadful!

- Actual element of danger.

Er so Vulcan getting iced was a cosy safe moment.

- No destiny, fate or foretold futures.

Neither did Star Trek if you think about it.


- Characters who respect those who they have lost.

No main Characters died in Star trek and there wasn't time to stand around mourning the little guys!

- More than one important female character.

What difference does that make? and who were they anyway? Kaylee and Zoe were brutally crowbard into this film!

- The hero chooses to not kill the villain even without offering him a chance to surrender

Because he's a pussy!

Star Trek has:

- An arrogant, selfish James T. Kirk who just wants to be the best at everything even if it means cheating. He gives no respect towards others and has little to no redeeming qualities.

Yeah great, he is like Mal but a legitimate bad ass and not a fraud!

- Supporting characters' roles are limited to just ensuring that Kirk gets up in rank while they stay around just doing their usual thing.

Instead of supporting characters who stand around and offer the occasional glib one liner?


- Sets are over lit, practical sets are used when they've never been used before, and engineering has concrete, steel beams and hanging light fixtures.

As opposed to a room that looks like the inside of a garbage can?

- A villain who is angry because he doesn't see situations from anyone else's point of view other than his own. His priorities are unrealistic, his backstory is heavily cliche and he never develops or goes through any change as a character.

Nero is a good bad guy because HE IS ANGRY! He is driven by rage and not some load of old tosh like the agent.

- One space battle in the opening that involves only two ships.

That is better than the one in serenity by a mile!

- No element of danger since everyone who shoots at our characters can't aim, can't predict what they are about to do or guard anything important that is actually vital to their whole purpose.

What is your point, would you rather half the main cast ended up dead?

This couldnt happen because Star trek is going to have sequels unlike the bomb that was serenity.

- Destiny and fate have a major factor in that everyone comes together in the most unrealistically convenient manner, and the reasons these are great characters is not what they do, but because we are told they're great.

They save the world, from massively superior forces, Mal saves what? nothing! he just exposes the alliances ass!

- Characters have next to no respect for one another. Kirk never apologizes for the rude, disloyal and incriminating actions throughout the story. McCoy makes racist remarks behind people's backs.

Good thats funny!

- Only one female character in the entire cast of characters and she doesn't do anything. Seriously. You can remove that klingon transmission element and nothing would be different.

*sigh* this is so tiresome

- The hero decides to kill the villain after he refuses the surrender. The big point that goes against Kirk in this scene is that the villain was already doomed before being offered the chance to surrender.

They could of beamed him out!

What's the difference between Serenity and Star Trek? Serenity had talent behind the camera.

The difference is Star trek was a blockbuster that has ensured the survival of a series that has run for four decades, while Serenity was a bomb of a film that put the final nail in the coffin of a flopped t.v
show.

I like Firefly and Serenity but they Failed hard while star trek was a ressounding success, thems the facts right there pal!

 

[PSGarak]

I saw Serenity before Firefly. Watching the movie got me interested in the series. I also vastly enjoyed the new Star Trek. To me it's comparing apples and oranges. They're both so different on so many levels, about all you can really say they have in common is that they're movies and they're classified as sci-fi.

By the way, Titanic was one of the most successful films of all time. Are you really going to try to argue the quality of a film by how well it sells? Quantity doesn't always equal quality, and taste is subjective.

 

[M'Sharak]

Serenity Budget: $40,000,000
Star Trek Budget: $150,000,000

Serenity has:
- A tough as nails but always morally in check Malcolm Reynolds as the main character. Even though he's going for the cash, he can still pull off being a character you can like and respect.

I think and have always thought Mal was a bit of an ass actually he tries to hard.

- Supporting characters actually have importance to the main character both in their abilities and in their companionship.

I dont see how Star Trek doesn't have this, plus its at the start so of course they dont have relationships.

- Lots and lots of creative, non-practical sets, including Serenity's engineering area.

What a room that looks like the inside of a garbage can?

- A unique villain who is dedicated to not only his job, but also in what he believes in. He is a foe who understands that he himself is and will go to great lengths to achieve what he believe is true. He doesn't look at himself as a hero, but as a tool to make his dreams come true, which he even admits he wants nothing to do with due to his dark nature.

He wasn't unique at all

- An epic space battle involving hundreds of ships and great visual effects moments.

Clearly you havent seen it on HD, it looks dreadful!

- Actual element of danger.

Er so Vulcan getting iced was a cosy safe moment.

- No destiny, fate or foretold futures.

Neither did Star Trek if you think about it.

- Characters who respect those who they have lost.

No main Characters died in Star trek and there wasn't time to stand around mourning the little guys!

- More than one important female character.

What difference does that make? and who were they anyway? Kaylee and Zoe were brutally crowbard into this film!

- The hero chooses to not kill the villain even without offering him a chance to surrender

Because he's a pussy!

Star Trek has:

- An arrogant, selfish James T. Kirk who just wants to be the best at everything even if it means cheating. He gives no respect towards others and has little to no redeeming qualities.

Yeah great, he is like Mal but a legitimate bad ass and not a fraud!

- Supporting characters' roles are limited to just ensuring that Kirk gets up in rank while they stay around just doing their usual thing.

Instead of supporting characters who stand around and offer the occasional glib one liner?

- Sets are over lit, practical sets are used when they've never been used before, and engineering has concrete, steel beams and hanging light fixtures.

As opposed to a room that looks like the inside of a garbage can?

- A villain who is angry because he doesn't see situations from anyone else's point of view other than his own. His priorities are unrealistic, his backstory is heavily cliche and he never develops or goes through any change as a character.

Nero is a good bad guy because HE IS ANGRY! He is driven by rage and not some load of old tosh like the agent.

- One space battle in the opening that involves only two ships.

That is better than the one in serenity by a mile!

- No element of danger since everyone who shoots at our characters can't aim, can't predict what they are about to do or guard anything important that is actually vital to their whole purpose.

What is your point, would you rather half the main cast ended up dead?

This couldnt happen because Star trek is going to have sequels unlike the bomb that was serenity.

- Destiny and fate have a major factor in that everyone comes together in the most unrealistically convenient manner, and the reasons these are great characters is not what they do, but because we are told they're great.

They save the world, from massively superior forces, Mal saves what? nothing! he just exposes the alliances ass!

- Characters have next to no respect for one another. Kirk never apologizes for the rude, disloyal and incriminating actions throughout the story. McCoy makes racist remarks behind people's backs.

Good thats funny!

- Only one female character in the entire cast of characters and she doesn't do anything. Seriously. You can remove that klingon transmission element and nothing would be different.

*sigh* this is so tiresome

- The hero decides to kill the villain after he refuses the surrender. The big point that goes against Kirk in this scene is that the villain was already doomed before being offered the chance to surrender.

They could of beamed him out!

What's the difference between Serenity and Star Trek? Serenity had talent behind the camera.

The difference is Star trek was a blockbuster that has ensured the survival of a series that has run for four decades, while Serenity was a bomb of a film that put the final nail in the coffin of a flopped t.v
show.

I like Firefly and Serenity but they Failed hard while star trek was a ressounding success, thems the facts right there pal!

I have seen very little of Firefly and have yet to see Serenity, so I have no interest in taking a side in this exchange, but I will suggest that using the Quote feature which is part of the board software makes it much more clear which parts are your responses and which parts are the bits to which you're responding than does this alternation between standard text and bold with no attribution at all. (You'll also note that quoting in this way identifies the person to whom you're responding -- rather than making everyone guess or go scrolling back up the page -- as well as providing a direct link back to the post from which you're quoting.)

 

[Pauln6]

Serenity Budget: $40,000,000
Star Trek Budget: $150,000,000

Serenity has:
- A tough as nails but always morally in check Malcolm Reynolds as the main character. Even though he's going for the cash, he can still pull off being a character you can like and respect.

I think and have always thought Mal was a bit of an ass actually he tries to hard.

- Supporting characters actually have importance to the main character both in their abilities and in their companionship.

I dont see how Star Trek doesn't have this, plus its at the start so of course they dont have relationships.

- Lots and lots of creative, non-practical sets, including Serenity's engineering area.

What a room that looks like the inside of a garbage can?

- A unique villain who is dedicated to not only his job, but also in what he believes in. He is a foe who understands that he himself is and will go to great lengths to achieve what he believe is true. He doesn't look at himself as a hero, but as a tool to make his dreams come true, which he even admits he wants nothing to do with due to his dark nature.

He wasn't unique at all

- An epic space battle involving hundreds of ships and great visual effects moments.

Clearly you havent seen it on HD, it looks dreadful!

- Actual element of danger.

Er so Vulcan getting iced was a cosy safe moment.

- No destiny, fate or foretold futures.

Neither did Star Trek if you think about it.


- Characters who respect those who they have lost.

No main Characters died in Star trek and there wasn't time to stand around mourning the little guys!

- More than one important female character.

What difference does that make? and who were they anyway? Kaylee and Zoe were brutally crowbard into this film!

- The hero chooses to not kill the villain even without offering him a chance to surrender

Because he's a pussy!

Star Trek has:

- An arrogant, selfish James T. Kirk who just wants to be the best at everything even if it means cheating. He gives no respect towards others and has little to no redeeming qualities.

Yeah great, he is like Mal but a legitimate bad ass and not a fraud!

- Supporting characters' roles are limited to just ensuring that Kirk gets up in rank while they stay around just doing their usual thing.

Instead of supporting characters who stand around and offer the occasional glib one liner?


- Sets are over lit, practical sets are used when they've never been used before, and engineering has concrete, steel beams and hanging light fixtures.

As opposed to a room that looks like the inside of a garbage can?

- A villain who is angry because he doesn't see situations from anyone else's point of view other than his own. His priorities are unrealistic, his backstory is heavily cliche and he never develops or goes through any change as a character.

Nero is a good bad guy because HE IS ANGRY! He is driven by rage and not some load of old tosh like the agent.

- One space battle in the opening that involves only two ships.

That is better than the one in serenity by a mile!

- No element of danger since everyone who shoots at our characters can't aim, can't predict what they are about to do or guard anything important that is actually vital to their whole purpose.

What is your point, would you rather half the main cast ended up dead?

This couldnt happen because Star trek is going to have sequels unlike the bomb that was serenity.

- Destiny and fate have a major factor in that everyone comes together in the most unrealistically convenient manner, and the reasons these are great characters is not what they do, but because we are told they're great.

They save the world, from massively superior forces, Mal saves what? nothing! he just exposes the alliances ass!

- Characters have next to no respect for one another. Kirk never apologizes for the rude, disloyal and incriminating actions throughout the story. McCoy makes racist remarks behind people's backs.

Good thats funny!

- Only one female character in the entire cast of characters and she doesn't do anything. Seriously. You can remove that klingon transmission element and nothing would be different.

*sigh* this is so tiresome

- The hero decides to kill the villain after he refuses the surrender. The big point that goes against Kirk in this scene is that the villain was already doomed before being offered the chance to surrender.

They could of beamed him out!

What's the difference between Serenity and Star Trek? Serenity had talent behind the camera.

The difference is Star trek was a blockbuster that has ensured the survival of a series that has run for four decades, while Serenity was a bomb of a film that put the final nail in the coffin of a flopped t.v
show.

I like Firefly and Serenity but they Failed hard while star trek was a ressounding success, thems the facts right there pal!

Lol - your critique needs work. In fairness to the Trek movie, if you watch Pine, Quinto, and Saldana's performances carefully you will see that that they are multi-layered and subtle. Kirk and Mal are very alike. Mal is no Pussy, he is a reflection of the Kirk we'd get if his whole crew had been killed while he was in command and he ended up down on his luck scraping a living at the fringes of a corrupt society. Kirk's mask of bravado slips several times in the movie - he is just better at keeping it up than Mal.

Nevertheless, Serenity is a much better ensemble piece and yes, Trek's continual failure to give equality to its female characters really IS tiresome. I agree with you 100% on that point. Well done you!

 

[skep155]

I watched Serenity first then i got into Firefly. I think in some ways i like the Firefly 'verse better than the Star Trek universe. It feels more real and i could actually imagine it existing without much difficulty. The no faster than light travel, flawed characters on the losing end of a civil war, no aliens etc was all very charming to me.

I'd actually have liked Enterprise to have been more like Firefly in a sense. No reliance on time travel/alternate universes/huge space battles, just story telling about humanity beggining to explore the cosmos.

 

[Chrisisall]

I have seen very little of Firefly and have yet to see Serenity

M'Sharak, do yourself a favour & watch Firefly from the first ep, it's totally necessary to understand the characters in the series, but if you don't have the time, at least watch Serenity- that can be watched as a more or less stand alone, even if you aren't aware of the major TV plot being wrapped up by it.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Well it doesn't help that, for this hard core Firefly fan, the movie Serenity is a badly-written travesty that destroyed everything that made the series great.

Yeah....pretty much.

I'm really glad I saw the series before the movie.

 

[Chrisisall]

Well it doesn't help that, for this hard core Firefly fan, the movie Serenity is a badly-written travesty that destroyed everything that made the series great.

Yeah....pretty much.

I'm really glad I saw the series before the movie.

So, you guys would have kept on liking the series had it not been cancelled until, what? When the events of the movie started happening?
You peeps kill me. Writers have no contract with particular fans to make them happy. Joss wrote the series & the movie- and YOU don't like the wrap-up.
I guess I can hate Empire Strikes Back because I don't like that Vader's someone's dad, eh?

Look, I became a fan of Buffy BECAUSE of Firefly, but I don't like everything about where the series went... season five in particular just does nothing for me, but TRAVESTY?
C'mon.

 

[Infern0]

The opinion that Kirk would be like mal if he lost his crew isn't true. Kirk is a stronger person than Mal is, he is also about 20 years younger

 

[trevanian]

Well it doesn't help that, for this hard core Firefly fan, the movie Serenity is a badly-written travesty that destroyed everything that made the series great.

Yeah....pretty much.

I'm really glad I saw the series before the movie.

So, you guys would have kept on liking the series had it not been cancelled until, what? When the events of the movie started happening?
You peeps kill me. Writers have no contract with particular fans to make them happy. Joss wrote the series & the movie- and YOU don't like the wrap-up.
I guess I can hate Empire Strikes Back because I don't like that Vader's someone's dad, eh?

Look, I became a fan of Buffy BECAUSE of Firefly, but I don't like everything about where the series went... season five in particular just does nothing for me, but TRAVESTY?
C'mon.

Agreed, SERENITY was an excellent movie. Just because it made me furious ... well, that's a testament to how I felt about the characters, it pushed my buttons very well, and yet I didn't feel manipulated, because the events didn't seem arbitrary or stamped out of a template.

I've seen the series about a dozen times through, and the feature about 7 or 8 times. There's almost nothing I dislike strongly about either (except maybe the lack of science), and my only real complaint is not getting more.

 

[Brandonv]

I think that both Serenity and Star Trek are great science fiction movies. They are both equally good to me.

 

[Tibbetts]

I've seen both and loved them, but I think Serenity edges out the win for me. I'll still be buying the new Star Trek dvd though.

-Tibbetts

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Here's a question, though. Why do we need a "scientific rationale"? Why can't we just accept that it's FANTASY, here are the rules, such as they are, and go with it?

I don't need one at all, in the case of either Trek or BTVS or Serenity. I'm just amused by how artifical (and to some extent, self-aggrandizing) attempts to sort TV sf/fantasy into such distinct categories tend to be.

It comes out to iconography, aesthetics and imagery. Some people just don't like the iconography et al. of the one vs. that of the other: I don't like "magical" fantasy, with its spells, charms and legends and all that, but I like "scientific" fantasy, even though the science of the stuff I love most--Star Trek, the novels of Philip Dick, the stories of Harlan Ellison--ranges from ludicrous to laughable to all-but-contemptuous.

I still say I like science fiction and don't like fantasy (as a rule) simply because it's simpler to say so.

 

[trevanian]

Here's a question, though. Why do we need a "scientific rationale"? Why can't we just accept that it's FANTASY, here are the rules, such as they are, and go with it?

I don't need one at all, in the case of either Trek or BTVS or Serenity. I'm just amused by how artifical (and to some extent, self-aggrandizing) attempts to sort TV sf/fantasy into such distinct categories tend to be.

It comes out to iconography, aesthetics and imagery. Some people just don't like the iconography et al. of the one vs. that of the other: I don't like "magical" fantasy, with its spells, charms and legends and all that, but I like "scientific" fantasy, even though the science of the stuff I love most--Star Trek, the novels of Philip Dick, the stories of Harlan Ellison--ranges from ludicrous to laughable to all-but-contemptuous.

I still say I like science fiction and don't like fantasy (as a rule) simply because it's simpler to say so.

Kudos, for reaching into my mind and pulling out a rationale I don't think I could have articulated so well.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Yeah, that's pretty clearly true as well.



That would be a fairly dumb inference to draw, yeah. Using such reasoning, after all, one can "prove" that even unadjusted for inflation both "Armageddon" and "Independence Day" are vastly better films than Star Trek.

And Titanic is the Best. Movie. Ever.

Also, this proves American Idol is a vastly superior show to every Trek show ever made.

In fact, such reasoning can "prove" that Trek is not even among the top two or three hundred "best tv shows" in American history.

I've been saying this, like, forever!

I don't need one at all, in the case of either Trek or BTVS or Serenity. I'm just amused by how artifical (and to some extent, self-aggrandizing) attempts to sort TV sf/fantasy into such distinct categories tend to be.

It comes out to iconography, aesthetics and imagery. Some people just don't like the iconography et al. of the one vs. that of the other: I don't like "magical" fantasy, with its spells, charms and legends and all that, but I like "scientific" fantasy, even though the science of the stuff I love most--Star Trek, the novels of Philip Dick, the stories of Harlan Ellison--ranges from ludicrous to laughable to all-but-contemptuous.

I still say I like science fiction and don't like fantasy (as a rule) simply because it's simpler to say so.

Kudos, for reaching into my mind and pulling out a rationale I don't think I could have articulated so well.

I am honored.

 

[Chrisisall]

Yeah....pretty much.

I'm really glad I saw the series before the movie.

So, you guys would have kept on liking the series had it not been cancelled until, what? When the events of the movie started happening?
You peeps kill me. Writers have no contract with particular fans to make them happy. Joss wrote the series & the movie- and YOU don't like the wrap-up.
I guess I can hate Empire Strikes Back because I don't like that Vader's someone's dad, eh?

Look, I became a fan of Buffy BECAUSE of Firefly, but I don't like everything about where the series went... season five in particular just does nothing for me, but TRAVESTY?
C'mon.

Agreed, SERENITY was an excellent movie. Just because it made me furious ... well, that's a testament to how I felt about the characters, it pushed my buttons very well, and yet I didn't feel manipulated, because the events didn't seem arbitrary or stamped out of a template.

I've seen the series about a dozen times through, and the feature about 7 or 8 times. There's almost nothing I dislike strongly about either (except maybe the lack of science), and my only real complaint is not getting more.

Always leave them wanting more is the sign of successfull storytelling.

I think that both Serenity and Star Trek are great science fiction movies. They are both equally good to me.

I would accept that as an axiom.

I've seen both and loved them, but I think Serenity edges out the win for me. I'll still be buying the new Star Trek dvd though.

I as well, and making my family tired of seeing it, I conjure.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I like 'em both. Lots.

 

[Sabataage]

"Hell, I'm going to grant you your greatest wish: I'm going to show you a world without sin." Serenity had something powerful to say about the human condition. Mal even outlines it in his "St. Crispin's Day" speech near the end of story (much like Kirk or Picard would). One major complaint others had on this very forum about Star Trek Xi was that it had no clear message. There was character stuff that we could relate to (in the broad strokes that were peresnted). But there was no allegory, morality play... whatever you call it that made the best episodes of Trek stand out from rest. Serenity had that. So in a way it was more like a classic episode of Star Trek than XI. So nyah.