Serenity vs. Star Trek

[Chrisisall]

For fans of the tv series who loved these characters, the last half of Serenity was like 900% more intense and gut wrenching than the climax of Star Trek.

It still tears me apart (Serenity).
The destruction of Vulcan is moving, but in that "We're gonna make you weep" way.
A movie that leaves you limp from emotional envolvement is inherently more engaging than one that leaves you feeling that even tho some dark s**t happened, all can be well. Serenity was messed up. Peeps died. Joss took us where few peeps could- fictional reality.

 

[I am not Spock]

Aside from BTVS and Angel, I don't really like fantasy, either. I love science fiction. I don't know what it was about Joss' writing, but somehow it hooked me in where other fantasy failed to.

Generally, I prefer shows with a more scientific rationale behind the tech. I.e: science rather than magic spells. But BTVS and Angel (and Firefly) succeeded in pulling me in despite the lack of scientific basis, because of their strong characters. Firefly is more like classic TOS than the later Trek series, in my opinion.

 

[Chrisisall]

Maybe we are all so desensitized to entertainment nowadays that if it is not shown in gut wrenching absolute in-your-face visuals, we cannot imagine any implied storylines anymore. When Kyle Reese was describing how the future was and how important John Connor is, you could imagine the visuals upon your mind. But a whole freakin' planet is swallowed in a black hole, a wife losing her husband right in front of her eyes, a son losing a mother in a more personal fashion, a hard-as-logical Vulcan finally admitting to his love for his wife, a characters pining for the father he never had, an aged Vulcan watching his home vanishing right in front of his eyes ... those were weak compared to Wash getting impaled?

Right.

You definitely have a point.
It's just that Wash was like McCoy, could he die & have no effect upon the dynamics of the main characters? Vulcan's demise had a definite effect on Spock, as did his Mom's. But they are not the characters we are following mainly.

 

[StarTrek1701]

It's just that Wash was like McCoy, could he die & have no effect upon the dynamics of the main characters? Vulcan's demise had a definite effect on Spock, as did his Mom's. But they are not the characters we are following mainly.

Oh I do understand that. Its just when people say "oh Wash's death was more impactful than seeing Amanda die" .... well, its kind of stupid.

 

[trevanian]

Wash's death was a lot more affecting than Spock's to me. Or the Enterprise for that matter. Right up there with Connery in UNTOUCHABLES, or Bronson in MAGNIFICENT 7.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The various attempts to wring tears out of death in the Trek movies have never really moved me - though I was a little more upset to see the front blown off of the Enterprise in ST III, I confess, than I was while watching Spock stagger around a plexiglass set tugging on his uniform in ST II.

 

[Sabataage]

I love both too. But Serenity more. The proof hit me on the second or third time watching Star Trek in the theater: there is no tension in the last act. Once Kirk reassuringly tells Spock "It's gonna work," the audience knows it too. Their plan goes off without a hitch. Serenity, on the other hand, made you believe that everything had already gone wrong, that the whole crew except maybe Zoe and Inara were doomed to die in the most horrible way during the final battle.

a whole freakin' planet is swallowed in a black hole, a wife losing her husband right in front of her eyes, a son losing a mother in a more personal fashion, a hard-as-logical Vulcan finally admitting to his love for his wife, a characters pining for the father he never had, an aged Vulcan watching his home vanishing right in front of his eyes ... those were weak compared to Wash getting impaled?

Right.

I'll repeat that. By the time Kirk and Spock instigate their plan to save the day, you know they are going to save the day. They have a plan, you watch them do it. It works. Nero's defeated.

Everything you mention happens earlier than that. The destruction of Vulcan doesn't happen during the climax of the film. Spock's mother doesn't die in the second to last act of the movie. Wash was many people's favorite character from Firefly and dies during the heaight of the action robbing both the characters and the audience enough time to process what just happened. Killing him was not just "raising the stakes", it was akin to Joss Whedon telling his audience he's playing for keeps. No more "character shields", no take backs. Its like if Abrams killed Kirk only seconds after beaming aboard the Narada leaving Spock alone to save the day.

 

[StarTrek1701]

No more "character shields", no take backs. Its like if Abrams killed Kirk only seconds after beaming aboard the Narada leaving Spock alone to save the day.

Then we'd have a major flop like Serenity. Killing off a character just for killing off is not story development, it reeks of desperation for the "ohmygawddidhejustdothat??!!" reaction. Nothing in STXI is like that (the Kirk-Kaila scene came pretty close though).

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Ron Glass was a role model for me as a child--he was a smart, literate and literary black man on Barney Miller, one of my favorite sitcoms. Seeing him die in Serenity really hurt, since Book was Harris with all the erudition but little of the ego.

 

[trevanian]

No more "character shields", no take backs. Its like if Abrams killed Kirk only seconds after beaming aboard the Narada leaving Spock alone to save the day.

Then we'd have a major flop like Serenity. Killing off a character just for killing off is not story development, it reeks of desperation for the "ohmygawddidhejustdothat??!!" reaction.

Did you even SEE the SERENITY film? Killing off Wash (after the initial shock of Book) made it seem like everybody was fair game, especially with the deteriorating situation the rest were in within that vault room while Mal did his hero stuff.

The death fo Wash completely upped the ante for the rest of the movie, to the point where I wasn't sure if it was going to have a 70s ending, with the signal not going out as all the crew died, or if they'd just all get offed as the signal did get out.

And I don't see how you can equate SERENITY box office status with any of its storytelling decisions, either. On pretty much all levels, it is a solid self-contained story, that delivers on thrills and humor. It's not like word of mouth hurt SERENITY ... nobody went but the people who wanted to see it, and them telling others about it made the same dif it did on the FIREFLY series ... none at all.

 

[Chrisisall]

Wash's death was a lot more affecting than Spock's to me. Or the Enterprise for that matter. Right up there with Connery in UNTOUCHABLES, or Bronson in MAGNIFICENT 7.

Well said.
The last time I felt REAL danger in an SF movie was when Vader cut luke's hand off in Empire. It's not an easy thing to do (create that sense) if you can travel in time, or pull a Katra or something.

 

[Pauln6]

This is why I'm worried that Uhura might be fair game. The actress is not a trekkie, is quite likely to look for other projects where she is not lost in an ensemble as her popularity increases, and it would add more angst to Spock's existence. She's signed up for three movies like the others and is well aware that Trek is going to raise her profile so she might be safe for the next movie at least but what then...? I would much rather they re-cast but the Trek writers don't seem to have that much respect for the female characters so who knows?

I also read that Chekov was going to die in TMP but they changed their minds.

 

[Jeyl]

I would much rather they re-cast but the Trek writers don't seem to have that much respect for the female characters so who knows?

I do. No Janice Rand, hardly a mention by Nurse Chapel, NO NUMBER ONE, Uhura doesn't do anything useful on the Enterprise, Kirk's mother is written out of the story, Amanda is Spock's lady in the fridge and Gaila is killed off screen.

 

[SilentP]

I do. No Janice Rand,

Considering the fact that this movie is introducing 7 main characters to a completely new audience, is reintroducing a minor character who anyone who isn't very familiar with Star Trek wouldn't recognise really necessary?

hardly a mention by Nurse Chapel,

Refer to previous point, though there may be more recognition from general pop culture referencing.

NO NUMBER ONE

Sorry, but how many episodes did that character appear in? Before I watched a decent number of TOS episodes, including the pilot, I had no inkling whatsoever that Spock was a replacement first officer. Why bother muddying the waters as to the Enterprise's command structure by introducing a characters that was around for just the pilot episode (if the character appeard in more than one episode, fair enough, but the point still stands to a degree).

Uhura doesn't do anything useful on the Enterprise,

Admittedly, this is a weakness of the story, but then again, apart from the big 3, the others don't get as much opportunity to shine properly, and for Uhura, she serves her purpose in the story as a person interacting with the characters, rather than a 'mechanic' character like Chekov does.

Kirk's mother is written out of the story,

Written out of? Just because she doesn't appear after prologue doesnt mean she can't appear in later movies.

Amanda is Spock's lady in the fridge

I'm not so familiar with the use of the 'in fridge' trope, so I don't have a comment on this one.

and Gaila is killed off screen.

Not confirmed, and if so, hundreds of other potential characters killed off.

 

[Pauln6]

I do. No Janice Rand,

Considering the fact that this movie is introducing 7 main characters to a completely new audience, is reintroducing a minor character who anyone who isn't very familiar with Star Trek wouldn't recognise really necessary?

hardly a mention by Nurse Chapel,

Sorry, but how many episodes did that character appear in? Before I watched a decent number of TOS episodes, including the pilot, I had no inkling whatsoever that Spock was a replacement first officer. Why bother muddying the waters as to the Enterprise's command structure by introducing a characters that was around for just the pilot episode (if the character appeard in more than one episode, fair enough, but the point still stands to a degree).

Admittedly, this is a weakness of the story, but then again, apart from the big 3, the others don't get as much opportunity to shine properly, and for Uhura, she serves her purpose in the story as a person interacting with the characters, rather than a 'mechanic' character like Chekov does.

They had choices to make and all their choices led to alterations that exlcuded the women - they considered that the women were less important. Number One could easily have appeared as Pike's first officer and been killed or incapacitated thus elevating Spock. A more junior Spock with a temporary increase in rank would make Kirk's leap-frog promotion less... illogical at the end. No female captains or first officers evident anywhere else either - not many vulcan women evident & no T'Pau - unless she is the woman in the background with no lines. Sarek would have had to give up a few lines but I could have lived with that to see T'Pau dress down some Federation types.

Janice could have been used instead of Chekov. Fans would have understood his absence, non-fans would have been none the wiser, and Janice has easily as much comic potential and knows how to use a transporter (well, she knows how to kill people using transporters... or will do...).

The writers of Trek really lack imagination when it comes to their female characters. It's true that the sexist legacy of early Trek has to be dealt with but I can't see how completely ignoring the high profile characters we DID have and who would have fitted into the plot effortlessly (Rand, Number One, & T'Pau) should be considered a step in the right direction.

Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, and even Farscape fare much better in terms of utilising their women more effectively.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This is true:

The writers of Trek really lack imagination when it comes to their female characters. It's true that the sexist legacy of early Trek has to be dealt with but I can't see how completely ignoring the high profile characters we DID have and who would have fitted into the plot effortlessly (Rand, Number One, & T'Pau) should be considered a step in the right direction.

This, however:

Janice could have been used instead of Chekov. Fans would have understood his absence, non-fans would have been none the wiser, and Janice has easily as much comic potential and knows how to use a transporter (well, she knows how to kill people using transporters... or will do...).

...sort of misses your own point. There's nothing imaginative about substituting a familiar female spear-carrier for a familiar male one. The enthusiasm of Trek fans for the minor characters to the contrary, Chekov doesn't matter. Neither does Sulu. Scotty is far from a well-rounded character. That this film plucks one of the so-called "seven dwarves" (supposedly Shatner's joking term, suggesting either a disinterest in or unfamiliarity with basic arithmetic) from near-nothingness and gives her substantial screen time in the introductory movie is more progress than female characters have made in any version of TOS-based Trek in the last forty years. It's not a lot, but it positions Uhura to be a major character in the sequels. Clearly this is what the studio wants - how "imaginative" the use of the character in future segments turns out to be remains to be seen.

 

[Chrisisall]

Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, and even Farscape fare much better in terms of utilising their women more effectively.

Trek (TOS) was set up around Kirk, Spock & McCoy. It's inherently female character unfriendly that way. Serenity, for instance, was set up to accomodate MAIN characters who are female.

 

[Pauln6]

Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, and even Farscape fare much better in terms of utilising their women more effectively.

Trek (TOS) was set up around Kirk, Spock & McCoy. It's inherently female character unfriendly that way. Serenity, for instance, was set up to accomodate MAIN characters who are female.

Yes that's true - and I'm not suggesting that they should change the characters they do have into women like BSG - this isn't that kind of reboot. If Chapel, or Rand, or Mulhall, or T'Pau appear they are going to be third tier characters but that's no reason to ignore all of them completely

 

[Pauln6]

This, however:

Janice could have been used instead of Chekov. Fans would have understood his absence, non-fans would have been none the wiser, and Janice has easily as much comic potential and knows how to use a transporter (well, she knows how to kill people using transporters... or will do...).

...sort of misses your own point. There's nothing imaginative about substituting a familiar female spear-carrier for a familiar male one. The enthusiasm of Trek fans for the minor characters to the contrary, Chekov doesn't matter. Neither does Sulu. Scotty is far from a well-rounded character. That this film plucks one of the so-called "seven dwarves" (supposedly Shatner's joking term, suggesting either a disinterest in or unfamiliarity with basic arithmetic) from near-nothingness and gives her substantial screen time in the introductory movie is more progress than female characters have made in any version of TOS-based Trek in the last forty years. It's not a lot, but it positions Uhura to be a major character in the sequels. Clearly this is what the studio wants - how "imaginative" the use of the character in future segments turns out to be remains to be seen.

Yeah see above comments - there isn't enough movie to give the women much screen time but replacing Chekov with Janice would at least have given us more than one woman doing something worthwhile beyond being a mom or a girlfriend. Uhura will do a lot of pouting, frowning, snogging, and agonising just to stay on screen in the sequel. One of the reasons I'd like Janice on board is that she is mobile and could easily run around in the background as part of a security team. Hopefully they won't kill her off during her first appearance (RIP Chief Olsen).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Uhura will do a lot of pouting, frowning, snogging, and agonising just to stay on screen in the sequel. One of the reasons I'd like Janice on board is that she is mobile and could easily run around in the background as part of a security team.

Well now, these are both assumptions - the assumption about Uhura is a reasonable one but hardly fated to be so, as the producers (and/or studio) are probably looking for an "Elizabeth Swann" or "Hermione Granger" or "Mikaela" sort of female character to build a following for.

The assumption about what Janice Rand's character would be like is based entirely on her persona in the few TOS episodes she appeared in, and so has no real relevance to how the character might be reimagined in the new version of Trek. Certainly yeomen in general went obsolete after TOS and there's no more or less reason to expect that Rand would be a security officer than that she'd be a back-up communications officer enabling Uhura to go on landing parties.

Or - here's a thought - let them invent a new character altogether.