Is "Firefly" overated or underated?

[DevilEyes]

A space whore. Some cockamamie solar system with dozens of planets, all of which somehow are habitable by humans. Crazy stuff about newly terraformed planets that don't have food, making MREs like gold bullion, but practically all of them have trees. Space Indians who torture and eat people because. A few wisecracks does not make all this drivel good writing. Making the Confederate veteran the hero, and the climax of his story the overthrow of the damnyankees is not just silly, but offensive. Way, way overrated.

That rant would make some sense if there were any "Indians" or "confederates' in Firefly. But there aren't, you're the only one being offensive. The fact that you see the Alliance (oppressive central government, includes rich aristocracy that practice slavery [!]) as "Yankees", and Independents (people who just love freedom and who don't practice slavery) as "Confederates"; and especially the fact that you see degenerated human beings gone crazy and violent killers/cannibals (whose existence is explained very well in Serenity, in fact it's the main theme of the whole goddamn movie) as "Indians" ( ) only says a lot about you.

Reapers = Indians
Browncoats = Confederates

Um, except that anyone that's watched the show know that the Browncoats are nothing like the Confederates; there are no indications that they're racist towards any group of people, and they don't practice slavery - on the contrary, in "Shindig" we see that some of Alliance aristocracy do, while Mal is disgusted by it.

And saying that the Reavers (not Reapers) are like "the Indians" is, well, just stupid (not to mention racist), and that's even without knowing who the Reavers really are, which "Serenity" (the movie) was all about.

That rant would make some sense if there were any "Indians" or "confederates" in Firefly.

He's broadly right, though. I remember reading the interviews Joss Whedon gave about the show around the time it was released, that it was about the people history 'stepped on' - like Civil War Confederate veterans, an inspiration for Malcolm Reynolds - was explicitly stated.

What Whedon does here is he takes that idea and then refashions it in a way that's much more sympathetic to the losing side - for modern audiences - than the history it's based on. The war in Firefly's history really was about "state's rights" and a rejection of overly-centralized government.

If by "broadly right" you mean "not right at all". But hey, we're talking about the same guy who thinks that Ron Moore's BSG was a neocon warmongering propaganda, so...

That old westerns were an inspiration for Firefly is obvious, but that certainly doesn't mean that Firefly is actually about the American Civil War or that the political and social views of Malcolm Reynolds are anything like the politics of the Confederation, or that the Alliance is supposed to represent the Union. (If anything, the Alliance reminds me of a dark, subversive picture of Trek's Federation, with its attempts to "make people better" and eradicate war and conflict.)

What Whedon did was take the cliches from old westerns but use them in a different universe with very different political meanings, removing all the offensive connotations they originally had. Here's a blog post that makes that point: http://firefly10108.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/the-confederacy-and-firefly/

So, to say that Firefly embraces Confederation values or portrays Native Americans as cannibalistic savages is just nonsensical. That would be like, if someone made a reinterpretation of The Birth of A Nation that's completely reversed and is about noble black slaves fighting the slaveowners, and then someone criticized it as a white supremacist movie.

 

[Forbin]

When someone says something like "cowboys in space speaking Chinese is idiotic," I think someone is short of imagination and can't accept something outside the purely conventional formula.

I was delighted at Whedon's attempt at something so far outside the ordinary, something so unusual.

 

[Kegg]

If by "broadly right" you mean "not right at all".

No, he's right about Malcolm Reynolds being based on ex-Confederate veterans and the Alliance/Independents war being a take of the American Civil War.

As I noted, and then you did Whedon's version while inspired by the Civil War does remove elements like slavery.

In effect, what Whedon really is doing here is taking the Lost Cause mythology - the Confederacy has a noble but doomed effort, a fight for a kind of freedom against the rapaciousness of a centrializing governing force - and divorcing this myth from both the historical facts that contradict its substance and the historical prejudices that sully its character.

 

[El Maestro]

Is Firefly overrated? Let me put it this way: I HATE Westerns with the fire of a thousand suns. I avoid them like the scourge they are.

I LOVE Firefly. It's a quick, fun, and imaginative show. It's not perfect but it's really original and a great, too-short lived piece of genre television.

 

[Deckerd]

In effect, what Whedon really is doing here is taking the Lost Cause mythology - the Confederacy has a noble but doomed effort, a fight for a kind of freedom against the rapaciousness of a centrializing governing force - and divorcing this myth from both the historical facts that contradict its substance and the historical prejudices that sully its character.

This is a good analysis, IMO.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

The premise was anti-corporate and anti-government, not really a message that corporations like to send out every week.

I don't think that is a problem in the least. It isn't as if television and movies have ever had problems with shows casting the cliche evil, greedy corporation as the bad guys!

Further, Star Trek was anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism, and it was on the air for 28 seasons!

 

[DevilEyes]

If by "broadly right" you mean "not right at all".

No, he's right about Malcolm Reynolds being based on ex-Confederate veterans and the Alliance/Independents war being a take of the American Civil War.

Uh, no, he's not.

Making the Confederate veteran the hero, and the climax of his story the overthrow of the damnyankees is not just silly, but offensive.

If by "broadly right" you mean "not right at all".

In effect, what Whedon really is doing here is taking the Lost Cause mythology - the Confederacy has a noble but doomed effort, a fight for a kind of freedom against the rapaciousness of a centrializing governing force - and divorcing this myth from both the historical facts that contradict its substance and the historical prejudices that sully its character.

Reading the above quote and then your explanation, someone who had no idea what Firefly was about and where it took place, one would have to think it was set in the Wild West and was about the actual American Civil War. "Inspired by the old Western mythology in which heroes were Confederate veterans" is not the same thing as "making the Confederate veteran a hero" (?!). Malcolm Reynolds is not a "Confederate veteran", duh. So the whole point of stj's post is nonsensical.

And shouldn't it be "making the Confederate veterans the heroes"? Zoe is a veteran of the Alliance/Independence civil war, too, or as stj would say, she is a Confederate veteran... oh wait. Maybe that's why he didn't say it, because it would just underline how foolish his rant about the "offensiveness" of Firefly is?

 

[Deckerd]

If by "broadly right" you mean "not right at all".

No, he's right about Malcolm Reynolds being based on ex-Confederate veterans and the Alliance/Independents war being a take of the American Civil War.

Uh, no, he's not.

If by "broadly right" you mean "not right at all".

In effect, what Whedon really is doing here is taking the Lost Cause mythology - the Confederacy has a noble but doomed effort, a fight for a kind of freedom against the rapaciousness of a centrializing governing force - and divorcing this myth from both the historical facts that contradict its substance and the historical prejudices that sully its character.

Reading the above quote and then your explanation, someone who had no idea what Firefly was about and where it took place, one would have to think it was set in the Wild West and was about the actual American Civil War. "Inspired by the old Western mythology in which heroes were Confederate veterans" is not the same thing as "making the Confederate veteran a hero" (?!). Malcolm Reynolds is not a "Confederate veteran", duh. So the whole point of stj's post is nonsensical.

And shouldn't it be "making the Confederate veterans the heroes"? Zoe is a veteran of the Alliance/Independence civil war, too, or as stj would say, she is a Confederate veteran... oh wait. Maybe that's why he didn't say it, because it would just underline how foolish his rant about the "offensiveness" of Firefly is?

I've no idea what you're saying here.

 

[Kegg]

Reading the above quote and then your explanation, someone who had no idea what Firefly was about and where it took place, one would have to think it was set in the Wild West and was about the actual American Civil War.

Unless you mean to say you think stj is saying that the series is literally set in the Civil War in the sense Gods and Generals is, I'm not sure what your point is.

Stj says that a character based on a Confederate veteran defeats the show's equivalent of the Yankees. And that part of what he said is correct.

 

[DevilEyes]

No, he's right about Malcolm Reynolds being based on ex-Confederate veterans and the Alliance/Independents war being a take of the American Civil War.

Uh, no, he's not.

In effect, what Whedon really is doing here is taking the Lost Cause mythology - the Confederacy has a noble but doomed effort, a fight for a kind of freedom against the rapaciousness of a centrializing governing force - and divorcing this myth from both the historical facts that contradict its substance and the historical prejudices that sully its character.

Reading the above quote and then your explanation, someone who had no idea what Firefly was about and where it took place, one would have to think it was set in the Wild West and was about the actual American Civil War. "Inspired by the old Western mythology in which heroes were Confederate veterans" is not the same thing as "making the Confederate veteran a hero" (?!). Malcolm Reynolds is not a "Confederate veteran", duh. So the whole point of stj's post is nonsensical.

And shouldn't it be "making the Confederate veterans the heroes"? Zoe is a veteran of the Alliance/Independence civil war, too, or as stj would say, she is a Confederate veteran... oh wait. Maybe that's why he didn't say it, because it would just underline how foolish his rant about the "offensiveness" of Firefly is?

I've no idea what you're saying here.

Well, if you need me to put it in very simple terms:

Firefly is not set in the Wild West.

Malcolm Reynolds is not a Confederate veteran.

Get it?

Stj says that a character based on a Confederate veteran defeats the show's equivalent of the Yankees. And that part of what he said is correct.

No, he didn't say that. He literally said he was a Confederate veteran, and that the climax is defeat of the "Yankees" (I assume he means that Alliance is the Yankees?) and that it was "offensive". Now, I assume that he is not completely ignorant and realizes that Firefly is set in the future and in space and other planets. But he still straight out states that Malcolm = Confederate veteran and Alliance = Yankees. Like the show had an agenda to promote Confederation and its values, or something. Even though it actually does the opposite as far as the Confederation "values" go.

If all he means is that Mal is based on the archetype of the hero who was on the losing side in a civil war, which is what everyone agrees on, what would be offensive about that? Please explain. Is there something inherently offensive about saying that the side that loses a war might not always be the worse one, or that people who were on a losing side in a civil war might be good people? Or that the side that wins a war might not be all wonderful?

Or are you seriously saying that Firefly is really about the American Civil War and was made with an agenda to promote the Confederation and argue that it was all about freedom, that black people were equals to whites, and that there was no slavery in the South, but there was in the North?

Reading the above quote and then your explanation, someone who had no idea what Firefly was about and where it took place, one would have to think it was set in the Wild West and was about the actual American Civil War.

Unless you mean to say you think stj is saying that the series is literally set in the Civil War in the sense Gods and Generals is, I'm not sure what your point is.

Well I've explained it plenty of times, so I'm beginning to think you are really trying not to understand, or pretending not to understand. I'm not going to waste any more of my time here.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

TV shows and movies are like the stock market - they are always rated exactly right; the notion of being over-or-under valued is kind of impossible because there's no meaningful outside referent.

"Overrated" and "underrated" are just words fanboys use when they hate something or love something and they want to give the illusion that their opinion is not subjective.

 

[stj]

In effect, what Whedon really is doing here is taking the Lost Cause mythology - the Confederacy has a noble but doomed effort, a fight for a kind of freedom against the rapaciousness of a centrializing governing force - and divorcing this myth from both the historical facts that contradict its substance and the historical prejudices that sully its character.

This is a good analysis, IMO.

The Lost Cause mythology says that the Civil War really was about states' rights, that the South's cause really was freedom, that like Zoe black people fought for the South, that it really was the overweeningly centralist North that was the aggressor, that the monster Lincoln was the father of the leviathan state that will enslave us all as it pretends to renovate society, that abolitionism was a fantical left-wing ideology that denied the facts of human nature. Whedon did not strip away the facts to create some fictional construct, Whedon simply wrote the Lost Cause mythology in space. And that is what is offensive.

Unless of course you have a different kind of politics. Anyone who equates abolitionists with leftists in general, or Communists in particular, will of course find the Alliance a deeply satisfying villain and the Independents wonderful heroes. And instead of being offended by the show, will be offended by a correct characterization of the show.

There are also people who say they do not examine drama for messages, and hold on principle that it is foolishness. I find it hard to believe. Why else did Whedon make sure to include a line about "we will rise again" in the first broadcast episode? It's called a shout out. The fact that some people cover their ears changes nothing.

Also, I am puzzled by people's response to the movie Serenity. On a technical level, a plot that hinges on the Alliance being able to suppress the very existence of a colony at the beginning but being unable to suppress the revelation of the coverup at the end has serious problems. The hero responsible is in fact Mr. Universe, which asks the question, why was the movie (and series before it) spending all that time watching these other people? I believe people only overlook such blatantly screwed up writing when there's something else they like so much they'll forgive bad writing. Part of it is the overthrow of the Alliance. (Yes, literally the Alliance is not destroyed. But if there had been the hoped for trilogy, it was just as doomed as the Empire at the end of the first Star Wars movie.)

That something else I conjecture to be partly the satisfaction in the Reavers. The notion that somehow the suppression of aggression must inevitably result in cannibal maniacs is ludicrous. The very notion makes assumptions about human nature and its immunity to merely human change that are quite reactionary. But apparently popular.

To put it another way, Malcolm says to the Operative, in between bouts where the Operative expresses his deep admiration of Mal, that he aims to misbehave. What a glorious credo!No wonder a certain kind of person loves it so much!

 

[Kegg]

No, he didn't say that. He literally said he was a Confederate veteran, and that the climax is defeat of the "Yankees" (I assume he means that Alliance is the Yankees?) and that it was "offensive".

/rubs face

I see no benefit to wilfully misinterpreting stj here. There's simpler methods to attacking his arguments than assuming they must be taken out of context and misunderstood.

Even though it actually does the opposite as far as the Confederation "values" go.

This isn't entirely true. As I've said, the series draws on the Lost Cause myth, and with it, the argument for local governance as opposed to a centrist one. This is hardly a uniquely Confederate position, and unlike slavery, it's something that remains within the mainstream of American politics, but it is a position the Confederates rhetorically maintained.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Part of it is the overthrow of the Alliance. (Yes, literally the Alliance is not destroyed. But if there had been the hoped for trilogy, it was just as doomed as the Empire at the end of the first Star Wars movie.)

I disagree. The Alliance can, IMHO, be reformed (not that it was so overtly evil in the first place; even Whedon once admitted that the Alliance can sometimes do good. He said that sometimes, the Alliance is like the USA in World War II, where it's basically benevolent; other times, it's like the USA in Vietnam, when it's not so good); the Empire could not. Trying to compare the two 'regimes' is not realistic. The Alliance is not evil; it's just big, perhaps too much so.

In any case, since there were no Alliance characters in the main cast of the show (that I'm aware of), obviously the tone of the show is going to be anti-Alliance. The Alliance was never given the opportunity to explain its side of the story, as it were; I kind of wish it had been, but one can't really expect that. Not enough time to do so. The Alliance may have been an antagonist, but this does not always mean the same as villain. No big deal there. Every story has to have one.

That being said, my favorite moment in FF history is from an episode that does not, technically, exist, since it was a script that was never filmed. Can't remember the title, but it was about an old comrade of Mal's who is going crazy and killing innocent people (Alliance citizens). Mal corners him and in the end, says something about "It isn't war when they're not shooting at you. Then it's just plain murder."

 

[stj]

The Operative was the voice of the Alliance in the movie. He would interrupt his combat against Mal to explicitly declare his admiration (if not love) for Mal. He decides to let the Big Damn Heroes go, as I recall. Dramatically, that is the explicit endorsement of the total package, complete with renunciation of the EEEEEVIL Allaince.

 

[defiantfan]

The premise was anti-corporate and anti-government, not really a message that corporations like to send out every week.

I don't think that is a problem in the least. It isn't as if television and movies have ever had problems with shows casting the cliche evil, greedy corporation as the bad guys!

Further, Star Trek was anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism, and it was on the air for 28 seasons!

You make an excellent point, the difference is that the Federation in Trek world in a largely positive light. I look at the shows that are popular today such as the forensics dramas. It mainly involves government employees coming through for the good of the community. I personally don't have a problem with these themes but the reasons they are popular may go deeper than just ratings. The Alliance on the other hand, as mentioned by other posters, is not always viewed in a positive way. Malcolm Reynolds abhors dealing with them even when he needed to in "Safe". I love the Trek themes of a better world through unity myself.

 

[Set Harth]

Overrated by Browncoats.

Underrated by everyone else.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

It was certainly underrated when it was airing, a lot of people couldn't get past the premise, even fans of Whedon. If it's overrated now it might be because it's a rare show that got more popular after it was released on DVD. That's not unheard of for movies but I can't think of too many shows that built up a following like that after the fact.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Also, I am puzzled by people's response to the movie Serenity. On a technical level, a plot that hinges on the Alliance being able to suppress the very existence of a colony at the beginning but being unable to suppress the revelation of the coverup at the end has serious problems.

The existence of the colony wasn't suppressed entirely. Kaylee's father knew about it, obviously. What was suppressed was what happened at the colony. Since it sits smack dab in the middle of Reaver space, I don't see a problem with people assuming the place was either never settled because of Reavers, or that everybody was killed off by Reavers.

Either way, since the Alliance controls the dissemination of information, they clearly were able to cover up the even that led to the formation of the Reavers. However, Mr. Universe was able to send the distress report at the end unfiltered across the cortex.

The hero responsible is in fact Mr. Universe, which asks the question, why was the movie (and series before it) spending all that time watching these other people?

How is he the "hero" responsible? Did he get the distress report? No. He was just a means of transmitting it, and thus represented a final goal for the heroes to reach at the end of the film.

Plus watching a movie about a guy sitting around surfing the Internet and having sex with a robot would kinda suck!

I believe people only overlook such blatantly screwed up writing when there's something else they like so much they'll forgive bad writing. Part of it is the overthrow of the Alliance.

Huh?

If a movie is bad, I don't care who gets overthrown. I won't enjoy it.

 

[DWF]

The fans are the only ones doing the ratings in my mind, the general public doesn't cre that much one way or the other.