Excellent answer, and agreed on all points. I feel exactly the same way.
Is "Firefly" overated or underated?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
Excellent answer, and agreed on all points. I feel exactly the same way.
As I often find myself pointing out when threads like this come up (which bugs me since it's always such a loaded question); "overrated" and "underrated" are entierly subjective concepts. Of course *anything* that has an overenthusiastic fan base is going to be overrated from the perspective of an average non-initiate to said fanbase member, while conversely there's always going to be those with differing tastes (or occasionally with bloody minded contrariness) who will denounce just about anything.
So, is <insert name here> overrated or underrated? Answer: yes.
Personally, I love the show, but I wouldn't count myself as one of those fanatically devoted Browncoat types or anything. It is (or rather was) after all, just a TV show.
Certainly among my Top 10 TV shows, and perhaps among my Top 5 science fiction shows (well, certainly if I count all of Star Trek as just one show).
Other than that, see what Reverend just said.
Other than that, see what Reverend just said.
"Misinterpreting"?
I rest my case.And so do many others. It's hardly a position unique to the Confederates, so what's your point?
I agree! I remember way back in the fall of 2003 hearing people here talking about a new western scifi show and thinking "that's going to suck!" When the show was out and getting positive buzz, I caught a few episodes and was hooked by the very first one! Yes, The Train Job.
I'm also not a fan of westerns. Back to the Future part 3 was always my least favorite for that very reason. I keep giving them a try, however. I went to see Cowboys and Aliens thinking the genre bending would remind me in some small way to Firefly.
Alas, the movie was very meh.
QUOTE=TremblingBluStar;5277489]
Well, I hate to speak for Celine Dion but since in this case I totally with her, I will.
First, people assuming that the Reavers did in Miranda one way or another contradicts the dialogue on screen, which emphasizes the suppression of Miranda's very existence.
The thing about Mr. Universe is that he is not a macguffin, he is (allegedly) a character. Why does a guy who sits around hacking the net and having sex with robots risk (and as it turns out, sacrifice) his soft little life? That is a genuine dramatic choice, unlike most of the crap Whedon threw on the screen. Putting real drama on the screen just to throw it away as a piddly plot point is truly incompetent, hack writing.
As to what you enjoyed about Firefly/Serenity, it is hard to guess. But it isn't good writing in any rational sense of the word. There are some good one liners. That's it. And you can get some good one liners in Vegas any night of the week.
Well, I hate to speak for Celine Dion but since in this case I totally with her, I will.
First, people assuming that the Reavers did in Miranda one way or another contradicts the dialogue on screen, which emphasizes the suppression of Miranda's very existence.
The thing about Mr. Universe is that he is not a macguffin, he is (allegedly) a character. Why does a guy who sits around hacking the net and having sex with robots risk (and as it turns out, sacrifice) his soft little life? That is a genuine dramatic choice, unlike most of the crap Whedon threw on the screen. Putting real drama on the screen just to throw it away as a piddly plot point is truly incompetent, hack writing.
As to what you enjoyed about Firefly/Serenity, it is hard to guess. But it isn't good writing in any rational sense of the word. There are some good one liners. That's it. And you can get some good one liners in Vegas any night of the week.
I still don't see how suppressing the existence of a colony surrounded by savages negates not being able to suppress a broadcast sent through a computer network. They are hardly the same thing.
Ummmm... okay. Having characters sacrifice themselves to help the heroes at the last minute is hardly something Whedon invented for this movie. I'm sorry that this turned you of as much as it did, but Mr. Universe was a one shot character who served his purpose. Keep in mind he was going to sell out the main characters until he was double crossed.
Further, why is his sacrifice a dramatic choice, when Mal's is not. He risked his life, his crew, and his vessel to oppose the Alliance. The only thing Mr. Universe did was get back at the Operative for killing him.
You tell me it's hard to guess what I like, then you tell me I don't like the writing!
Sorry, but the writing in both isn't perfect, but it is heads above 99% of the crap out there.
"Misinterpreting"?
Yes. When your argument amounts to 'when stj says Yankees he means that the Alliance is literally intented to be a fictional portrayal of the Union', that's misinterpreting what he said by divorcing it from context.
In context it's perfectly obvious he means they're based on these ideas, which they are.
That it's a Confederate idea, wedded to the Lost Cause mythology, and through this became part of Firefly's worldview.
You know, if you're criticizing people for allegedly "misinterpreting" other people's posts or "divorcing them from the context", it is very ironic when you do it by misinterpreting other people's posts and divorcing them from the context."Misinterpreting"?
Yes. When your argument amounts to 'when stj says Yankees he means that the Alliance is literally intented to be a fictional portrayal of the Union', that's misinterpreting what he said by divorcing it from context.
In context it's perfectly obvious he means they're based on these ideas, which they are.
And you have still completely failed to address any of these points and keep ignoring everything but the first 2 sentences of my post that you keep quoting.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?
So what are you saying, that it's offensive to support any anti-centrist policies just because the Confederates once supported those views?
Does that mean that, for instance, you'd accuse any regionalist party in any country - say, the League of Socialdemocrats of Vojvodina whose policy is that this northern province of Serbia should be economically and politically more independent from the central government in Belgrade - of supporting Confederate views? I'm just curious.
Malcolm Reynolds is based on Confederate veteran ands who defeats the society that, in the Civil War comparison, is analogous to the Yankees. stj said this, stj is correct in saying this much, and I fail to see how anything else in that post addresses this.
So what are you saying, that it's offensive to support any anti-centrist policies just because the Confederates once supported those views?
I am saying no more and no less than the following:
Some of the values in the show come from the mythology it draws on. I have already pointed out, in the post I quote here, that it's the politically inoffensive positions - anti-central government ones, being the example - that are used, rather than those the ones most viewers would find problematic.
That's as may be, but it's essentially ignoring stj's thesis in order to say something even slightly complimentary about it. It's like if someone said that racism was unjustifiable, and you said, "No, that's not entirely true, because there are physical differentiators between different races, so it is possible to justify it." You're against racism, you think the justification is a bad one, but it makes it sound like you don't.
stj argues that "Firefly" is a intentionally-made defense of and revenge fantasy for an exploitative society built on the enslavement of a socially disadvantaged class to the benefit of a small landowning elite that conned the proletariat into supporting them, fighting to preserve their unjust status quo against any kind of exterior legal body that could disrupt their practices. That's what he's referring to when he calls Mal a "confederate," the negative baggage. That isn't true. Not even a little bit. The fact that some of stj's thoughts are distantly related to reality does not make them not entirely false any more than the fact that there are physical delineations between races makes racism not entirely bad.
stj argues that "Firefly" is a intentionally-made defense of and revenge fantasy for an exploitative society built on the enslavement of a socially disadvantaged class to the benefit of a small landowning elite that conned the proletariat into supporting them, fighting to preserve their unjust status quo against any kind of exterior legal body that could disrupt their practices. That's what he's referring to when he calls Mal a "confederate," the negative baggage. That isn't true. Not even a little bit. The fact that some of stj's thoughts are distantly related to reality does not make them not entirely false any more than the fact that there are physical delineations between races makes racism not entirely bad.
Pretending to agree with Celine Dion when it was a snafu with the quotes was purely a joke.
Kegg, thanks for the effort to straighten up distortion, which is especially nice since you don't even agree with me, but the cause is hopeless.
I don't think the values of the characters are essentially the values of the show. Yes, the main characters are the "heroes", and so one could make the argument that what their views are being supported by the show, but that isn't necessarily the case.
I've often speculated that if the show were given more episodes, we would have eventually seen a more positive side to the Alliance and a central government and a more negative side to the life our heroes decide to lead. That would create a dramatic conflict for the main characters where they either justify their views or change them.
For a good example, in the pilot episode it is shown that Malcolm Reynolds is a man of religion, or at least has some faith prior to losing the war. During the show and movie, he is a disillusioned character, who doesn't necessarily reject religion so much as he rejects God because he feels God abandoned him and his cause and thus he no longer has a cause to fight for.
During the film, he changes as a character as he begins the film rejecting the notion that he needs to find belief. When he finds a cause he can pursue, he finds a new belief he is willing to die for (that people can't be "made better" by the Alliance), and thus makes a near 360 in his stance on having a belief.
If the show had continued, I'm willing to bet there would have been a similar gradual transformation as Reynolds and others learn, question their beliefs, and form new ones. Thus the views they had when the show began aren't necessarily the "correct" ones.
Except that it didn't. So all we're left to analyze is what the show actually portrayed ... rather than the speculative "what the show might have portrayed." As it stands, the show most definitely embodies the anti-federalist, individualist values that were part of the Confederacy. Very intelligently, the show steered clear of the offensive elements of the Confederacy (i.e. slavery). But that doesn't invalidate the show's rather obvious parallel between the defeated Browncoats fighting a Federalist force with the defeated Confederates fighting a Federalist force.
As a matter of fact, this is a strength of the show -- that it manages to highlight the "best" of the Confederate values (as embodied by the relatively individualist Browncoats) while effectively ignoring the quite obviously objectionable elements (i.e. slavery).
Regardless of what the show might have become ... this is what the show actually is.
There is no speculation needed as to the final portrayal of the Alliance: It is purely evil. Even its sincere proponents will be converted to the values of the Independents as embodied in the Big Damn Heroes. All schemes to improve humanity are vile impostures, and the diabolical effort to deny Nature/God will raise up demons in human form. It appears the Browncoats find these profound truths to be rich nourishment for the spirit.
Again, I disagree. Yes, the heroes embody those values - or at the very least the two main heroes do (Zoe, Mal). Others are in the gray, having never fought the Alliance (Wash, Kaylee, Jayne), and others are Alliance citizens or vocally pro-Alliance (Book, River, Simon, Inara). So to say the show embodies the values of two of the main characters is patently unfair.
That is the strength of the show - the idea that nothing is black and white. The Alliance is not purely evil. The heroes aren't purely good. Yes, there are aspects of the Alliance that could be seen as evil (secret governments, assassins, experiments on citizens), but they are conducted by people who feel that at the end of the day they are working for the betterment of everybody.
Further, it's not as if the life of "freedom" the main characters "enjoy" is consistently portrayed as being preferable to live on an Alliance world. We are often told the exact opposite! The Alliance worlds we see are clean, with high technology and happy citizens. Contrast that to the independent worlds we see, with dirt, disease, and dictators.
So even though the show didn't continue past a season, it was clear to me, and I'm guessing many others that the show wasn't pushing any one view of life or government as being preferable over another.
Similar threads
