Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Aike, Jun 6, 2009.
That is a fun scene, and a classic movie.
Hey, that sounds like fun. Although I wouldn't have the attention span for complicated tractical board/miniature wargames.
Although, context definitely matters.
Hee. All the Galaxy Quest talk we're doing is making me kind of have to rewatch it tonight.
You want to see the end result of applying that type of obsession to Firefly/Serenity? Someone actually bothered to try plotting out the 'verse using the star cluster model:
I only wish I'd had that handy when designing my universe for Escape Velocity: Firefly. Would have saved some effort!
As a huge fan of Joss Whedon, I'm going to have to thoroughly disagree with you here. Whedon did give character introductions of the heroes, there was a very obvious and very important character arc for Mal in Serenity -- that of learning to believe in something again, whatever that thing may be -- and the story of revealing the truth about an oppressive government is almost always compelling.
I'll be happy to concede that his attempts to introduce everyone to the world of Firefly may not have worked for everyone -- it's a complex world that's hard to concisely introduce. Certainly that was what he was trying to do with the opening flashback sequences describing the fate of Earth, the colonization of the System, the establishment of the Alliance, and the conquest of the Independents, and with the sequences featuring what the Alliance did to River, etc. So I don't think it's fair to say he didn't do it, just that it didn't work for everybody.
And, BTW, I know of a number of folks who got into Firefly after being introduced to it through Serenity and who enjoyed Serenity just fine.
No, you just have to be paying attention. "Do you know what your sin is?" "I'm gonna show you a world without sin."
It's a story that's essentially arguing from an Existentialist perspective -- that there is no such thing as "sin" or "virtue," that the things that traditional morality classifies as "sinful" are also the sources of great strength, courage, and creativity in humanity. That those who believe you can create a world without sin are actually the people who cause the most suffering, who harm others the most -- that a world without sin is a world that is dead.
"Because sure as I know anything, I know this: Sooner or later, they will swing back to the idea that you can make people... 'better.' And I do not hold to that."
Now, once again, it's a message you may or may not agree with. You might think it just wasn't executed very well. And that's fine. But to claim that it isn't there, that it lacks actual depth? That's just either not paying attention or being fundamentally dishonest.
It comes over from generations of literary science fiction fandom and criticism. Because the truth is that there is a lot more variation in written sf concerning how seriously science and technology is treated and how carefully it's thought through - there is such a thing as "hard sf" although it's always been a much smaller part of the output of the best-known sf writers (like Heinlein) than their fans seem to admit - and there is a much greater range in terms of the literary ambitions and abilities of science fiction authors in that domain.
The sf that's been transposed successfully into commercial movies and television is at best a simplified and superficial subset of that kind of thing. "Hard sf" doesn't really exist in the current mass media, and "experimental" or less commercially-oriented fare does so only barely and occasionally.
I imagine that Whedon would find the Federation and the "Star Trek Universe" as appalling and oppressive to actually live in as I think I would.
And now he shills for Apple as the sidekick of the "I'm a PC" guy.
Just got the Deluxe Edition of "Galaxy Quest" on Friday - I'm going through the special features right now, and probably will get to watching the movie again this week. It's my second or third favorite Trek movie - I'm not sure whether it comes in ahead of TWOK or not.
Serenity worldwide - $38,869,464
Star Trek worldwide - $324,152,393
Serenity was a boring piece of tripe whilst Star Trek had a heart, mind, soul and action from the get go. Face the facts, nobody cares about Serenity.
Um, no. They were both enjoyable action films that had hearts, minds, and souls. Serenity was a bit more intellectual and a bit darker, whilst Star Trek had a bit more fun with itself and was more optimistic. Both were wonderful films.
Erroneous. Plenty of people cared about Serenity, just like plenty of people cared about Trek before the new film -- as this thread should ably demonstrate, given the number of folks who've spoken up in support of Serenity and Firefly.
Now, do you have a reason for whittering on like this, or do you just get off on insulting the fans of a four-year-old film that has nothing to do with Star Trek for no particular reason? 'Cause the word for the latter is "trolling."
Box office figures are an excellent barometer of how many people like something, and useless as an attempted direct refutation of any argument regarding quality. It's axiomatic that no one ever lost money by underestimating the taste and intelligence of the public.
Two out of four, maybe.
And wrong again, as this topic itself conclusively demonstrates.
I disagree. Serenity sucked balls.
So where were they when the film was running in theaters?
A very small amount of people who do not represent the majority. The majority have spoken - the enjoyed Star Trek for which it has amazing legs.
At first, it was trolling to criticize NuBSG. Now its also trolling to hate, tell the facts, or point out the truth about Serenity. Where does it end?
It is also an indication that certain sci-fi fans cannot accept the fact that their beloved franchise is not really wanted by everyone nor does it have the quality to be immensely popular.
Liking Serenity makes someone have better taste than the general public?
This topic indicates nothing of that sort.
I felt Zombie villains so stupid in Serenity. It ruined the film. Star Trek is better film thou the main villain(Nero) motivations was probably stupider then the Zombies in Serenity.
Actually one hundred-and some posts in a thread about Star Trek vs Serenity where more than half are defending Serenity very obviously does show that people care about Serenity (other people, not me )
You didn't enjoy it. Fair enough.
Presumably, some of them were seeing it in theaters, which is why it made $38 million. Do bear in mind that Serenity was released in September of 2005, which is already a time when few people go to the movies, and which was also right after Hurricane Katrina, which shut down the movie theater business in a rather significant portion of the United States and hurt the wallets of millions.
Not saying that Serenity was ever super-popular, either, just that those are also factors to bear in mind.
You did not say "the majority." You said "no one." Well, saying that no one cared about Serenity is just plain false. Enough people cared about it for it to make $38 million. Not a majority, but not no one, either.
No, it's trolling to bring up how much you disliked a film that has nothing to do with Star Trek in a forum about Star Trek for the sole purpose of insulting that other film and its fans, especially when that other film in no way relates to or has any bearing upon Star Trek. You're just trying to start a fight.
I for one will be happy to concede that Serenity is not to everyone's tastes and that more than likely the majority of people do not enjoy it, or at least do not enjoy it as much as my fellow Browncoats and I do.
I reject wholeheartedly the inference that this means that Serenity/Firefly is of poor quality, and I reject wholeheartedly the inference that this means that Browncoats have better taste than most people. After all, for most of its history, Trek as been as relatively unpopular as Firefly -- this does not mean that Trek was always of poor quality or that Trekkies had better taste. It just means that sometimes, things aren't popular. Sometimes that's because it's not to everyone's taste. Sometimes it's because segments of it are of poor quality but not the whole. Sometimes it means that the public mood isn't right for the work. Sometimes it means that it's just presented in a way most people don't enjoy. And sometimes, it just means that most people aren't interested.
I happen to like BOTH verses..but..the comparisons are rather valid..Star Trek films became "fan oriented" and were rather derided by the general public as they just couldn't get into them...Serenity was also a "fan film" despite a rather weak attempt at filling in Joe Sixpack. Those who became interested in the Firefly 'verse then bought the DVD set..(I proudly own a copy) and filled themselves in..
Star Trek (09) stands alone "Joe Sixpack" didn't NEED to be filled in..the exposition required was often done VISUALLY with no explanations required..If my Brazilian step-daughter (who has never even seen an episode of ANY Trek) can follow it..then the film did it's mission..
Orci and Kurtzman wrote Transformers. They could end up writing a movie that would one day be hailed as the new Citizen Kane, and it still wouldn't wash off the stench of being associated with Michael Bay. Scriptwriting gods indeed.
(To be fair, Joss Whedon co-wrote the awful Alien Ressurection, but at least it's no Transformers.)
This individual also started a thread in Sci-Fi/Fantasy to the same purpose of taunting fans of other franchises (including Serenity): http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=94844. Some people just can't enjoy a success unless they can also make it into the failure of others.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
To be fair to Whedon, his script was pretty much pissed on by the director.
Was it? Well then, what did he have planned for the movie?
That's not what this thread is about at all.
This thread was started on a Star Trek Message Board, in the forum dedicated to the new Star Trek movie, criticizing a four year old film that had a quarter of the budget of Star Trek.
It's about posters who didn't like Serenity and cannot accept that some people do.
I happened to like both.
My litmus test - I didn't go see Serenity five times at the movies. I did for Star Trek.
I do own the DVD box set for Firefly but I've not been compelled to watch Serenity again. The characters are intriguing but the River storyline dumb. After all the menace surrounding the Reavers...River single handedly takes them out. I hated that.
Separate names with a comma.