Serenity vs. Star Trek

[Aike]

First, I have never seen Firefly.

But I just saw Serenity. This movie is a real turkey in my view. Ok, why do I bring it up here?

Because this is what the hardcores that disliked Star Trek would have wanted -- a movie only people that have seen the TV show it is based on can relate to. No character introductions of the heroes, no character arcs and awful story if you are not into the world of Firefly.

Orci and Kurtzman are scriptwriting gods compared to whoever wrote Serenity.

Finally, I seriously hope that the suits at Universal that greenlit this movie were fired. Anyone could realise it would be a bomb at the box office by just reading the script.

 

[Sector 7]

Ooooo.... you are so gonna get burned by the Firefly/Serenity fanboys..... Oooooo....

*Even though you are completely correct.*

 

[trampledamage]

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.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I like Serenity and Firefly...
But I like Star Trek, way better...

Sharr

 

[Emher]

Meh, I saw Serenity first and I still understood it. Could it be *gasp* I have imagination!

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I saw "Serenity" prior to "Firefly"... in fact, having seen "Serenity" made me buy the "Firefly" DVD set.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I'm a Redshirt Browncoat. It's all good.

 

[RAMA]

Not a fan of the FireflyTV series, but the movie had some direction and some good ideas.

RAMA

 

[Jeyl]

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.
- Supporting characters actually have importance to the main character both in their abilities and in their companionship.
- Lots and lots of creative, non-practical sets, including Serenity's engineering area.
- 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.
- An epic space battle involving hundreds of ships and great visual effects moments.
- Actual element of danger.
- No destiny, fate or foretold futures.
- Characters who respect those who they have lost.
- More than one important female character.
- The hero chooses to not kill the villain even without offering him a chance to surrender

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.
- Supporting characters' roles are limited to just ensuring that Kirk gets up in rank while they stay around just doing their usual thing.
- 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.
- 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.
- One space battle in the opening that involves only two ships.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.

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

 

[Lumen]

Serenity is a pretty good introduction to Firefly for anyone who would like it.

 

[IndyJones]

First, I have never seen Firefly.

But I just saw Serenity. This movie is a real turkey in my view. Ok, why do I bring it up here?

Because this is what the hardcores that disliked Star Trek would have wanted -- a movie only people that have seen the TV show it is based on can relate to. No character introductions of the heroes, no character arcs and awful story if you are not into the world of Firefly.

Orci and Kurtzman are scriptwriting gods compared to whoever wrote Serenity.

Finally, I seriously hope that the suits at Universal that greenlit this movie were fired. Anyone could realise it would be a bomb at the box office by just reading the script.

Totally disagree.

Did you miss the tour Mal took around the ship at the begining where all the characters were introduced?

And, I know that reviews aren't everything, but the movie received an 81% at Rotten Tomatoes, and an 88% amongst the Cream of the Crop Reviewers? Are you arguing that they were all Firefly fans, or that they were just pretending to like it?

 

[RAMA]

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.
- Supporting characters actually have importance to the main character both in their abilities and in their companionship.
- Lots and lots of creative, non-practical sets, including Serenity's engineering area.
- 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.
- An epic space battle involving hundreds of ships and great visual effects moments.
- Actual element of danger.
- No destiny, fate or foretold futures.
- Characters who respect those who they have lost.
- More than one important female character.
- The hero chooses to not kill the villain even without offering him a chance to surrender

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.
- Supporting characters' roles are limited to just ensuring that Kirk gets up in rank while they stay around just doing their usual thing.
- 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.
- 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.
- One space battle in the opening that involves only two ships.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.

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

Um...did you watch the ST movie??? First of all, its an origin story and a prequel, Kirk is cocky but goes through a LOT of growth and will no doubt continue in the next movie. You don't think he will regret some of his youth? Obviously through their actions the crew will learn respect for each other...each of the characters already demonstrated their use/gifts/professionalism at some pint: Uhura in translating the Klingon msg; Checkov provided a lot of scientific info and saved lives; Sulu saved Kirk and helped destroy the drill; McCoygot him aboard ship; Scotty provided his engineering genius, though somewhat indirectly; Spock was of course his normal efficient self despite the loss of his homeworld; Kirk winds up saving the ship twice...how can you not respect that, same with his father.

Element of danger??? VULCAN is destroyed for christ sake...not some secondary character who is basically there for comic relief.

...but what a space battle in ST, and great opening scene. Serenity's bad guy...ok ninja, bad fleet commander. Also not original at all...how many times have we seen the cocky and quiet but deadly assasin? Nero is not original either but his planet WAS destroyed and usually people who are from despotic nations tend to have a 2 dimensional point of view...of course he would want revenge if he felt no one tried to save it.

The movie is about time travel, of course there is going to be "destiny". They haven't changed everything from the old timeline. Much like "City on the Edge of forever", this timeline has a convergence of important events according to Bob Orci...Spock was pretty much destined to meet Kirk, Kirk and Scotty, etc. You're also looking at it backwards...we already know about Kirk and co, so obviosuly you know they are going to meet, that's what the movie is about!

According to the writers, Nero's ship was designed to travel through black holes, therefore Kirk had to fire on the Narada.

The biggest difference in Serenity and ST? Serenity cost $39 million and grossed $38 million...WORLDWIDE. ST has grossed $325 million....and this will lead to something Serenity will never have: a sequel.

RAMA

 

[Jeyl]

According to the writers, Nero's ship was designed to travel through black holes, therefore Kirk had to fire on the Narada.

So what was the point of Kirk's "Your ship is compromised. Too close to the singularity to SURVIVE without assistance" all about? And if the Narada could travel through the black hole safely, why was the ship sounding it's alarms and the crew running in panic? And if Nero knew he would survive, why didn't he try to fake his way out of it till he was completely through the black hole? And when and where was it ever established that Nero's ship could travel through black holes if it was just a simple mining ship from his time? Oh, I'll tell you why. Because the writers needed it to. No logic, no explanation and no reference.

Element of danger??? VULCAN is destroyed for christ sake...not some secondary character who is basically there for comic relief.

Vulcan being destroyed presented no danger for our characters. In Serenity, our characters actually DIED.

this timeline has a convergence of important events according to Bob Orci...
According to the writers,

That's a lot of "according to the writers" moments there. Why should understanding elements in the film have to be told by the writers themselves? Why not just put them in the freaking movie?

 

[Myasishchev]

They were both good. Although at the end of the day Serenity is probably better because the plot's tighter and the characters, particularly the villain, are better-rounded.

 

[EnsignRicky]

The Operative in Serenity was a far better adversary than Nero, any day. He had convincing motivation for his actions and a real presence in the film. I even got the impression that his path kinda paralleled the dark shadowy past, that led Shepherd Book to become a searcher and a man of God. And it's all due to Chiwetel Ejiofor. (I looked it up) Though I had never seen him before, I was quite impressed, he both owned and sold that character. No offense, but by comparison, Bana was more of a cartoon than when he played the Hulk.

 

[Aike]

Did you miss the tour Mal took around the ship at the begining where all the characters were introduced?

No. In my view the problem is that they´re too many and any of the supporting characters could be left out. It would not matter one bit. Instead, they steal screen time from the main hero who therefore is underdeveloped.

And, I know that reviews aren't everything, but the movie received an 81% at Rotten Tomatoes, and an 88% amongst the Cream of the Crop Reviewers? Are you arguing that they were all Firefly fans, or that they were just pretending to like it?

I know, but I disagree with them.

 

[Aike]

Not a fan of the FireflyTV series, but the movie had some direction and some good ideas.

RAMA

It sure did. I liked the setting, the special effects and the sets and the first 5 minutes, but after that it went downhill.

 

[RAMA]

According to the writers, Nero's ship was designed to travel through black holes, therefore Kirk had to fire on the Narada.

So what was the point of Kirk's "Your ship is compromised. Too close to the singularity to SURVIVE without assistance" all about? And if the Narada could travel through the black hole safely, why was the ship sounding it's alarms and the crew running in panic? And if Nero knew he would survive, why didn't he try to fake his way out of it till he was completely through the black hole? And when and where was it ever established that Nero's ship could travel through black holes if it was just a simple mining ship from his time? Oh, I'll tell you why. Because the writers needed it to. No logic, no explanation and no reference.

Element of danger??? VULCAN is destroyed for christ sake...not some secondary character who is basically there for comic relief.

Vulcan being destroyed presented no danger for our characters. In Serenity, our characters actually DIED.

this timeline has a convergence of important events according to Bob Orci...
According to the writers,

That's a lot of "according to the writers" moments there. Why should understanding elements in the film have to be told by the writers themselves? Why not just put them in the freaking movie?

Countdown told the story of the Narada, though I guess there is now some question about how much of it is canon. Its a coverted mining ship, powerful because of its size and associated capabilites. Personally though, I don't need the capabilites of the ship explained, its enough to know its powerful.

I assumed the difference was that the Narada had a blackhole appear inside/just outside it instead of traveling through it, the fire from Kirk was just there as a measure of assurance of it's destruction. I still like this explanation best.

The death of Spock's parents is significant to the ST Universe and Spock. It did change the course of the movie, because both Spock's decisions were affected by it.

In terms of significance to SF historically, Vulcan is one of the best known alien planet's in all of history. So is Spock as an alien. Within fandom one of the greatest misgivings of the movie is that Vulcan is destroyed. THIS is far more of a change in this new ST universe than a mere comic relief character being killed. This would have never happened in the old timeline. So now there is a sense of anything can happen in future movies...exactly what the writers are going for.

I feel like many writers do, you don't HAVE to explain every reason behind events, like temporal convergence. AS ST fans Orci simply used a past element of TOS for his sotry. I don't see a problem there.

RAMA

 

[Aike]

They were both good. Although at the end of the day Serenity is probably better because the plot's tighter and the characters, particularly the villain, are better-rounded.

I liked the villain too, but shouldn´t the hero be interesting as well? In this case, I found him forgettable.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I have never watched Firefly but was interested in it and considered getting a dvd set at one point (nothing is on tv here). But then I watched Serentity which I thought was godawful and I never pursued Firefly. It's waaaay down on the bottom of the series I need to check out list now. As I recall I found Serenity characters rather cartoonish though that doesn't have to be a bad thing.. but it was.