What depth was that then?
Serenity vs. Star Trek
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
What depth was that then?
I could imagine the Alliance's attitude of "meddling" and deciding what's supposedly best for everyone in addition to its the-end-justifies-the-means approach. On the other side you have the Serenity crew and their "people have not only a right to be imperfect, the government shouldn't try to impose its beliefs on them" attitude.
On the one hand, you could interpret Serenity as a criticism of (well-meant, but ill-conceived and badly executed) U.S. foreign policy. In that regard, it might even be just another Bush-bashing movie. In a larger context, it could be seen as a criticism of (big) government in general and therefore Serenity has also an explicitly libertarian (anarchist?) message. I'm not libertarian myself, but this didn't prevent me from enjoying the ideas of Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" either.
But for the most part it's just a silly fun movie like Star Trek XI.
Sorry, Aike, but while I liked both Serenity and Star Trek the former is a great deal better written and the characters considerably more intriguing that Abrams and company could manage for Trek. Better dialogue, too.
Yes, Joss Whedon writes great movies for fanboys while Kurtzman and Orci write great blockbusters for everybody
Hell of a lot of sex in it for a kid's show.
I've no interest in wading into a flurry of blindly lobbed personal jabs, but I will remark that the comparison is interesting to me, if only because I found the visual style of the space scenes in Star Trek to be very reminiscent of the same scenes in Serenity. In particular, I was reminded of the final battle in Serenity when the Enterprise warped into a trap above Vulcan. It had the same kind of visceral energy and three-dimensional awareness that's been missing from mainstream science fiction (like Star Wars and previous Star Trek movies).
And in my books, Serenity is the more interesting film by far, but Star Trek was unquestionably better made and more suitable for the big screen. Both properties are built on ensembles, though; they made the necessary changes to the story's narrative style for Star Trek to function on the big screen a long time ago, even before it was a movie franchise (by focusing on Kirk, Spock and McCoy -- in this film, though, McCoy didn't really have a central focus). Serenity by its nature was a big ensemble and they didn't really try to change that for the film.
And in my books, Serenity is the more interesting film by far, but Star Trek was unquestionably better made and more suitable for the big screen. Both properties are built on ensembles, though; they made the necessary changes to the story's narrative style for Star Trek to function on the big screen a long time ago, even before it was a movie franchise (by focusing on Kirk, Spock and McCoy -- in this film, though, McCoy didn't really have a central focus). Serenity by its nature was a big ensemble and they didn't really try to change that for the film.
Serenity's problem was that it had two heroes: Mal and River. While Mal takes center stage in the action-y department, River is the heart of the storyline. I could see that causing some difficulties in relating to either.
It's also true that while having 9 main characters is great for a TV show, it doesn't work as well on film. Which was one of the reasons why two of them were off-ship at the start of the movie, and why two of them were killed in the course of it. Those sorts of things would allow them to tighten up the cast for the sequel if they got one.
Jayne is the one who kills people for money. ("Public relations.")
Mal only kills those whom he feels it's necessary to kill for the safety of himself and his crew. That's why he shoved the other guy off the Mule; trying to take him along would have decreased their chances of escaping unacceptably.
I'll agree that Mal is very much in the Han Solo mold, though. I consider that a good thing. Haven't had all that many attempts at the character type who actually work as such. Mal is one of the few.
Serenity was made with newcomers in mind. Honestly, it shouldn't have been; considering the turnout in the theaters, it would have been better to write a direct sequel to the TV show. Few who hadn't seen it came anyway. But it *was* designed to be accessible. That's one of the reasons why various character progressions such as the integration of Simon and River into the crew were seemingly "reset" for the film.
Just watch the "simulated one-shot" that follows Mal through the entire ship during the credits for the character introductions. (It's actually two shots, with the break coming when Mal heads downstairs and for just a moment neither he norm Simon is in-frame.) It's really quite a writing and technical achievement if you stop to think about it----they throw lots of information at you in that scene, with an extreme economy of words. "We crashin' again?" "Talk to your husband." Very economic way of letting you know Zoe and Wash are married, for instance. Through the course of that scene alone, you can tell by the encounters: Wash is the funny pilot, Jayne is the guy with guns, Kaylee is the mechanic, Simon is the doctor, Mal is a pragmatist ("That's your guiding star, isn't it? What's of use?"), River is a Reader (whatever that means) and Zoe....well, you don't get much on Zoe there. But it's still a lot.
As for character arcs, Mal and the Operative take inverse journeys: Mal begins faithless and pragmatic, and in the end finds something worth believing in. ("Are you willing to die for that belief?" "I am. Of course, that's not exactly plan A.") The Operative starts out as a "believer" in the necessity of his actions, but ends up with his faith shattered, a broken man with no clear way forward. (Mal's been there before too, although it isn't as evident in the film as it should be.)
Honestly I like both films. I felt Serenity was a bit tighter story-wise, with a bit more depth; but Star Trek was plenty fun too, and very accessible.
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm more often accused of being an Obama zombie; definitely left-of-center.
I get that you don't like Serenity, but most of what you say about it and the people who like it is demonstrably mistaken.
All pretty much true.
In the end, Star Trek is not really an interesting or unusual film, as far as the story or characters are concerned, unless one is part of the pre-sold audience that just loves Star Trek. It is an extraordinarily energetic, well-made Summer action movie that deserves every bit of the success it's achieving.
And yet, Star Trek is purest fantasy.
Buffy is a more serious, mature series than Enterprise on the latter's best day - what BTVS is not is stultifyingly solemn, which most of modern Trek is in spades. In fact the Whedon shows are very funny, quite serious and sometimes scary - in no predictable order.
That took me a moment.
I don't need one at all, in the case of either Trek or BTVS or Serenity. I'm just amused by how artifical (and to some extent, self-aggrandizing) attempts to sort TV sf/fantasy into such distinct categories tend to be.
Ah, you and me both, brother.
And the REALLY interesting thing is (and educate me if you see differently), it seems to be something unique to science fiction fans (I don't see this among hardcore fantasy fans). They want to slice, parse, categorize, subcategorize and come up with their definition of the pure faith, the CANON of what is "true" science fiction and all else that pretends.
I get bored watching the tedium.
I would say it's unique to a certain type of science fiction fan (I can't imagine a Firefly or a Farscape fan getting all excited about whether their show was "true science fiction," for example), although really its on the sliding scale of science fiction - to - fantasy. The more a science fiction property explains how its world works through psuedo-scientific exposition and within the context of what we currently know about physics, the more the fans want to analyze and categorize the relative merits of its science. It makes sense, really. Some people are drawn to that, and I don't really judge them for it. Maybe what interests them in science fiction is trying to figure out how the warp drive would work, and a show that has faster-than-light travel on a flying school bus is annoying to them and doesn't seem like "real science fiction."
Myself, I couldn't give a crap how a ship travels faster than light. I watch science fiction because it tells human stories on a grander scale.
Agreed all around.
Not only on a grander scale, but in unique environs and scenarios you can't do in other genres.
Not only on a grander scale, but in unique environs and scenarios you can't do in other genres.
It's fun, as long as they don't get too anal (ie no sense of humor,whimsey or perspective), or aggressive (ie in your face 'know it all').
I keep peeking into the thread about the size of the new Enterprise just to have a good giggle. They're having so much fun! Unless something ridiculous and technical is used to prove an other wise good product is shoddy, I kind of enjoy the technobabble guys. They're like the little kid that has to take their toy radio apart to see how it makes sound. And the world needs those kind of people. I get an emotional satisfaction out of watching the lives of fictional people that is greater when I'm not worrying about the consistancy of the scientific laws in their universe --otherwise, I might join them. Taking toys apart IS a lot of fun.
I just like playing with them. I dig the gadgets (I collect miniature starships, prop replicas and play ridiculously complicated tactical board/miniature wargames which simulate warmachines in detail).
However, I gots ta have me context. Me, it's less about the machines, and more of how their presence affects the people there.
But yeah, toys are cool.
However, I gots ta have me context. Me, it's less about the machines, and more of how their presence affects the people there.
But yeah, toys are cool.
Similar threads
- Locked
