Serenity vs. Star Trek

[stonester1]

That is a fun scene, and a classic movie.

 

[miniglik]

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.

Hey, that sounds like fun. Although I wouldn't have the attention span for complicated tractical board/miniature wargames.

Although, context definitely matters.

I love when Brandon tells Jason he's going to call up Kyle; Kyle's sitting there chomping on a carrot and gets Hollister, who has the upper decks in. They are so into it -- and tickled they can help somebody.

Hee. All the Galaxy Quest talk we're doing is making me kind of have to rewatch it tonight.

 

[Lindley]

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:

http://www.quantummechanix.com/The_Verse_in_Numbers_v1.1.pdf

What you are about to read is one of the most heroic efforts I have ever seen to make sense of something patently ridiculous. This is a work of exacting detail and you should be aware that once you start reading it, The Verse In Numbers will lead to calculators, graph paper, protractors and other math amphetamines.

I only wish I'd had that handy when designing my universe for Escape Velocity: Firefly. Would have saved some effort!

 

[Sci]

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.

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.

ETA:

You have to be a card-carrying Libertarian to see any depth in Serenity.

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.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...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..

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.

"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."

Yep.

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.

The kid in Galaxy Quest was adorable; I tend to view them that way.

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.

 

[StarTrek1701]

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.

Yet...

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.

 

[Sci]

Serenity was a boring piece of tripe whilst Star Trek had a heart, mind, soul and action from the get go.

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.

Face the facts, nobody cares about Serenity.

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."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yet...

Serenity worldwide - $38,869,464
Star Trek worldwide - $324,152,393

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.

Serenity was a boring piece of tripe...

Nope.

...whilst Star Trek had a heart, mind, soul and action from the get go.. .

Two out of four, maybe.

...nobody cares about Serenity.

And wrong again, as this topic itself conclusively demonstrates.

 

[StarTrek1701]

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.

I disagree. Serenity sucked balls.

Erroneous. Plenty of people cared about Serenity,

So where were they when the film was running in theaters?

given the number of folks who've spoken up in support of Serenity and Firefly.

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.

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."

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?

 

[StarTrek1701]

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 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.

It's axiomatic that no one ever lost money by underestimating the taste and intelligence of the public.

Liking Serenity makes someone have better taste than the general public?

And wrong again, as this topic itself conclusively demonstrates.

This topic indicates nothing of that sort.

 

[Stardate]

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.

 

[trampledamage]

...nobody cares about Serenity.

And wrong again, as this topic itself conclusively demonstrates.

And wrong again, as this topic itself conclusively demonstrates.

This topic indicates nothing of that sort.

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 )

 

[Sci]

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.

I disagree. Serenity sucked balls.

You didn't enjoy it. Fair enough.

Erroneous. Plenty of people cared about Serenity,

So where were they when the film was running in theaters?

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.

given the number of folks who've spoken up in support of Serenity and Firefly.

A very small amount of people who do not represent the majority.

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.

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."

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?

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.

ETA:

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.

 

[MANT!]

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..

 

[Welshie]

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

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.)

 

[Trent Roman]

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.

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

 

[Sci]

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

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.)

To be fair to Whedon, his script was pretty much pissed on by the director.

 

[Welshie]

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

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.)

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?

 

[IndyJones]

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.

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.

 

[Scribe34]

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.