Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Is the prologue of the film (the rescue) meant to be a prologue to the whole Firefly/Serenity story? Or did river get taken again by the alliance in the interim between series and movie?

 

If its the former then it conflicts with Simon's version of events in the pilot. If its the latter then it seems a pretty big thing not mention throughout the film.

 

I think the only big difference between Simon's version, and what we see in the film, is that Simon knows they're screwing with her brain. The guy just told him what they've been doing to her. Yet in the series, he has no idea what they did to her.

 

Well, in the series, Simon doesn't go in himself to get her and he has a hunch that they messed with her head. He later confirms that. Hence why he knows in the movie.

 

They also kinda forgot about the two guys from Blue Sun that were chasing her.

 

That was pathetically handled in the 3 part comic series.

 

So, how is the movie doing? Any chance of a sequel? Or, even better, any chances for the show to be resurrected?

 

Not so hot, it will likely see a profit via dvds, but doubtful it's sequel worthy.

 

It's hard to say till we see the dvd sales. Which is, surprisingly, estimated to start in Dec.

Posted
It's hard to say till we see the dvd sales. Which is, surprisingly, estimated to start in Dec.

 

Not so surprising. After the low box office take, and the reason for the movie in the first place was DVD sales, they figured getting the DVD out by christmas would be the best way to get some money out of it.

The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Devastatorsig.jpg

Posted
It's supposed to sum up the series.

 

Obviously things that happend in the series were forgotten, thats why suddenly Simon is a outsider again, but what I heard as the explanation to why Simons story from the series was different from the video in the movie is that Simon lied to the crew about some details due to lack of trust. It's obviously BS, but thats what has been said apparently.

Happens all the time in fiction.

 

It's analogous to graphic novels re-inventing stories in cycles, or the Batman Begins film, for example.

 

I think it is a lot healthier for people to think of truth in absolutes, especially in a narrative format, like film, and more in subjective terms.

 

For example, to celebrate its two hundredth anniversary, and in order to build a closer approximation to the objective truth of the Battle of Trafalgar using comprehensive accounts of historical documents from the British, French and Spanish naval archives, the narrative is more complex and richer. But as to what actually is the objective fact, no-one can really be certain.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Posted
It's hard to say till we see the dvd sales. Which is, surprisingly, estimated to start in Dec.

Not so surprising. After the low box office take, and the reason for the movie in the first place was DVD sales, they figured getting the DVD out by christmas would be the best way to get some money out of it.

The Star Trek films settled on about a $50M gross; the total take only has a bearing if it is a loss on the total film production costs, otherwise it will simply set the budget for the next film in the series. After all, they made a (very, very bad) sequel to Starship Troopers. :)

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Posted
Yeah ok, but like which version of events is canon?

 

Canon? This isn't bloody D&D :-

 

I'd say the movie is the new primary source. They seemed to really just be trying to toughen Simon up with the whole rescue.

Posted
They seemed to really just be trying to toughen Simon up with the whole rescue.

 

Well, it was more difficult to understand where Simon was coming from in the movie; it comes across as a bit arrogant to try to dictate the terms of a 'free ride' that saved his (and his sister's) skin. I didn't care awfully much for him in the series, but I understood him. If I had started by just watching the movie, I'd have wondered why he hadn't been thrown off the ship long ago.

The answer develops more slowly, that it's because the captain really does like--and believe in--River.

I'm sure the added toughness was a device to get backstory out in a hurry, and I think it was a commendable effort; it's never easy. But Simon came out a not-so-likable character, who I wouldn't have minded seeing killed off in the end.

Posted

What about Haven and Book leaving the crew? Where can i find that explanation?

For the firefly fans its a weak conclusion of his story - hintng that he was an operative and then killing him.

 

 

The little montage where they look like they are meeting up with old friends... who the hell were they?

 

I watched the film first and it seemed clear that the film was a reboot so as not to alienate non firefly fans but even so there were little eggs for the fans to enjoy. There is also stuff which raises questions either way.

Posted
What about Haven and Book leaving the crew? Where can i find that explanation?

For the firefly fans its a weak conclusion of his story - hintng that he was an operative and then killing him.

 

About Books past or Why he left Serenity?

 

Serenity - Comic books

 

Left - Whedon said that if there is sequels that Books past would be explored.

Posted
comic books!!!!??? gah!!

 

What would they do in sequels that would explain Book? Time travel? Or would Mal wake up to find him in the shower and realise his death was just a dream.

 

They'd probably be put in some sort of situation where Book comes up, and through investigation and flashbacks they'd find out.

The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Devastatorsig.jpg

Posted
comic books!!!!??? gah!!

 

What would they do in sequels that would explain Book? Time travel? Or would Mal wake up to find him in the shower and realise his death was just a dream.

 

They'd probably be put in some sort of situation where Book comes up, and through investigation and flashbacks they'd find out.

 

Yea, they run into someone who knew Book or the like, I assume

 

I mean, they are short a few crew members :blink:

Posted
They seemed to really just be trying to toughen Simon up with the whole rescue.

Well, it was more difficult to understand where Simon was coming from in the movie; it comes across as a bit arrogant to try to dictate the terms of a 'free ride' that saved his (and his sister's) skin. I didn't care awfully much for him in the series, but I understood him. If I had started by just watching the movie, I'd have wondered why he hadn't been thrown off the ship long ago.

The answer develops more slowly, that it's because the captain really does like--and believe in--River.

I'm sure the added toughness was a device to get backstory out in a hurry, and I think it was a commendable effort; it's never easy. But Simon came out a not-so-likable character, who I wouldn't have minded seeing killed off in the end.

I thought Simon was a great character; he was truly a lawful man and he held filial piety above all else (so refreshing to see, even if it is only fiction). I didn't think he was that arrogant, I felt he was more assertive: River was only a young adult, remember, and had had a sheltered (if not completely warped) upbringing. After all, Simon didn't try to impose on the other crew, and he did his chores (medical aid), he was just trying to ensure that River wasn't put in a dangerous situation. He did offer to leave when the captain and his differences crystalised.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Posted

Agreed, the original rescue was a little silly in the film. Far more believable in the series. Plus his honesty in the film illustrated how much he knew about the privilegde of his upbringing. The fact that he was aware of it then sacrificed it for loyalty. That's good bakin'.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Posted
I thought Simon was a great character; he was truly a lawful man and he held filial piety above all else (so refreshing to see, even if it is only fiction).

 

Oh, I agree. :huh:

 

River was only a young adult, remember, and had had a sheltered (if not completely warped) upbringing. After all, Simon didn't try to impose on the other crew, and he did his chores (medical aid), he was just trying to ensure that River wasn't put in a dangerous situation.

 

That's it, though. She's a young adult--not a child. Sheltered and warped maybe, but emotionally she now has a need to be treated as her own person, to make some decisions on her own. To be accepted and fit in. That's what the captain offers; and I see that as the real battleground between the two. It's natural for an older sibling (or a parent), I suppose, but Simon's still trying to control her and her environment completely. It's as much for him as for her--loss of that control makes his whole life empty. He does think to ask her, but only after the dice has been rolled.

 

Good stuff, those layers. BTW, my daughter loves Simon; and I'm firmly in Mal's camp. Makes for some interesting discussions, considering the role reversal.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...