New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Serenity (2005) - Page 2

post #51 of 92
1/27/10 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Mal View Post
Can't understand how Book continually gets overlooked in discussions about the film. I was as shocked and devastated as anyone else by Wash, but Book was one of the most intriguing characters on the series. Besides being arguably the most benevolent player (aside from perhaps Kaylee), he was also the most intriguing, and had the potential to be the most complex bad-ass on board. The loss of his character was every bit as traumatic as Wash's.
But it really isn't as traumatic as Wash's, because Book is in the film 5 minutes before he's killed, not to mention the fact it's very much expected when they discover the hideout has been ravaged by the government.

Wash's was so traumatic because he had just scored a major victory and his death came out of nowhere. It a slap in the face as opposed to Book's poignant fading away. There was no closure, just death.
Reply
post #52 of 92
1/27/10 at 5:01pm
And upon that first viewing, after Wash's death, you can't help but think that any one of the rest of the crew could bite it at any time.
Reply
post #53 of 92
1/27/10 at 5:07pm
I never knew how to feel about the fact that the rest of the crew make it through the fight unharmed. It feels kind of weird that none of the others die after Wash gets culled.

I understand why Whedon kills Wash. He needs to create this feeling of danger and dread for the rest of the crew and picking Wash is both an emotional blow because he's the most likeable of the crew AND the audience would view him as being non expendable. In most films or TV shows when someone like a pilot or engineer is going to die they usually introduce someone who can take on board their role or duty within the show. Wash at that point is the only person we know who can fly the ship so him being killed out of the blue is really shocking. If Zoe or Jayne had been killed it would still have been bad but they're both the MUSCLE of the crew and as such expendable.
Reply
post #54 of 92
1/27/10 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
I never knew how to feel about the fact that the rest of the crew make it through the fight unharmed. It feels kind of weird that none of the others die after Wash gets culled.

I understand why Whedon kills Wash. He needs to create this feeling of danger and dread for the rest of the crew and picking Wash is both an emotional blow because he's the most likeable of the crew AND the audience would view him as being non expendable. In most films or TV shows when someone like a pilot or engineer is going to die they usually introduce someone who can take on board their role or duty within the show. Wash at that point is the only person we know who can fly the ship so him being killed out of the blue is really shocking. If Zoe or Jayne had been killed it would still have been bad but they're both the MUSCLE of the crew and as such expendable.
Everyone except for Inara and River get pretty roughed up. Mal is beaten and stabbed. Zoe is slashed across the back. Jayne takes a bullet in the shoulder. Kaylee poison darts in the neck, and Simon is gut-shot.
Reply
post #55 of 92
1/27/10 at 5:21pm
I maintain that killing Wash was an ingenious move. The subsequent battle would have had zero tension without it.
Reply
post #56 of 92
1/27/10 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BankytheHack View Post
Everyone except for Inara and River get pretty roughed up. Mal is beaten and stabbed. Zoe is slashed across the back. Jayne takes a bullet in the shoulder. Kaylee poison darts in the neck, and Simon is gut-shot.
I'm thinking that Spike means that they were relatively unharmed in terms of plot. Nothing happened to any of the characters that couldn't be brushed off in another adventure as merely one battle wound out of many (such as the one that saves Mal from the Operative's finishing move). It's not like anyone lost a limb or something.
Reply
post #57 of 92
1/27/10 at 5:31pm
The problem with everyone getting wounded is that we as the audience already know how the fight is going to end. The entire point of that scene is to unleash the River and as such the damage that the crew takes is almost like a checklist of things to set River off.
Reply
post #58 of 92
1/27/10 at 5:45pm
I get that, but what I always took away from River's slaughter of the Reavers is that this was an emotional trigger for her to fight. Before, when River went off it was always in some way through her pyschosis. Her fight at Mr. Universe's compound was the first time River "chose" to fight of her own accord.
Reply
post #59 of 92
1/27/10 at 9:17pm
Yes, but Spike's point is that the entire battle leading up to that moment is just marking time. None of it really means anything, since her going off and killing all the bad guys single-handedly is a foregone conclusion. You can't be terribly engaged, because you're just waiting.
Reply
post #60 of 92
1/28/10 at 2:20pm
I look at Book and Wash's deaths as necessary motivators. Book's death is the final sign that Mal can't keep running and hoping that he can get away; it's the point where he begins to show his "other side", a man who is so motivated by grief and righteous anger that he is capable of doing terrible things (shooting an unarmed, surrendering man, desecrating his beloved ship) in order to do the right thing. Rewatching the movie, Book's death works for me because it's more about Mal than it is about Book. The reason for Wash's death has already been covered by others, so suffice it to say I agree with the decision.
Reply
post #61 of 92
1/29/10 at 12:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I'm thinking that Spike means that they were relatively unharmed in terms of plot. Nothing happened to any of the characters that couldn't be brushed off in another adventure as merely one battle wound out of many (such as the one that saves Mal from the Operative's finishing move). It's not like anyone lost a limb or something.
That's not true of Zoe. One gets the feeling she would be a very different character going forward.
Reply
post #62 of 92
1/29/10 at 3:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
I never knew how to feel about the fact that the rest of the crew make it through the fight unharmed. It feels kind of weird that none of the others die after Wash gets culled.

I understand why Whedon kills Wash. He needs to create this feeling of danger and dread for the rest of the crew and picking Wash is both an emotional blow because he's the most likeable of the crew AND the audience would view him as being non expendable. In most films or TV shows when someone like a pilot or engineer is going to die they usually introduce someone who can take on board their role or duty within the show. Wash at that point is the only person we know who can fly the ship so him being killed out of the blue is really shocking. If Zoe or Jayne had been killed it would still have been bad but they're both the MUSCLE of the crew and as such expendable.
And he's the only one in a loving committed relationship. That makes it worse.
Reply
post #63 of 92
1/29/10 at 3:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BankytheHack View Post
Everyone except for Inara and River get pretty roughed up. Mal is beaten and stabbed. Zoe is slashed across the back. Jayne takes a bullet in the shoulder. Kaylee poison darts in the neck, and Simon is gut-shot.
Simon getting gut-shot(and it looked like it HURT too) elicited a gasp from my audience.

I love Serenity. I think its so much more fun than the Abrams Star Trek.
Reply
post #64 of 92
7/28/10 at 3:40pm
Watched this again for the first time in a long time and I still like it quite a bit, but it's mainly because of the Mal story, everything with River just bores me, and the whole "Miranda" part of the film still bothers the hell out of me.

Of the two deaths the one that hit me more was Book, which surprised me because I never warmed to him on the show, and Wash is one of my favorites. The problem I have with Wash's death is that he's completely underused in the film. Book at least has that conversation with Mal about belief, which is one of my favorite scenes in the movie, and his death ties in better with Mal's story than Wash's death does.
Reply
post #65 of 92
7/29/10 at 5:47am
One thing I love about this is the way they got so much out of the small budget. At the beginning they have a hovercraft vehicle, like in the prequels. But unlike the prequels they have to go practical - or maybe Whedon wanted to - so they attach the hovercraft to the side of a truck with cameras on it and film it on location.

It feels a lot more real and exciting than in AOTC when Anakin Skywalker is flying the Endor hover thing, supposedly on exotic Tatooine but actually in front of really fake green screen CGI or whatever the hell it is.
Reply
post #66 of 92
7/29/10 at 7:34am
This is better than the series, but it's pretty obvious throughout that Whedon was learning on the job how to really be a film director, so it comes across pretty unpolished. I'm not fond of the way Book was dealt with, though I guess I've come around to seeing Wash's as necessary. The unsung hero of this is Chiwetel Ejiofor as the Operative. I would without regret put him in my top ten of sci-fi movie villains. The character is so fascinatingly complex in his fanatical belief that people can and should be forced to be better, and yet he knows he's as evil as those he is tasked to destroy. There is no room for him in the promised land. And it's actually really, really sad when Mal shatters his belief.
Reply
post #67 of 92
7/29/10 at 8:26am
There are THREE instances of characters staving off death just long enough to deliver important exposition. Clunky as fuck.
Reply
post #68 of 92
7/29/10 at 10:49am
The opening dream within a hologram was...odd. I'd only seen a few episodes of the show, but I understood what was going on although the exposition was a little overwhelming. River's gibberish rantings were classic Whedon (reminiscent of Tara in Buffy season 5 after Glory stole her mind, and the eyeless psychic in Astonishing X-Men) but didn't sit well with me here. Trying too hard?

The opening was so fun I kind of wish the entire movie was a sci-fi train robbing scenario. Still I understand this was their one shot so they tried to cram everything in. I never really felt that the Reaver explanation would bring down the whole government, but I understand why Mal felt it was necessary to get the information out.

What does this bode for The Avengers? Whedon can certainly handle a big cast. Better here than on Buffy, where it felt like Xander, Anya, Tara and Dawn would go whole episodes standing in the background.
Reply
post #69 of 92
7/29/10 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Shark View Post
The unsung hero of this is Chiwetel Ejiofor as the Operative.
For sure. I got the feeling that Whedon was more interested in the Operative than any of the main characters, save for maybe Mal. All the original crew gets to have a quick moment or two to shine, but considering how briskly paced this movie is, I was surprised to see a villain character this fleshed out. It also helps that Ejiofor is great.

My enthusiasm for Firefly has waned quite a bit over the years, but Serenity is still quite a bit of fun. Its a shame Whedon won't be revisiting this universe any time soon.
Reply
post #70 of 92
7/29/10 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
There are THREE instances of characters staving off death just long enough to deliver important exposition. Clunky as fuck.
Probably my biggest problem with the film. The fight in the consort's room is the worst, culminating with "And that's not incense". I don't even know where to begin with what's wrong with that scene.
Reply
post #71 of 92
7/29/10 at 12:34pm
It's well directed and charming and Whedon opens it all up beautifully, but the script is just the worst kind of derivative space-jockey stuff. The cliches work on TV, it's a longform medium where a certain amount of button-pushing and contrivance can be forgiven because of the exhaustive nature of the genre's back catalogue. But with a film there are no rules and all bets should have been off. There's no need to fall back on genre cliches, it feels lazy and entirely unlike the guy who so often refused to take the easy route in stuff like BUFFY and ANGEL. Despite the character deaths and action and Alliance downfall and whatnot it still feels well within the confines of its small-screen genre, like Whedon did a great job of making a TV movie or extended blowoff episode look cinematic.
Reply
post #72 of 92
7/29/10 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
What does this bode for The Avengers?
This is actually part of the reason I decided to watch it again, and I'm a little more encouraged than I was before. I'm not worried about the character aspect, but I'm still wondering if Whedon can pull of big budget action spectacle. I really like the continuous shot through Serenity introducing everyone at the beginning, and I've always found the Reaver chase and the climactic action scene to be a lot of fun. I'm curious to see what he'll do with the amount of resources he'll be given on THE AVENGERS.
Reply
post #73 of 92
7/29/10 at 4:46pm
While Serenity is pretty decent for a film directing debut, there are some shots that just reek of a TV show. The scene of Mal and Inara escaping from the Companion house reeks of it.
Reply
post #74 of 92
7/29/10 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Shark View Post
The unsung hero of this is Chiwetel Ejiofor as the Operative.
I remember an article from around the time this came out (possibly even the review) joking that his name meant he'd never be famous, and I can't help but think there's some truth in that (not exclusively of course, but it's not helping). The guys been stellar in everything I've seen, and it's a shame he's not more well known. The character was interesting, but without the performance Ejiofor gives it could so easily have been laughable.
Reply
post #75 of 92
7/30/10 at 9:16am
I'm someone else who also saw the film first, and then "discovered" the show.

I don't think the film works all that well by itself. And it's certainly not as good as the best episodes, greater budget for sets and effects notwithstanding. I like the movie, but it's hard for me to separate out my love for the characters from that.

That said, I do really enjoy the film, and it has some great moments and lines. Mal's use of the Reaver fleet against the alliance was pretty cool, and my daughters and I appropriate "She is damaging my calm" all the time.
Reply
post #76 of 92
7/30/10 at 11:53am
Being invested in the characters after watching the series made the experience of viewing the movie much richer. I watched with a buddy who had never seen Firefly and he had a hard time getting into it. We both enjoyed the large scale space battle at the end though. Great villain too.
Reply
post #77 of 92
7/30/10 at 10:32pm
I still haven't watched the whole series. I think I've seen all of two episodes.

I actually enjoy the movie quite a bit, but I did have to ask my wife a few clarifying questions afterward.
Reply
post #78 of 92
8/28/10 at 8:27pm
I watched the movie before the TV show. I was so impressed that I bought the series on DVD. Now when I watch the scene in Serenity when Simon decks Mal and calls him a son of a whore, I think back to the pilot and think Simon has probably been waiting to do that for a long time.
Reply
post #79 of 92
8/30/10 at 10:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Shark View Post
The unsung hero of this is Chiwetel Ejiofor as the Operative. I would without regret put him in my top ten of sci-fi movie villains. The character is so fascinatingly complex in his fanatical belief that people can and should be forced to be better, and yet he knows he's as evil as those he is tasked to destroy. There is no room for him in the promised land. And it's actually really, really sad when Mal shatters his belief.
This is why I didn't like the ending, because the Operative should've comitted suicide, thats where I thought it was going. The very first time we meet the dude, he tells some dude he need to perform ritual suicide in order to redeem a mistake, and then he kills him. I mean they needed to at least give a reason as to why he rejected everything he was babbling on about, and why he chose to live.

Regardless I still love the film, its just awesome. The deathbed confessions don't bother me, its a Whedon convention, cheesy yes, but considering the tone and what the film is, not one bit bothersome or even out of place.
Reply
post #80 of 92
8/31/10 at 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabster View Post
I mean they needed to at least give a reason as to why he rejected everything he was babbling on about, and why he chose to live.
That's what the videogram (or whatever it was) that Mal forced him to watch did. The Operative didn't ask questions before, and now he was forced to watch answers.
Reply
post #81 of 92
8/31/10 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teitr Styrr View Post
That's what the videogram (or whatever it was) that Mal forced him to watch did. The Operative didn't ask questions before, and now he was forced to watch answers.
I still think the natural conclusion is he kills himself. Doesn't he talk about how he thinks of himself as a monster, and how there is no place for him the new world? Knowing hes a monster also allows him to do things such as kill innocents as he does. As a monster there is no place in Mals world either.

And anyway the videogram shows how the alliance killed innocents in an experiment, and this is supposed to shock the badass Operative who kills kids with a smile on his face into complacence? We're repeatedly told and shown the Operative is a true believer, if he was, he should've fallen on his sword. I can understand why Whedon didn't go this route, since it would've made the ending less neat, and probably come off as melodramatic. This isn't a Japanese drama afterall.
Reply
post #82 of 92
8/31/10 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabster View Post
I still think the natural conclusion is he kills himself. Doesn't he talk about how he thinks of himself as a monster, and how there is no place for him the new world?
No, his rudderless state at the end of the movie is a nod to Book's origins.
Reply
post #83 of 92
8/31/10 at 1:59pm
The best reason to watch Firefly?

Christina Hendricks as a Whore.
"Firefly" .... Saffron (2 episodes, 2002-2003)
... aka "Firefly: The Series" - USA (long title)
- Trash (2003) TV episode .... Saffron
Our Mrs. Reynolds (2002) TV episode .... Saffron
Reply
post #84 of 92
8/31/10 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay f View Post
The best reason to watch Firefly?

Christina Hendricks as a Whore.
"Firefly" .... Saffron (2 episodes, 2002-2003)
... aka "Firefly: The Series" - USA (long title)
- Trash (2003) TV episode .... Saffron
Our Mrs. Reynolds (2002) TV episode .... Saffron
I'm starting to kind of hate Christina Hendricks.
Reply
post #85 of 92
8/31/10 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabster View Post
I still think the natural conclusion is he kills himself. Doesn't he talk about how he thinks of himself as a monster, and how there is no place for him the new world? Knowing hes a monster also allows him to do things such as kill innocents as he does. As a monster there is no place in Mals world either.

And anyway the videogram shows how the alliance killed innocents in an experiment, and this is supposed to shock the badass Operative who kills kids with a smile on his face into complacence? We're repeatedly told and shown the Operative is a true believer, if he was, he should've fallen on his sword. I can understand why Whedon didn't go this route, since it would've made the ending less neat, and probably come off as melodramatic. This isn't a Japanese drama afterall.
I thought that the Operative said something along the lines of even though he is a monster, and has no place in this "better" world, that what he was doing (and how he did it) did help create that "better" world. He found out from the video that simply wasn't the case. This wasn't a better world. The alliance already had monsters willing to do monstrous things. His blind devotion to a better world wasn't so blind anymore. I'm not saying you are wrong by the way. It's just the way I see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt M View Post
No, his rudderless state at the end of the movie is a nod to Book's origins.
Oh, I like that.
Reply
post #86 of 92
8/31/10 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
I'm starting to kind of hate Christina Hendricks.
Spike is gay. News at 11.

For those of you with broken sardonimeters, that was humor.
Reply
post #87 of 92
8/31/10 at 6:43pm
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the term "over-exposed" (booyah!) will never apply to Christina Hendricks.

Not for a really long time anyways.
Reply
post #88 of 92
9/1/10 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt M View Post
No, his rudderless state at the end of the movie is a nod to Book's origins.
This is so glaringly obvious I can't believe the parallel never hit me until I saw your post.

Well done.
Reply
post #89 of 92
9/1/10 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt M View Post
No, his rudderless state at the end of the movie is a nod to Book's origins.
I like this theory, however, is there any evidence to suggest this? Don't remember ever seeing Books origin.

I seriously love Christina Hendricks, don't know how anyone couldn't. Shes digital sex, and can act too.
Reply
post #90 of 92
9/1/10 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabster View Post
I like this theory, however, is there any evidence to suggest this? Don't remember ever seeing Books origin.

I seriously love Christina Hendricks, don't know how anyone couldn't. Shes digital sex, and can act too.
During the movie I don't remember anything. However, during Firefly there hints dropped fairly often that he was more than a preacher.
Reply
post #91 of 92
9/2/10 at 6:36pm
I felt it was pretty clear just from the movie that he was a former operative, or at least had extensive experience in dealing with them. He had this whole "You don't know what you're up against" vibe when the subject arose.
Reply
post #92 of 92
9/5/10 at 6:28pm
I guess it is a little obvious. But I assumed Book was something more than an operative? I don't know what I thought other than it was something that would surprise me.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video