Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Sci-Fi

Serenity Trounces Star Wars 710

DogBotherer writes "The BBC is reporting that the film Serenity has been voted the number-one Sci Fi film of all time. Serenity is a followup to the series Firefly. The 2005 film beat out Star Wars better than two-to-one for the top honors. This result came in a poll of 3000 readers of SFX magazine.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Serenity Trounces Star Wars

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Genre (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy ( 963289 ) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @02:43AM (#18583889) Homepage Journal
    Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.

    Yeah! And I want to know why LOTR wasn't on the list?
  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @02:50AM (#18583949)
    I think if they were operating systems Serenity would be Linux (small market share in general, but popularised in geek circles by very loyal fans/users). Star Wars would be Windows (huge market share, almost no loyalty). This being a nerd poll, Serenity will win by a huge margin.
  • Come on (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MemoryDragon ( 544441 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @02:51AM (#18583955)
    I loved the TV show, but I hated the movie, the plot was shallow, everything feeled pressed into the movie format there was no character development whatsoever (I especially hated how they cut out pretty much everything where Morena Baccarin hat part in it) The movie was mediocre, it felt like a mediocre episode of the TV show.
  • Not even most active (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @02:57AM (#18583987)
    Look at Star Wars - coming up is Star Wars Celebration IV [gencon.com], where around 30,000 people will attend. Having been to the last Star Wars Celebration in Indianapolis, I can easily believe those numbers.

    Now look at the last Serenity convention - the Flanvention. Even if it had not abruptly folded the day before it was to go off, it only had some 500 people attending - as did the one the year before that I attended. Now partly that was a limitation by choice of the event organizers, but I'm not sure they quite reached even 500 the first one.

    I really, really like Firefly and Serenity - but they have no-where near the fan base that Star Wars does, in either size or bredth or sheer fanatisim. This was just a case of Browncoats gaming the polls before the Star Wars Bantha could wake to smite them.
  • Re:Damn Brits! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Umuri ( 897961 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:00AM (#18583995)
    How exactly is star wars somehow less scifi then firefly?

    I'd wager that there is more theoretical technology and theoretical futuristic social structure in star wars then serenity and probably most of firefly.
    So what do you define as science fiction?
    I mean, it's fiction, about science.
    Firefly barely had enough science to make it not qualify as a current fiction w/ spaceships.
  • by Zapraki ( 737378 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:00AM (#18583997)

    I really enjoy both the Firefly and Star Wars universes. That being said, there's a LOT more material to be found for the latter, orders of magnitude more.

    In a way, I think this poll shows some disappointment with some of that vast collection of material for Star Wars. Some of it is very, very good (the original trilogy, KotOR, etc.), but some of it isn't quite so good... in fact, some of it's really quite ridiculously bad [wikipedia.org].

    Firefly/Serenity, on the other hand, is:
    a) relatively new and fresh in our minds
    b) excitingly dynamic, humorous, sexy, etc. in a way that Star Wars failed to be in Episodes I-III
    c) a fairly small collection of material. All of it quite good (imho).

    There's something to be said for having such a high overall level of quality in such a concentrated amount of material.

    However, I do agree that a similar poll 20 years from now might not have Firefly in the top 10. Then again, maybe Star Wars will decline over time?

  • by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:01AM (#18583999)
    Where is "Brazil"? Where is "12 Monkeys"?

    "Serenity" was fun and all, but those are good films...
  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:01AM (#18584001)
    I'm confused as to where the sci-fi was in the movie? I mean, there wasn't any sci-fi in Star Wars either. Fantasy based in the future, sure. But sci-fi? Why, because there's space ships?

    And while I thought the movie was okay, I didn't care nearly as much for the television series. In fact, I would say that if the television series had tried a little less to be Brisco County Junior and had been a little more like the movie, it would have at least made it a full season or two.
  • by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:11AM (#18584055)
    Serenity is a good movie, and i think their producers did a fine job of keeping the storyline as independent of the original series, Firefly, as possible. Having said that, yes, i felt the same as you did - it's too convoluted of a story. Sadly enough, a lot of things in the movie simply won't make much sense without having watched the series.

    Now, let me give you some advice. If you wanted to like Serenity but felt it was lacking character developement and plot, i suggest you give the Firefly DVD boxset a try. Hell, just buy it. The movie is OK, but the series were mindblowing, IMHO, and some of the finest blend of sci-fi and adventure i witnesed on TV in quite a while. I know a lot of people who didn't think much about the movie but fell in love with the series after watching a few episodes.
  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by paganizer ( 566360 ) <thegrove1NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:11AM (#18584057) Homepage Journal
    weeellll... I saw Starwars in a theatre in Bakerfield, CA when it first came out. I saw it 6 times on opening weekend. Whenever anyone says "Star Wars", it takes me a minute to realize that they aren't talking about Episode IV. So to me, Star Wars is Episode IV, and blows the airlocks off of Serenity without even trying. However, if you consider "Star Wars" as everything put on film as being Star Wars "canon", and Serenity also including Firefly as "Canon", then serenity/firefly wins.
  • puh-lease (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:15AM (#18584085)
    Does anyone think there would even *be* a Mal Reynolds if there hadn't been a Han Solo first?(and yes, they both shot first!)

    Despite the depths of mediocrity that Lucas has since sunk to, give credit where credit is due. Star Wars and all the technology that ILM created during the making of the Star Wars films changed the industry forever. Blade Runner certainly changed the look of sci-fi films, but it still didn't have the impact that Star Wars did. I'm not sure that was the overriding criterion for making the list, though.

    Serenity was great (GREAT! "I am a leaf on the wind!"), but c'mon, let's not get stupid here. While you don't have to have watched Firefly before Serenity to enjoy it, it certainly helps immensely. The whole Mal/Inara history has much more comedic impact if you have the Firefly backstory. The Rev? A complete throwaway character if you haven't watched Firefly!

    The bigger surprise(s) of the list (for me) were what was included, that most fans have forgotten:

    Planet of the Apes (the original) and Forbidden Planet. Right on.

    Back to the Future? Uhm, I don't think so.

    The Star Wars film that most fans seem to think was the best (Empire Strikes Back) wasn't even on the list? That seems a little odd.
  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Fallingcow ( 213461 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:41AM (#18584271) Homepage
    Agreed.

    I tried to get in to the series, but it kind of sucked, so I stopped.

    Saw the movie, thought it was OK, mostly because it didn't seem much like the show. The plot was cookie-cutter to such a degree that it was almost impressive; you could drop that plot in to a movie with just about any set of characters and any sort of dialog and make it fit well enough to get a movie of roughly that same quality. Probably could have made a Trek movie out of it, for example, and it may well have been better than Insurrection (God that movie sucked). Point is, the fact that it was Firefly isn't why the movie was decent.

    I'm willing to allow for differences in taste and admit that the show might be good, but the movie is the best sci-fi movie ever? Bullshit.

    Alien/Aliens? 2001? Blade Runner? SW:ANH or ESB and a slew of other fantasy-ish stuff that seems to fall under the common definition of sci-fi? Actually, I'd class just about every sci-fi movie of ANY note WHATSOEVER from the last 30-40 years as being at or above (often very much above) the level of Serenity.

    Brown-coats aside, I doubt that this show and movie will be widely remembered in 20 years. Those movies I listed have already endured that long, and shows like Babylon 5, Quantum Leap, The X-Files, Star Trek TNG and DS9, and the new Battlestar Galactica will almost certainly all outlive it (OK, maybe not Quantum Leap ;) ).

    Hell, I'd even say that Farscape has a better shot at enjoying some level of popularity 20 years from now than Firefly does.
  • Re:Rigging (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aadvancedGIR ( 959466 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @03:52AM (#18584345)
    That's always the problem when a poll is based on the will to participate (and knowledge of its exitence).
    In 1999, the city of Paris organized an online poll in which we were asked to vote for the most important person of those two millenia and someone in my electronic school put his name, so we all voted for him, then another scholl put up its own champion against ours. shortly before closing the poll, they had to eject both of them because their poll, supposed to be based on notoriety, had two totally unkown winners above 40% each, with Jesus being a good third around 3% and everyone else below 0.5%.
  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:2, Interesting)

    by EonBlueTooL ( 974478 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @04:12AM (#18584485)
    Phantom menace: 133 minutes
    Attack of the clones: 142 minutes
    Revenge of the sith: 140 minutes
    A new hope: 121 minutes
    Empire strikes back: 124 minutes
    Return of the Jedi: 134 minutes
    For a total of 794 minutes.

    Fellowship of the ring: 178 minutes
    Two towers: 179 minutes
    Return of the king: 201 minutes
    For a total of 558 minutes

    You don't have to force an entire story into 120 minutes. What would happen if they did that with the lord of the rings series? Star Wars? (I've watched them both at seperate times back to back, infact I prefer it that way, but im usually the exception and not the rule)
  • by BrianRagle ( 1016523 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .elgarb.> on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @04:50AM (#18584691) Homepage
    This is one of the few topics I feel strongly compelled enough to comment on. For those who voted Serenity topping Star Wars, I understand completely. Let's be real here. Star Wars was a space opera, a caricature of science fiction. The SF genre, in my own opinion, is one that deals in honest ways with how science impacts our lives on a daily basis. Star Wars wasn't an original story to this genre. It was the same old good versus evil, take down the evil conglomerate story which could have easily been told in a Western. Serenity crossed boundaries in ways Star Wars did not. It relied on a political back story familiar to those of us not subject to "empires" even as it showed a human side to the struggle. What? Luke Skywalker lost his hand in a lightsaber battle to Darth Vader, only to have it replaced by seamless prosthetic? Malcolm Reynolds got the crap kicked out of him and LIMPED away from his LUCKY defeat of the bad guy. His crew fared no better. The story itself was more relevant to our society than Star Wars. The primary struggle in Star Wars was Luke not becoming his father and joining the monolithic religion his own version of which was opposed to. It was individualistic, properly suited for the coming 80s decade of similar attitudes of self-preservation. Serenity dealt with issues of survival of minority against a seemingly benevolent majority. It mirrored one man's issues of being on the losing side of a war and contrasted them to the why's and how's wars are won and lost. Given the 14 episodes of backstory from the single season it was on and one comes away with an even better understanding of this movie. In summary, Serenity trumps Star Wars as a sci-fi movie because it is actually more REAL and deals more specifically with real issues. It is not some fairytale fantasy story, able to be retold in any genre without losing anything.
  • FLAK (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @05:15AM (#18584841)

    What's even more hilarious is that Serenity even made the top ten.
    In a way Serenity was a cool movie I really liked it when they strapped a piece of German WWII 20mm FLAK to the roof of their spacecraft... it was funny. And before somebody points it out, Yes, I know Salyut 3 supposedly had a gun installed so it may actually be a practical proposition to fire cannons in space but this movie is supposed to take place five hundred years into the future after mankind has abandoned Earth. The last thing I'd take with me on a trip like that would be WWII museum pieces. How much would it have cost the film crew to cobble together some sort of 'phaser' cannon?
  • by pmc ( 40532 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @05:52AM (#18585047) Homepage
    Blade Runner - the plot was fairly straightforward.

    Replicants (the bad guys) return to earth and they are hunted down by a cop (the good guy). Cop kills all the replicants, but falls for another one, and they do a runner.

    The questions that the plot raised - what made the replicants not human? what makes humans human? Was the cop human or not? How do we know our memories are real? - are all pretty deep, complex, and ambigious. Add to that top quality acting from everyone, superb cinematography, good backstory (a dank, dreary, rainy world), a good script (once they ditched the noir voice-over), and all the little touches (like the photos on Deckard's piano, the owl and the snake) some memorable lines (which are not endlessly requoted by the office wit, keeping them freash) and you have a great movie.
  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheVelvetFlamebait ( 986083 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @08:02AM (#18585783) Journal

    Serenity was an important scifi film and will be talked about still in ten years, as will the Firefly series.
    Having seen only the last 30 seconds of one firefly episode, I can't comment on the series, but I have seen the film. It wasn't at all bad, but I can't see anything in it that really merits significant conversation down the track. What would people talk about that it has that no other movie has? (Feel free to enlighten me /. - that question is more than just rhetorical)

    The only way that I can see it being talked about is as an afterthought to the series, assuming it's good.
  • Agreed... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitalhermit ( 113459 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @08:14AM (#18585885) Homepage
    I've seen a lot of "science fiction" movies, and I mean a *lot*. I put the quotes around the words "science fiction" because I'm being really generous about what SF is. It includes the Star Treks and the Star Wars, the Serenitys and the 2001s, and other stuff that's only SF because some studio executive saw "lasers" and "babes in leather" and thought that made it so (this is why execs show T'pol grunting around in panties and bra and shouting essentially, "F*ck me or I'll die" and thinking that it'll endure beyond the immediate tittilation of watching Jolene Blalock in panties and bra).

    Serenity passes my definition of SF because it does a couple things: explores what happens when technology is used properly and improperly; explores what it means to be human in light of technology showing that we're nothing much more than a chemical soup. The technology must be central somehow. It must be the sine qua non...

    But that alone would make a really dry movie. It would be like reading "The Pilgrim's Progress" or some Sunday school homily. IMHO, Serenity rocks because the characters are so believable. They're foils certainly. Mal is the typical anti-hero, Jayne the none-too-bright tough guy, Zoe the hardened warrior with a soft side... Heck, they're all warriors in some way.... But you end up liking them and being concerned about their well-being. I couldn't say that about Harry Potter, or hell, even Anakin.

    And perhaps lastly, Serenity didn't take itself too seriously. It was a Western shot in space by design. There was no pretense. It didn't preach about ideals and the Price of Humanity or The Dangers of War or We're Humans So We're Better. The Serenity crew were thieves and murderers by most laws moral and otherwise. But they were family. And that's nothing to sneeze at.

    So yeah, it would get my vote too.

  • Sci-Fi Movies... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thejynxed ( 831517 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @08:45AM (#18586159)
    Some of my favorites in no particular order:

    Brazil
    Blade Runner
    Altered States
    The Fly
    Solaris
    Red Planet
    Forbidden Planet
    Metropolis
    Alien/Aliens
    The Day the Earth Stood Still
    Invasion of the Body Snatchers
    Tron
    Dr. Strangelove
    The Last Starfighter (cheesy I know, but what is cooler than a kid who becomes the hero of the universe by getting top score in an arcade game)
    Logan's Run
    THX1138
    Alien Nation
    Amazing Stories
    The Black Hole
    Westworld
    Charly (film adaptation of Flowers for Algernon)
    War Games
    Colossus: The Forbin Project
    Dark City
    Dark Star

    And the list could go on and on and on..... (really, I have tons more I love to watch now and again)

    Notice, you don't see Serenity or Star Wars on there. Yes, I do like them, but do I consider them Sci-Fi? Maybe in the same way that I consider "The Terminator" or "The Transformers" to be Sci-Fi.

    Serenity was a spaghetti-western in space, only not as good as the real spaghetti westerns such as "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" or "Pale Rider". I didn't even think Firefly was that great either. Star Wars was entertaining, but I thought it just to be another action flick like Indiana Jones or whatnot, only set in space. Don't get me wrong, I love the movie, but I just didn't see it like I guess some other people see it. The Empire Strikes Back was excellent, and one of the few in the series that Lucas didn't get to screw up the first time around, hence why it was better than the rest. Space opera definitely. I felt like I was watching a fancier Flash Gordon with a better plot.

    BTW: Everyone needs to quit dwelling on the whole "Luke this" "Luke that" thing. The entire story arc of the movie series was about Darth Vader, not Luke. The whole Luke obsession thing is almost homo-erotic :P
  • by eck011219 ( 851729 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @08:59AM (#18586331)
    With the possible exception of Forbidden Planet, these are films that people roughly my age and younger (36) remember being released. While I know you can only vote on what you know, it's certainly a limited array. I immediately noticed the lack of A Trip to the Moon, the first (1902) sci-fi film ever made (and a quite entertaining one, at that). Metropolis isn't exactly pure sci-fi, but it has its own very prominent elements of sci-fi.

    And while I know I'll get myself modded down here, I would argue that The Matrix is more about the special effects than the story -- I think anyone who ever got high with friends from their honors physics class has had discussions that go along the Matrix plot path. It was a pretty and cool-looking movie, but was certainly not innovative as far as the story went.

    'Course, by that argument, the fact that Star Wars (IV) is just the hero myth revisited should get it taken off the list (though it clearly belongs there). So it could just be that I hate Keanu Reeves and that further colored my opinion.

    Either way, it seems like some older classics were missed. Not surprising considering the likely target demographic of a sci-fi magazine, but still. It's like my saying that I'm the strongest man in my house -- true, and my wife and daughter and female cat would agree. But there's not a sufficient data set present to make that mean anything.
  • To quote Mal... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theghost ( 156240 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @09:37AM (#18586771)
    "They won't see this comin'."

    As both a Star Wars and a Firefly fan, my first reaction to this news was disbelief, but as i read a bit and thought a bit, i realized that i agree - Serenity is better. Of course you have to realize that no matter what the poll actually said, both were judged on their entire series, not just on the individual movies. Star Wars includes episodes 1-6 and Serenity includes Firefly. Would you rather watch Episode 2 or any 4 episodes of Firefly? Star Wars was the phenomenon that it was because it was new and amazing. Serenity was better because the story and characters are better.

    Plus, be honest, when the Serenity and her 'escorts' come flying out of that nebula, don't shivers just run down your spine? No scene comes close to that "whoa" factor in all of Star Wars, imo. (Blasphemous as it may be to say, the light saber fight between Darth Maul, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Qui-Gon Jin probably comes the closest.)

    Whether Serenity (+Firefly) is better than a lot of the others is a much tougher question.
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @09:46AM (#18586879)
    First of all, let me say that I was a HUGE Firefly fan (though not a fan of Whedon's other work). I thought the series was absolutely groundbreaking at its best. Episodes like "Ariel," "Out of Gas," and "Jaynestown" subverted the classic hero stereotypes and stock character expectations which had generally been the mainstay of sci-fi television. But, that said, I *HATED* "Serenity" the movie. No, that's not accurate. I HATED HATED HATED it (to paraphrase Roger Ebert's review of "North").

    The plot was pedestrian, the characters who were so rich and multi-dimensional on the show were reduced to almost comic simplicity in the movie (and, in the case of Simon, COMPLETELY altered). Malcolm Reynolds, for example, was presented on the show as a decent, but harsh and practical, mercenary who felt a strong loyalty to his crew but had completely rejected juvenile notions of "changing the world" from his younger days. In the movie, he's presented as a stock reluctant hero, just waiting to save the world and make bombastic speeches at the slightest provocation (it was as if the old Mal had been replaced by a retired James T. Kirk). It was the kind of implausible and simplistic "redemption" story that would be perfectly at home in fan fiction written by an 6th grader.

    The movie was also loaded with ridiculous "crowd pleaser" fight scenes and FX extravaganzas, with Whedon even ripping HIMSELF off with the cheeseball and ludicrous "River the Reaver Slayer" fight scene (at least Buffy's ability to defy all known physics could be explained by magic). This would have been bad enough had the FX in the movie looked even as good as the series. I don't know who they hired to do the special FX in this movie, but it's rare to see FX in a movie adaptation that look WORSE than in the TV series (was that landspeeder chase scene meant as some kind of JOKE, a la "Army of Darkness"?!?!?)

    I could go on and on. But, suffice it to say that I wish they had simply left the series alone. The movie failed on virtually every front.

    Firefly was really meant to be a series, and was ill-suited for the feature film form (even if they HAD done a better job of it).

    I just hope Ronald Moore learned a lesson from Whedon's mistake. Don't do it, Ron.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @10:39AM (#18587719) Journal

    The questions that the plot raised - what made the replicants not human? what makes humans human?
    Unfortunately, much of the plot from the book which supported this question was dropped from the film. In the book, humans were regarded as superior because they were capable of empathy, while replicants were not (hence the test from both the film and the book). This was taken much further in the book; humans were expected to keep some kind of pet to prove (socially, rather than legally) that they were capable of empathising with animals, while replicants were happy to kill animals (and humans). Some of the revelations later in the book cast doubts on whether this was actually a good metric.
  • by Iambic Pentametor ( 155674 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @10:42AM (#18587767)
    But, look at what happened when Flanvention II fell through. By all reports, the Browncoat Backup Bash was better than Flanvention II ever would have been.

    I'll second the comment above that points out that this just shows Serenity has a fanatical fan-base. That is what make the whole Firefly/Serenity phenomenon worthy of note. Star Wars (ep IV) was a cultural phenomenon that has echoed through scifi movies ever since. I suspect that 20 years from now, Firefly/Serenity will be seen to have redefined how scifi fandom works.

    Me? I'm a proud Browncoat.
  • Comment removed (Score:1, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @10:43AM (#18587791)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @10:47AM (#18587855)
    If you haven't seen FireFly, then I wouldn't expect you to think much of Serenity, because you don't have the correct context in which to place the film.

    I guess I'll have to be the exception that proves the rule... I saw Serenity first and completely enjoyed it. I got enough from the dialogue and how everyone played off each other to figure enough to not be confused.

    Did I understand everything? Probably not. But even after seeing Firefly I still don't, but on the other hand, I found the verse crafted well enough that I figure even if I don't know an exact reason for something, one exists that makes sense.
  • by AdamThor ( 995520 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @01:23PM (#18590335)
    And while I know I'll get myself modded down here, I would argue that The Matrix is more about the special effects than the story -- I think anyone who ever got high with friends from their honors physics class has had discussions that go along the Matrix plot path. It was a pretty and cool-looking movie, but was certainly not innovative as far as the story went.

    The Matrix wasn't exactly full of original ideas - though I was happily taken unaware by events in the theater. The Matrix's greatness is not its scientific foundation, or its originality - rather it's the opposite of originality: it's greatness comes in the refinement and purification of an existing societal impulse.

    The quality in The Matrix comes from it's near-perfect exemplification of the story archetype I'll call "I'm A Secret Ninja." I personally hadn't even formally noted the existance of this archetype (though any would be familiar with it's implementation) until The Matrix. IASN is charecterized by events where any joe off the street is, unbeknownst to everyone including himself, the secret, supreme badass.

    I think that The Matrix's perfect exemplification of this archetype and it's clean shearing away of everything that is not related, along with the way it makes you love it (sequal backlash notwithstanding) makes it a masterpiece of pop culture.

    It's pretty easy to dislike Keanu Reeves, and it's pretty easy to dislike the subsequent Matrix movies. But The Matrix itself is the pure embodiment of every sullen 'I could kick his ass...' thought you, or anyone else, has ever had. And for that reason it's pretty cool.

    BTW - I agree with your point about classic SF.
  • by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @01:43PM (#18590627) Journal

    The original versions were simply not as fleshed-out as the enhanced versions. The colors in the newer ones were more lively and the little digital effects (I particularly remember some little droid doo-dads floating by a stormtrooper)

    More special effects makes the movie better? That is what you seem to be implying. The reason the original SW movies from the 70s are better is certainly not because of the special effects (even thought they do stand the test of time). The stories were better, and had less character and plot development geared to marketing. Except for those fucking Ewoks of course which is the point at which the fanchise started going downhill fast. As for the special effects of the second batch of movies, much of it was overdone. Jar Jar Dink, the 'Oh so cool' Darth Moll face paint, etc. All marketing CRAP!

    I put your arguement in the same box with the Star Trek NG as being better than TOS because it had better special effects. When I believe the TOS was better because the writing was. They relied on the story more than the effects. Admittedely because they had to, but a lesson should be learned from that. Less is more.

  • by pmc ( 40532 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @04:12PM (#18593389) Homepage
    I thought that the dream of the unicorn was his transition from replicant to human (along with his falling in love with Rachel). Pointing towards that humanity is an accumulation of experience and a result of interactions with others, rather than a given state for an organism.

    But the fact that the movie can even provoke such a discussion is a sign of a classic.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @04:18PM (#18593507)

    Come to think of it, while their onboard computervoice mumbled some chinees, I never heard any of the other characters speak any chinese.

    Huh? I don't remember a computer talking at all. Almost all the characters, even the proper ones, swear in chinese. Some people with too much time on their hands even translated it all and it was by no means a small Website.

    Well, that's because they're alien characters! And there you were, complaining that you wanted something else than human drives and emotions!

    Well, one of them is supposed to be human, and I find it hard to swallow that an alien race would act alien in a way that just happens to resemble shallow writing and bad acting on Earth :)

    I think there we disgress the most. At least when it comes down to evaluating the value of a *SF*-show.

    I'm not so keen on categorizing things into neat little bundles. I don't care if someone calls something fantasy or action or drama or sci-fi, so long as it is good. I appreciate the sci-fi elements, but by themselves they are not enough to make for an interesting story.

    ...though I bet we both like Bladerunner....

    I love the movie and the book it is based upon. It was very well done on many levels.

    I DID force myself to see every episode of firefly, though, even though I thought most were not very good. Can you say the same about Farscape?

    I tried, but even drinking myself into a stupor was not enough to get me through more than about 6 of them.

    Btw, unrelated; the 99bottlesofbeerinmyF...what does the 'F' stand for? :-)

    I actually entered "99BottlesOfBeerInMyFridge" but slashdot truncated it :) Nice chatting with you.

  • Re:I hate Star Wars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by walkerp1 ( 523460 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2007 @06:35PM (#18596163)
    Count me in on that. I had not even heard of Firefly when Serenity came out. I think my first glimpse was an Inara screen saver that I downloaded (one in probably three screen savers in my lifetime). I drooled over Morena Baccarin and counted the days for the release of Serenity. I ditched work and deceived my wife to carve out a time slot to see it.

    And I was truly amazed.

    So I did it again, and again, and again. Then I counted the days until the DVD came out and came up off my hip for a movie for the first time in almost a half-decade. I had to have more, so I did a little research and discovered that there existed a whole whopping season of Serenity (Firefly, I know). In an unheard-of twice-in-a-year, I shelled out my coveted clams for the series.

    I made myself watch no more than one episode a day. This took an incredible amount of willpower I must admit. When the curtain came down on the last episode, I felt all hollow inside, like a friend had died. This was both similar and yet distinctly different from the black-hole feeling I got at the end of Blake's 7 - which left me feeling more betrayed than anything else.

    The movie is truly eclipsed by the series, yet it serves a vital role in providing closure on many issues.

    That being said, my firstborn daughter is named Leah Skye Walker, so you can imagine that I regard Star Wars with more that a little nostalgia. In terms of movie milestones, Star Wars (ep. 4-6) leads Serenity by far IMHO, but if you held a gun to my DVD collection and told me to choose, I'd take Serenity/Firefly in an instant.

    I'm already getting the shakes...must....go

    And p.s. Once I actually saw the movie, I replaced my screen saver with Jewel Staite :)

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Working...