DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Serenity (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) (1 Viewer)

[BrandonJF]

Listen to the commentary.

The film's "purpose" isn't to be the last episode of a tv series. Yes, it was a means of closure for Whedon, but it is so apparent that Whedon knows the difference between making a tv show and making a theatrical movie. From listening to his commentary over the feature and deleted scenes, I certainly got the impression that those differences were at the forefront of his mind while creating "Serenity".

I just don't get how "tv" is lumped into one category, either. As if every show conforms to one style and convention. "The Shield" has all the same tv tics as "24" and "The West Wing" looks just like "Veronica Mars"?

And now there are "tv extras"!

At this point, I guess everyone should be shocked that there weren't commercials during "Serenity".

 

[CraigF]

The "TV look/feel" was just my opinion. The only show of those you mentioned I've seen is "24", and there's no mistaking that as a movie. I'm not saying all TV looks alike, just that this, to me, looked like TV. Perhaps it was the budget, mentioned by Joss often enough. I have not heard the commentary. I guess the bottom line, for me, is that the movie was not quite self-contained enough. I don't know how the majority of other "blind" viewers would feel, but I think another half hour at the beginning to set the stage more fully could have been useful. It would probably have bored the faithful though, like those rehashes some TV series have. Director's cut?

 

[seanOhara]

I wonder, if Wrath of Khan were released today, would there be people saying, "I felt like I was missing something by not seeing the TV series," "It wasn't self-contained," and "What was the business between Khan and Chekov? Obviously something happened on the TV show but it was never explained in the movie. What crummy writing!"?

 

[CraigF]

^ I didn't say that about Wrath of Khan, and I didn't see the TV series episode(s?) about it. It's my favorite Trek movie.

So you are creating a straw dog, and stating your own opinion. Sorry if I don't rate this as high as you! A better writer on Khan perhaps? Better editor? Better decisions? Better story? Made to be self-contained? We do not all consider Whedon a "genius", some of us have enjoyed some of his TV fare though.

 

[Max Leung]

So basically you are saying that you don't know exactly why you felt Serenity was like TV. Fair enough, as no one has been able to quantify what makes a movie TV-like and what doesn't!

 

[Henry Gale]

If the Canadians are fighting in the dead of winter then I fear all is lost.

 

[CraigF]

Max: I'm not really experienced with TV. It felt like TV, looked like what I see on TV. That's all. No big deal. I tried to say what I could previously, but it wasn't something I was trying to put my finger on while watching. I like to pay good attention to the story, so I notice when there seems to be something I'm expected to know, but I don't. The extras cleared that up for me, at least enough to answer my minor questions without big details. I was satisfied. Anyway, somebody who saw Firefly before Serenity can't really say how somebody who didn't do that is going to interpret it.

Geez, you'd think I hated the movie or something. You'd think that saying something looked like TV was an insult. You'd think that lots of TV isn't way better than plenty of movies.



We used to call it hockey. Before civilisation intruded.

 

[Max Leung]

Hockey and Tim Horton's - what else is there?

Well, if you're not experienced with TV, and you say a movie looked like TV, I would assume you watched shows like Friends, Seinfeld, and um...Survivor? From that perspective, saying Serenity is like TV would be an insult.

If on the other hand, you only watched TV shows such as X-Files, 24, Desperate Housewives, Farscape, Babylon 5, Buffy, and Battlestar Galactica (well, some of it anyways!) then it would be a compliment!

Henry, if we were really fighting we would be whacking each other with foam hockey sticks while skiing downhill after consuming a case of beer each! Either that, or having a gunfight in downtown Toronto during Boxing Day!

 

[CraigF]

I counted my TV show season boxes, and I've seen 83. That's all (seems a lot to me!) since 1975 when I stopped watching TV OTA. I became too busy then and stayed that way. Until relatively recently. I just buy what you guys suggest, what people who know me suggest, what I remember I liked from years ago, and what sounds interesting. Most of it is "newish", so I'm not a total newb.

I have watched all the Seinfeld on DVD. That looks like sit-com TV. Not episodic TV. No Friends or Survivor. Desperate Housewives: yes. And 24 and Buffy. I must admit Battlestar Galactica sounds like it would be up my alley. Sounds very addictive. I'll pick up Firefly next time it's on sale here, seems a bargain to me.

BTW, many drive-by viewers of Serenity feel that Firefly should be viewed in advance. They are saying that in retrospect I think. Possibly for some of the reasons I do. Let's get over the "look", it doesn't matter to the content. Plenty of movies I hate the look of, this wasn't one of them.

[FWIW, I'm a somewhat "sophisticated" and experienced consumer of "science fiction". I can be VERY critical of it in the appropriate forums. Not here. For one thing I insist that there be science in it, the fiction is easy.

Max: do you like Robert Sawyer's work by any chance? A local boy...]

 

[Max Leung]

83 boxsets? Whoa - I think you've seen more TV than I have.

I am not familiar with Sawyer's work, but I have seen him on a few SF panels at the local Con-Version SF convention. I haven't read much SF lately - way too many things begging for my attention nowadays! (BTW, I did enjoy "old-school" 80s and 90's SF - Brin, Benford, Peter Hamilton, Ian M. Banks, Vernor Vinge, Greg Egan, Rudy Rucker, etc etc ad nauseum.)

While I did enjoy season one of Battlestar Galactica, the intense oppressiveness of the show does get to me. No highs, all lows! Firefly, Buffy, Angel, Babylon 5, Desperate Housewives have just the right mixture of drama and comedy to keep me hooked. (To be fair, I haven't watched much BSG 2.0 at all.)

Serenity has drama and comedic moments, like the shows I listed above - I guess that would make it episodic-TV-like in that respect...maybe more funny moments than the typical SF film?

Say, does Buckaroo Banzai feel somewhat TV-like? It's been years and years since I saw it so I cannot remember!

Speaking of seeing the series before the movie, did people feel the same about the X-Files: Fight the Future movie?

 

[CraigF]

Buckaroo Banzai: nah, too weird to seem like TV. Even for now. I should watch it again, been a year I bet.

Vernor Vinge: I think you mentioned my favorite SF author. If I go by gut reaction. I find him incredibly addictive. Not nearly enough output, but always great and was worth the wait. Amazing story-teller. Generally not much science though, so definitely what would be called the old-school definition of SF (pre-'55, say) even though he writes in a more modern style. Sawyer is well up there, especially if you like real science with your fiction.

Yeah, I need the injection of humor. I sure don't want to take any entertainment too seriously, and appreciate when the writers don't either. As long as it fits. Like just before the hero kills somebody...

The thing about episodic TV is it is more leisurely, and assumes you've seen previous episodes and will be seeing the following. 24 and Sopranos (say) require that quite a lot, but I never felt Buffy did. Hard to say since I watched in sequence, but if there was a viewing time gap I never felt "lost" with Buffy. Seemed you could drop in any time and it worked quite well, even as a single episode all by itself.

 

[BrandonJF]

I think that depends on what episode you hit. Buffy has season arcs. Some episodes tie more into the overall arc, some don't.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

No Director's Cut. Pretty much everything in the script is ON the DVD (either in the feature, or deleted scenes section). From what I hear, the theatrical IS the director's cut.

I think what everyone means when they say seeing serenity after firefly helps is more that you'll have more of an understanding about what type of people the main cast are. Nothing plot related that happens in Serenity is touched upon in the movie, and like a television series that isn't the pilot, the only thing really that can be done is a fill-in of what happened previously.

Serenity worked great because it DID recap what happened on the series, but did it by showing fans something new, and showing new viewers something new as well. You were shown just what happened to River in the Alliance Medical Labs.

Basically, all that you missed on the show was character interaction. And in spite of all of that... the movie was still good with giving each character some good moments.

You may not have cared much about them, but ask yourself if you care much about any character the first time you see a movie. I know for a fact that the first time I saw Harry Potter I wasn't too caring when they were in danger, but by the fourth movie I get nervous when one of Harry's friends is in danger.

In the first LOTR movie I didn't really care about them either, that changed by the time I saw the second movie.

Basically, all that happened on Firefly is explained in the pilot. You could erase all 13 episodes after the 2 hour pilot and just have that and Serenity because the show really was mostly stand-alone. It's all psychological. Just like how I had trouble getting into Buffy during the second season because I was absolutely sure I wouldn't understand a thing. Big mistake.

 

[Will_B]

The opening "dream sequence", which gave an entire history of that planetary system, was an easy introduction to the film's universe. Heck, even the tv series never provided that kind of synopsis.

Then came that amazing 6 minute long steadycam sequence where it was conveyed that there's a ship with a crew and a couple passengers on board.

I don't know much more explicit a filmmaker could be. I suppose if one walked in ten minutes late into the film they may be lost, but on DVD it wasn't a problem.

Where the film left viewers of the tv series in the lurch was an explanation of why the Captain, Mal, was so down. The tv series was generally on a lighter note, so fans of the tv series had to make some concessions and fill in some blanks that non-tv-series viewers did not have to do.

 

[CraigF]

Yeah, that could be it: I felt I was missing something on character development. Mainly for Mal, and he is central. I didn't catch on until much later in the film the *possible* reason why he was behaving as he was until Inara appeared. Admittedly it took me a while to warm to him.

I do pay close attention to the story. So if something's going on that appears to have some "background" I'm unaware of but feel I should know about, I do get a bit antsy. That sense of "I missed something somewhere".

As to knowing about Firefly: you can't pretend you don't know about something if you really do. It's always in the back of your mind that you might have missed something there. I hope nobody's saying that I don't need to watch it?

Anyway, Serenity has probably the overall finest DD mix I've ever heard. Balanced, smooth, clear, clean. Whoever did it should be worth a fortune. I appreciate mixes like this.

 

[Max Leung]

Yeah, the sound mix is quite amazing...it reminds me of the best of Skywalker Ranch! I love it!

I just finished watching Serenity at a friend's place - my 3rd time viewing it, his 1st. His wife, within 5 minutes of the movie's start, commented "this is just like a TV show". She left soon after. Interesting...as I was watching it I tried, in my mind, to quantify why she would think so. I will try to post my thoughts tomorrow in the Movies forum...

 

[Al.Anderson]

I fall into that category, the kids and I went on a whim. When I saw it there was certainly a strong unseen backstory aspect. I felt there was much more I should know - but in a dramatic sense - meaning it was part of the suspense of watching the movie and not a flaw.

On the other hand, my complaint about the movie is that the unravelling of the backstory of the empath character (too lazy to scroll up and look up her name) in the movie didn't live up to the opening - after all was said and done her mindreading ability got them a planet name? Oh boy. (Still enjoyed the movie though.)

Based on the strong fan support on the forum, I've since bought the Firefly series; but haven't had a chance to watch. Maybe when I've seen those I will complain that more of the backstory was required.

 

[Will_B]

Not just a planet name - she was aware of the deaths of a billion people on that planet. If that's not a film worthy epic plot point I don't know what is.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Nope, not convinced. A whole planet goes missing, I'm think 60 Minutes or someone is on to this!

So while the mission of the Serenity is worthwhile; I still say her abilities were not used in scale. I mean, she's in a room full of government leaders and she couldn't come up with a few mistresses at least?

 

[Ryan-G]

You also have to remember Al, and I agree the movie did a poor job of explaining this, her mind and memories are warped from experimentation.

She could have plenty of other stuff in her head and just not know it.

Maybe a flashback or two to the original TV show would've helped out on this point a bit. If you ever get the urge, the whole River story makes *alot* more sense if you watch the show. You'll understand her frame of mind and why she can't come up with information intentionally.