As I said, it's dark. While Buffy did get very dark, especially in the middle to end of its run, and Angel did too, they got to earn that by starting funny and then slowly putting the characters through dramatically heavier and heavier stuff. Firefly, however, starts in the the darkest hour of Malcolm Reynolds life, a moment which defines him and his actions for the course of the story (the series and the movie). It's missing much of the quick wit and humor that was present in Whedon's earlier works and tackles some heavy themes really early. Don't get me wrong, the dialog is still there but in smaller quantities.
Fox, in a strange move for them now that I think of it, asked Joss to make the show MORE like his older shows (something they would reverse with Dollhouse), and asked him to develop a "new pilot." "The Train Job" is more of what the show is for the rest of the series: quick and light banter, one liners mixed with drama.
The pilot is solid, and does a fantastic job of establishing a HUGE cast, a new universe to play in, and many of the "rules" of the series. But, when showing this to others, I always ask people to commit to at least watching through "The Train Job," as that episode really complements and tweaks the concept of the pilot (and, amazingly, without rendering the pilot obsolete). Because, while interesting, the Firefly pilot is just not the hoot to watch that the Buffy pilot is. But "The Train Job" is.
One last note (Sorry, Kate! I'm talking to much!): Wash is my favorite character, and his intro in the pilot is my favorite scene. So much so, it resulted in the following picture-
"Curse your sudden, but inevitable, betrayal!"
Kate says the pilot sure is packed with people! Yet they are all completely distinct. And I like all the main characters. I find Adam Baldwin as Jayne incessantly amusing. Tudyk as Wash is hilarious and approachable (great quote, Mike!). Sean Maher as Simon is suitably mysterious. Gina Torres as Zoe is believably tough with a warm personality. Speaking of age, Summer Glau as River is one of the youngest 21-years-old I've ever seen. Speaking of Shepherd Book, I love Ron Glass! I watched a whole season of Barney Miller before I put Ron Glass together with Firefly. Boy, did I feel silly! Jewel Strait as Kaylee is adorable (very Willowish). I like her sister role with Mal. The only character I don't really care about is Inara. I think her concept/role is interesting, but she reminds me of Buffy without the oomph. (For all his feminism, I think Whedon is attracted to the idea of the completely feminine and unaggressive female heroine: think early Willow, later aspects of Buffy, Penny in Dr. Horrible, Tara. I don't blame him for this, by the way. My brand of feminism is not the brand that says Whedon CAN'T explore this personality type; I always liked Tara. But they are more difficult to write for.)
Last but absolutely not least, Nathan Fillion as Mal is perfect! He is a believable captain who can control his people, including Jayne, both because he is absolutely loyal to them and also because he expects unqualified loyalty. He holds everyone together. He also picks people who can bring something to the ship; he can zero in on a person's ability and accept him or her even if, like Jayne or Simon, that person comes with some baggage. He really is a "man of honor in a den of thieves." Nathan Fillion could be the next John Wayne, if Hollywood was still looking for the next John Wayne.
And Fillion's comic timing is great! I love the line when Simon is asking what Jayne's job is on the ship. Mal pauses and says, "Public relations." (Another great line: "Shoot 'em--politely." And "I do the job and then I get paid. Now go run your little world.")
Finally, the pilot is very well-crafted. Everything connects/pays off. The only clunky moment, to me, was the part about the Reavers. I think the Reavers are important to the Firefly universe and maybe Whedon was trying to stick in all the stuff he could to entice the studio execs, but I thought the Reavers' part slowed down the pilot. If *I* was writing the pilot, I would have moved the plot directly from the shooting of Kaylee/discovery of River to the meeting on the planet (keep everything moving). Some things CAN be saved for later episodes!
That said, I do consider Firefly to be almost perfect in construction. All space opera is really just cowboys-in-space (despite what Captain Picard might think). Firefly makes it ride.
16 comments:
I agree with you Kate- With Firefly I think Joss really knew where he was going. What kills me is knowing that his shows usually follow the same formula- introduce main story arc in first episode, do several stand alone (ish) episodes, then start chugging for the season finale at midseason. This drives me crazy because Firefly only got to that mid-season mark of 13 episodes, and they weren't even all aired.
So I've always wondered just what came next. Sure, the movie did a good job filling us in, but I know there was stuff meant to be in between.
Anyway- My favorite episodes of Firefly, in no particular order
1. Train Job- I love when Mal kicks the guys into the engine- it was totally a Han shooting greedo first moment.
2. Jayne's town- I still sing that "Ballad of jayne" in the shower sometimes.
3. Out of Gas- I love the story stricture of this episode. It's brilliant, in my opinion. something interesting about this episode, I've watched it several times with many different friends, and every woman I've ever watched it with just didn't get it. The jumbled time line was just to far out of their viewing experience (not to mention the "What? he's in love with the ship?!?!?!). Every guy I've watched with had no problem. I think this has to do with the fact that I have more guy friends who watch a lot of sci-fi that I do girl friends. It also taught me that sometimes, movie watching really is a learned skill.
4. Objects in space- I love the idea that the purpose of an object, and thus the definition of an object, are fully dependent on how a person uses it. So a Gun is nothing, the same as a stick or a rock, when dormant. Only when it is utilized by a person with malicious intent does it become deadly and dangerous.
5. Serenity: the movie- While it did have flaws, the movie really was brilliant, and if the new star wars movies were half as fun as this movie, wow. the possibilities.
Ooh, I just had to respond to the "Out of Gas" comment! I LOVE that episode. I actually think it is better than the Buffy dream episode in terms of out-of-sequence-dreamlike memories. It is extremely well-crafted. And of course, the ship comes first! ALL great captains love their ship first!
But then I don't know how representative of women I can claim to be. (I'll agree that women seem to be more into fantasy than science-fiction, and I'll admit that my science-fiction is strictly people-oriented; no Arthur C. Clarke for me--what is the male obsession with 2001? other than Keir Dullea, that is, and he appears in 2010, anyway, which is way less slow--although I do enjoy Isaac Asimov's robot books. As for Star Trek, that's just fantasy in space.)
"Objects in Space" is possibly my all-time favorite Firefly episode. One reason is I'm a huge fan of Richard Brooks and pretty much stopped watching Law & Order (original) when he left (I completely stopped watching when Michael Moriarty and Chris Noth left). He plays crazy dude with a deep voice excellently: "So is it still a room when it's empty? Does the room, the thing, have purpose? Or do we - what's the word . . .? 'Imbue,' that's the word."
Which is the episode where Simon pumps Jayne full of drugs, but Jayne still manages to shoot one of the bad guys? I love that episode!
I agree with you, Mike, about Firefly being a hard sell. My guess: Fox just didn't know how (or to whom) to sell it. It is too adult to be marketed to the 7-9 p.m. audience, but would lose some of its potential audience in the 10 p.m. slot. In a way, "Serenity" reminds me of the Stargate pilot, which was much too adult for the audience that Stargate eventually (and intelligently) settled on. I think Buffy was an easier sell in this regard.
Haven't seen the episode in a while; I remember it being a little slow and thought the Reaver thing worked as long as you didn't meet them.
We must remember that the executives at Fox who canceled Firefly are the same idiots that canceled Keen Eddie. These were clearly pencil pushing pinheads who didn't understand anything about entertainment.
That said, Whedon is hard to work with; he stacks his shows with too many leads played by experienced actors; he goes over budget and he doesn't compromise until it's too late. The net result was a difficult and very expensive show and those are hard to pay for, especially when they are hard core sci-fi. Fantasy/space opera is a slightly easier sell (which is what Battlestar Gallactica and Star Trek became) but still difficult.
Personally, I would have made Book a guest and then killed him and wouldn't have had Wash, even though I liked the character (he simply made no practical sense--Zoe or Mel would have piloted the ship.) I would have also filmed in Vancouver or New Zealand and been a bit more clever with crowd scenes (which I say with difficulty since one great thing about Firefly is that when they were in port, it felt like they were in port. Even on Buffy, it sometimes felt like they lived in a tiny town [like Glenville or something.])
Incidentally, the interaction of Mal, Jayne and River is nothing short of genius. And the sexual energy between Mal and Inara is great (it was kind of lost in the movie though.)
Oh, and I loved the scene when Mal walks aboard the ship and shoots the guy the rest are holding. Hurray--someone finally just shoots the bad guy without yacking about it.
One thing that I'm afraid has caused Whedon to fall off the pedestal I had put him on was finding out he was an atheist.
While that's not bad (though I do find it heart breakingly sad), It ruined some of Buffy, and firefly for me.
When Mal loses his faith in the first episode, I always imagined that the show would find a way to lead him back to that faith. But now looking at it from a new angle, I see that Joss probably felt that while this was a hard thing for Mal to go through, it was a good, and permanent growth for him. Which makes me sad.
It also jades a lot of Buffy for me, looking at it from a "The writer is saying there is no god," and it's put a slightly negative vibe on a lot of stuff that I had perceived differently before. It also explains why the higher powers are so elusive and untrustworthy through Buffy and angel.
The irony is that Buffy was voted Theologian of the Year several years running! I think part of this was due to Whedon's ability to tackle theological issues, such as free will and the meaning of life, etc. He was fully willing to go where the issues took him.
I agree, however, that by the end of Buffy, Whedon seemed to have become wedded to his PHILOSOPHY (or to the need to have one). I think this is partly due to age and partly due to fandom. For example, he may have originally intended Willow's lesbianism to be a college thing, but then it was shoved in his face as a PHILOSOPHY about feminism, and instead of telling the fans to go bury themselves/he would do what he wanted, he instead started pronouncing his BELIEFS. Not to be terribly cynical, but I'm not sure directors should ever believe in anything (overtly).
This is one reason I stay away from obvious morals in my fiction writing. When I do incorporate them, the stories turn into polemics. So I excise them and get accused of not writing "literary" stuff. Oh, well, better a fun snack than a literary stew. I do tremendously admire those writers/directors who can do both at the same time successfully. I think Whedon was able to do this in Buffy, but the exigencies of "PROCLAIMING MY PHILOSOPHY TO THE FANS" become too much for him.
Back to Firefly, I don't mind his treatment of Mal since I think Mal is the original "believe what is in front of you" guy, but his characterization of Book, while excellent in terms of personality, is a little shallow when it comes to religion. He paints Book as a literalist which is highly suspect when laid beside Book's personality. In other words, he knocks over a strawman rather than going after a religious mindset harder to grapple with. I think this is the major difference between Buffy and his later stuff. He seems to be taking an easier way out in his later stuff, not because he isn't capable of the harder way but because he has his PHILOSOPHY to worry about.
Writers and directors should never become famous.
Okay, I have to revise my thoughts a bit. I just rewatched "Objects in Space" (for about the thousandth time). I consider it one of Whedon's all-time best even though it is a deliberate attempt by Whedon to expound on his philosophy. However, the message/philosophy and plot are so tightly interwoven, the message doesn't become a "bang you over the head" type of a thing. (In fact, you may have to listen to the commentary to pick up on how deliberate the message is.) In other words, Whedon is concentrating on his philosophy but not in an easy or slapdash way or in a way that sidetracks the episode.
I don't really know how this perfect plot/message combination is reached. Except to have plot ALWAYS come first. And to have the message be organic--not a conscious choice but an unconscious one that can possibly be emphasized in a later rewrite (you know, I do think Stephen King said this first). In other words, it's STARTING with a message that causes problems, not finding one after or as one creates.
Objects in space is very good. Joss does take time in alot of his shows to philosophize... But I agree that he does a manage to do it often in a way that doesn't rob the plot. The buffy musical does have some great ideas, and is still fun to watch. But, season six of buffy overall does deal with alot of heavy stuff, and frankly becomes just too heavy and dreary to watch.
I'd like to think that Firefly would have stayed light, but knowing Joss... well. yeah. The message is another great episode, but it does focus on the "hard ships" of life. An ongoing event in Joss's work, now that I;m thinking of the message, is the idea that the hero can kill someone (when they felt that had no choice) but still love and respect them.
Buffy reluctantly killed angel
Mal Reluctantly killed his friend
Angel Killa darla
The operative killed almost everyone with empathy and respect.
Self sacrifice Happens a lot too-
Buffy, Spike, Anya, Darla, Angel, Wesley, and many many characters in the buffy verse all committed suicide or sacrificed themselves for their ideals.
Can I chime in here as a female who loves hard science fiction (like Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov, to name a couple of authors I grew up on)?
I may be no more representative than Kate is, though (we're not the same person, by the way). I have a master's degree in mechanical engineering, and my technical background might make me better able to appreciate science fiction.
Anyway, I loved FIREFLY and SERENITY (the movie), and wish Joss had been able to keep the series going.
I also love BONES, and I'm looking forward to hearing what you all think about CASTLE.
Hi, Kathleen! I really enjoy Castle (although I'm a season behind; I like to watch seasons all at once in sets). I think Nathan Fillion is right on the mark (I love the Writer flak jacket), and he and Stana Katic have good chemistry. I also am a big fan of Susan Sullivan from Dharma & Greg days.
I do think the episodes are lighter and there's less investment in uncovering a relationship than in Bones. Instead, there's more focus in putting the characters to work and seeing what happens, but I don't fault the show for that. I'm a big believer that every show/work should be judged by what its aim is, which means I'm willing to accept Anna Karenina is supposed to be deep and depressing.
But that doesn't mean I'll ever read it.
By the way, speaking of female science-fiction aficionados, one writer I think combines hard and soft science perfectly is C.J. Cherryh. Some people might want to grow up and be Meyers or Rowlings or King. I always wanted to grow up to be Cherryh. That's my idea of fame.
Blogger Mike Cherniske said...
I officially apologize for the crack about the ladies, Sorry!
I think, though, I was mostly talking about the timeline of the episode "Out of gas", as it flashed back and forth in three different time periods.
Now, I always took this story structure just as it was- no explanation, just a cool way to present what happened (Non-linear is fun if done right).
The ladies I watched the show with (NONE of whom were big sci-fi fans) just seemed to have a hard time knowing what was happening- my wife described it like watching a slide show of random images- it didn't merge into anything that made sense for her.
When I talked with Kate about it, she provided a huge epiphany about the situation- as kate described it, "When it's these scenes, he's remembering, when he's beat up, it's NOW." And I couldn't help but wonder if I had provided my wife with a reason and a source of the flashbacks, like Mal remembering, if it would have been easier for her to follow.
I have a couple of ideas concerning this- One is that I think watching movies is an actual skill we build- following subplots and jumping from scene to scene is something we acclimate and adjust to. And I think it just so happened that all of the ladies I watched this episode with were people that didn't watch alot of TV or movies. So it may be more of a personal thing than a gender thing.
The other idea is that it IS a gender thing, and I didn't understand women enough (and I still don't- same way a caveman wouldn't understand the atom bomb) to explain it in a way to allow understanding. I explained it in guy terms- and let's be honest, we guys are lucky to understand each other. I imagine women throw their hands up in annoyance at man logic frequently.
Anyway, what I mean is that where I didn't care about an explanation for flashback, my wife and her friends DID- only by understanding why the flashbacks were happening could they then follow what was happening.
Anyway, I probably just dug the hugest hole ever! LOL. I'm sorry. Know that I'm pretty sure I'm not sexist, nor was I trying to be so.
Again, I apologize. and if you send a hit man, please tell him to get me when my family is elsewhere!
Don't worry, Mike! I've made the same comment myself, such as (in another context), "Keep in mind that many of Meyers' fans avoided fantasy and science-fiction until Twilight because those genres are 'weird.' These are not people who would ever 'get' Ghost in the Shell, let alone The Matrix."
Of course, I'm doubly assuming that most Twilight fans are women (the number of self-admitted male Twilight fans is unknown although the few guys I know who have read Twilight read it BECAUSE it is fantasy, about vampires, etc.). In any case, it is an unfair assumption since there are plenty of non-Twilight fans and/or men who get weirded out by science-fiction and fantasy.
On the other hand, I recently had a strange conversation at my local library with a woman librarian. One of the newer librarians, a guy, is a huge sci-fi/fantasy buff (although not a big Star Trek fan). It's great! He orders Doctor Who and vampire books (he's the one who recommended I watch Moon).
This other librarian was at the desk a couple of weeks back, and she started mocking him and calling him a loser, etc. for being into sci-fi and fantasy.
The male librarian and I just kind of looked at each other and shrugged.
My reaction was, "Wow, what decade are you in? Don't you know that the Google people and Bill Gates won? Don't you know that 'speculative' fiction is blending more and more into mainstream? Heard of anime? Goth? Don't you know that only people who are totally out of it still think it is 'cool' (or financially wise) to mock geeks?"
I'd still rather be a geek even if mocked. But I was amazed that she would be so clueless (and so rude to her colleague).
Turned out she liked Stargate, so we had something to talk about; it was almost like she was doing the whole "loser" stunt to remind herself that EVEN though she liked Stargate, she wasn't one of those people. (Maybe, men can admit to geekiness with less social cost than women? Eh . . . not sure.)
I honestly don't know if it was a gender thing or just an age thing. She's a little older than me, and her attitude was like some throw-back to 80's thinking. I run into plenty of younger students who dislike science-fiction/fantasy but very few who think it merits a sneer. There's so many other things they can practice pack behavior about! And the Internet has opened up a whole new world of "people aren't like you" revelations.
Absent the gender question, I do agree, Mike, that we learn to watch or "read" (in a critical sense) certain technology/approaches. I think appreciation of the narrative structure is wired into the human brain but everything else is up for grabs. Like you mentioned to me, reading comics/graphic novels is a learned (and a highly visual) response. The more you read them, the easier it gets, but it's a little difficult at first.
I also remember reading somewhere some guy's claim that we "learn" to accept certain movie motifs without even questioning them. We see a sun rise and set, and we know a day has passed. How much of that is built in and how much learned over time? I have no idea.
You are right Kate- it is definitely the age of the geek. I think the success of twilight shows this to a point, for as brilliant as Buffy was, it's audience was always small (and mostly men).
It also could be that Hollywood has finally learned how to present "geeky" concepts in more mainstream ways- like the new star trek.
It's a continual source of both puzzlement and mystery to me that I'm so happily married to a non geek. When we first dated, Lanae didn't read or watch much sci- fi or fantasy. She described watching lotr- two towers as complete confusion- "what? Even the trees are talking and walking now????".
But when I explained that each world had it's own rules and structure, it was easier for her to follow and like those movies.
I think some people don't like sci-fi/fantasy because there is no element of predictability. The suspension of disbelief is too hard. And again, I think Kate hit on something- as geeks we've trained our brains to accept certain things in movies and move on.
Despite it being the age of the geek, (when I was a kid, I would watch and freak out over movies that just mentioned super heroes- now with super hero movies being the big thing I'm in heaven!!!!!) there are still people who make fun of us and our media.
I just tell them one thing- it is a proven fact that fantasy and sci-fi is the preferred genre of people with above average intelligence. I don't know if that applies to me, but it sure shuts people up!
Also- Have you guys seen "Big Bang Theory"? It's awesome!
Hi, Kate, and Mike. (How do I find out, other than just checking back, that you've responded to my comments?)
Anyway, I suppose it could be a gender thing. After all, the way they made a non-linear timeline in 500 DAYS OF SUMMER (a "chick flick," right?) work was to put the number of each day on the screen, so the viewer would know where the scene was in the timeline.
But then there was SLIDING DOORS with Gwyneth Paltrow (another "chick flick") with a duo timeline, both happening at the same time, and I don't think they had to do anything special to show which timeline they were in (aside from things like clothing and hairstyle--which, come to think of it, would make things totally clear to "chicks," after all).
Only kidding.
There really are different ways of reading (or viewing) different kinds of stories (I've heard them called "reading protocols") and if you've learned how to read certain kinds of stories, then when you start reading that kind of story, you expect to read it in that way. And if it isn't written to be read in that way, you can get very confused.
I remember reading an explanation by Michael Crichton about how he wrote was was essentially science fiction, but for mainstream readers, and therefore his books were not sold as "science fiction" per se, because they weren't written to the same protocols as genre science fiction is written to.
(Basically, he put more set-up and explanation in his "science fiction" and he didn't take as much for granted in the worlds he created. Also, he only played with one Big Idea and not a bunch of interconnecting ideas the way a lot of genre science fiction writers do. One Big Idea per book is easier for mainstream readers to deal with.)
Maybe Joss Whedon tends to write/produce more to genre science fiction protocols and that may be partly why he doesn't build a huge mainstream viewership.
In fact, I wonder if one major difference between genre science fiction and mainstream protocols would be that one starts with point-of-view characters who are already in an alternate (science fictional or fantastic) world and perhaps already know a little of how to cope in that world and how to survive, and the other starts with point-of-view characters who have been thrust into an alternate world and are struggling just to understand enough to survive.
If so, I submit that Joss's stuff would fit in the first category, and things like LOST and HEROES (at first, anyway) and TWILIGHT fit in the second category.
Bumper sticker I saw at a science fiction convention:
Reality is for people who can't handle science fiction.
Hey Kathleen! When you write your comment there should be a clickable box that gives you the option to be notified when responses are added!
In fact, I wonder if one major difference between genre science fiction and mainstream protocols would be that one starts with point-of-view characters who are already in an alternate (science fictional or fantastic) world and perhaps already know a little of how to cope in that world and how to survive, and the other starts with point-of-view characters who have been thrust into an alternate world and are struggling just to understand enough to survive.
I think there is a lot of truth to this. Someone—I think it was Eugene actually—once gave me the following writing advice: if you don't know much about a topic, have your main character not know much either. That way, you both learn at the same time.
So Twilight isn't really fantasy. It's just a novel that introduces the reader to the idea of vampires.
There is the "suspension of disbelief" line, but I think that line varies tremendously amongst "realism" readers and sci-fi/fantasy readers. I remember a comedian telling a joke about going to see E.T. with his girlfriend; right at the part where E.T. and Elliot fly in the bicycle, she leaned over and said, "Oh, that could never happen."
His response: "That?!" THAT would never happen? Where have you been?"
Everyone has their own line—with any genre. I've seen "realistic" writers create completely implausible solutions without any regard for supposed-reality. Aliens would be more likely. Or batpeople. Or Zeus.
Perhaps it all comes down to knowing what one's own rules are (speaking as both a writer and a reader). You can do anything you want. As long as it's fair.
Post a Comment