Slashdot Mirror
Serenity Trounces Star Wars
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.
But Serenity wasn't that great of a film. Firefly was an amazing TV show, but the film was without the same depth.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Thing I can't understand is, who on earth voted for Star Wars?!
Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.
Blade Runner is #3 and 2001: A Space Odyssey is #8 while Serenity is #1 and Star Wars is #2. Good Grief! What is next, a survey on the best fantasy? Would we have Willow as #1, Eragon as #2, and the D&D Movie as #3?
The only thing this survey proves is that surveys are a really shitty way of telling what is good sci-fi.
Excellent, even. I can see it beating Star Wars. But the likes of Blade Runner? I mean, nothing against Serenity, but I really don't think it's the Best Science Fiction Film Ever.
Serenity fans usually rig these sort of contests, they did this for a similar online survey as well. I have nothing against the movie, and I thought the series was great, but both weren't successful financially, which is why the series never went anywhere.
I wanted to like, "Serenity." I went to the theatre expecting to like it. But I was bored silly by a boring plot that was full of holes. The characters weren't especially compelling. I couldn't figure out what was so great about this. After finishing it, I couldn't even figure out what was tolerable about it. From what I've seen since then, it seems as though "Serenity" fans are fanatically loyal and vocal, but most people who weren't already fans didn't find the movie especially entertaining. Obviously, I haven't taken a poll, but the box office results must mean SOMETHING.
As for "Star Wars," I don't agree that it necessarily ought to be classified as fantasy, but it's also silly to see it as representing all of science fiction, as so many people do. "Star Wars" was an example of one particular branch of sci-fi, but it came to be seen as what sci-fi really was because ignorant studio execs all tried to clone it after it made a lot of money. Good science fiction is easy to find it books, but very hard to find on screen, IMO. It's hard to see either "Serenity" OR "Star Wars" as the best sci-fi movie ever.
David
One of the most underrated films has now become one of the most overrated...
Me and my mod points are going to maintain a distance of no less than 3 articles from this inevitable flame-fest.
These sorts of surveys are more about who has the more devoted and active fanbase at the moment. That doesn't make the result less significant, its just a matter of what the result is actually saying: Firefly has managed to develop and extremely devoted and extremely active fanbase. This isn't that surprising; I've loaned or recommended the DVD set to several people, only to have them become devout fans of the series. Still, interest in Firefly is obviously still going strong, which is, again, notable. The other side to this is that the Star Wars fanbase has apparently grown increasingly apathetic -- and the blame for that can be laid squarely upon the prequel trilogy which left many Star Wars fans (myself included) feeling flat, and has taken a little of the shine off the franchise. Oddly enough it still remains far more likely that we will see another Star Wars film than a sequel to Serenity (though neither is that likely). Star Wars fans may be apathetic about the films these days, but they still exist in vast numbers.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Let's see of the results hold after Serenity makes a sequel with Jar Jar Binks.
I thought so.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Well, to be blunt; 3000 voters isn't a whole lot. Also the BBC isn't taking any more votes; the poll is closed. Not exactly a widely publicized poll; nor representative in my humble opinion.
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.
What the hell are you brits thinking!?
I thought SciFi had something to do with Science in a fictional sense, not fantasy in space...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Look at Star Wars - coming up is Star Wars Celebration IV, 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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Having grown up with "Star Wars", I have an understandable bias toward the original three movies. Be that as it may, I actually paid to see "Serenity" in the theatres, and that is $7.50 I will never get back. That movie was terrible, plain and simple. Even friends of mine who were hardcorps fans of the TV show agreed "Serenity" was below par. The only reason it was voted above "Star Wars" is because of Lucas' multi-million dollar suck-fest, Phantom Meanace, IMHO.
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.
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?
Where is "Brazil"? Where is "12 Monkeys"?
"Serenity" was fun and all, but those are good films...
Coke trounces Pepsi. Apple trounces orange. Stupid post trounces intelligent post.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
It came out so much more recently that the polls are bound to be skewed. When a horror movie currently in the box office is making more than some older one, we don't automatically say it's better than Halloween.
3,00 readers of one SF magazine...yeah, that's definitive. I can think of a handful of SF films better than either. I'm a huge Firefly fan, loved Star Wars, but this "trouncing" is only slightly more relevant than me and my homies declaring 'Jabba the Slut' best SF-porn of all time on our MySpace page.
Neither one is much of a scifi film they are both fantasy films. It's not a value judgement I enjoyed both they just aren't really scifi films. 2001 and Bladerunner are scifi films. Neither of the films, Star Wars or Serenity, gave more than a passing thought to science. Star Wars had little to do with science and Joss Wedon seemed to keep confusing solar systems and galaxies. Both films were fantasy space operas. Really entertaining but in no way predicting a future that will or could ever happen. Star Trek has faired remarkably well as has 2001 but Star Wars is still fantasy. There's nothing wrong with space operas, they actually go back to the Buck Rodgers era, it's just they aren't science fiction. There's so little real science fiction people seem to be forgetting there's a difference.
Star Wars (...) came second in the survey.
Blade Runner was third, followed by Planet of the Apes, The Matrix, Alien and Forbidden Planet.
I was wondering while reading the article if this was not one of these stupid polls where people would vote for movies with special effects but how can you put Blade Runner in the same category than Serenity and Serenity #1 while Blade Runner #3 ???
For a fan, it would be like comparing The Untouchables with Terminator 3 or any of the latest action movies
I wonder how they recruited those so-called sci-fi fans ? Did they poll people who subscribed to Sci-Fi cable channel or put a flyer in Serenity DVD box ?
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
While I'm a fan of Firefly I didn't think that Serenity lived up to the magic of the series. It has a lot going on but there was something lacking, something sorta flat in comparison to the quirks of Firefly. However in no way can I see this as better than Bladerunner and Star Wars which are iconic in a way Serenity will never be. Just a buncha fanboys hunkering of the latest thing. Which ain't so latest at this point.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
It's been voted best by a one magazine with a tiny poll of 3000 readers?
;)
Hardly conclusive evidence, given the fact that 99% of people who have seen Star Wars have never heard of the magazine in the first place
Serenity was excellent, but definately not ground breaking - that's the difference.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Eve will beat them all... Well, whenever they shoot a movie after it... And at the moment of the greatest of battles, when bad guys are about to be totally annihilated, the server claster will crash! And voice behind the scene will say "We are sorry, but the server was working fine. You lost ship petitions are going to be denied".
--
Thou shall pew-pew --From the book of Revelations...
Its clear that SFX took out all the stops in making sure that this was a representative poll.
Its equally obvious that the Slashdot headline writers knew a good headline when they saw one.
I'm sure that Serenity has a loyal fan base. Gosh, there must be at least 2000 loyal fans. I'm equally sure that there are lots of people who feel that Star Wars was a overhyped B movie. Based, however, on my continuing discussions with students in my Media Criticism classes, where Star Wars comes up as a favorite movie series for at least a sixth of my students every semester and Serenity never gets mentioned at all (Firefly did make the cut for two semesters a few years ago), I think I can safely dismiss this survey as meaningless.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
As we head into the new millenium, we'd like to applaud the winner of our voter's choice awaed for the greatest movie of the entire millenium:"POKEMON: THE FIRST MOVIE".
There is still time to vote for the most influential person of the millenium.
The contenders are: Britney Spears, Nostradamus, Will Smith, Michaelangelo (The turtle), and Pikachu!
We now present you the ultimate rock anthem which has stood the test of time, Kid Rock's "Bawitadaba!".
http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=000102
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
It seems to have more to do with people's attention spans than the quality of either film. Ask most young people what their favorite song is and they'll likely mention something current. Ask them again in five years and they may hate the same song, try to find a disco lover alive today. Serenity is fresh in people's minds and Star Wars is 30 years old. Both have devoted followings but it's hard to compare the two. Serenity made a small profit and Star Wars was one of the biggest films in history. If people were voting with their dollars there's no comparision. Ask people ten years from now and probably neither film would have the number one spot.
Its about time a movie with worse cover art beat out Kahn.
What is Serenity?
Sorry. I don't mean to sound ignorant or anything. My wife says I already watch more than my fair share of Sci-Fi.
None of my friends ever spoke of it either.
Was this some special interest poll?
I would like to know if it was really good. Maybe I'll rent it.
As time goes by new stuff comes out. We've know for a while that newer generations don't like SW as much as those of us that got to watch it when released. SW set a lot of precedents and helped shape the future of the genere whether one likes the storyline or not. Which means that there is a truckload of derivative works out there, so anybody that's been exposed to those first and then watches SW will think, oh that dude in the black mask is just more of the same. Plus Serenity being a new show brings newer and better special effects than the original trilogy even after the botox that it got on the 20th anniversary. And it also tried to depart a bit from the standard set by the likes of SW and ST, its a different animal that apparently appeals to different tastes. That said I positively hated all that business about Mr Universe, it was plain dumb. Other than that I do think its a great movie but in my book the Episode IV will always be better. Not that my opinion or the survey matter in the great scheme of things ;)
+Raider of the lost BBS
SFX is basically a Whedon and new Doctor Who fan magazine, which is why I stopped reading it. They are simply polling their own readers, rather than a more general sci-fi audience.
A poll of 3,000 people is hardly statistically relevant, either, when you compare the audiences - the billions (probably) who have seen Star Wars versus the relatively small number who have actually seen Serenity.
SFX's editorial staff have their favourites and they push those favourites. When they were running, the magazine was largely about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Farscape. Star Trek and Stargate (which were fairly popular at the time) rarely got a word in.
In what seems to have been a conscious attempt to not have any references to Star Trek, or B5, Joss Whedon threw out so many of the common SF trappings that he envisioned a future that makes no sense. No FTL drive, so they're stuck in one solar system, where all the planets somehow still get enough light and heat to make them liveable. No robots, despite the fact that here in C21, we're making pretty fair advances in that department - ditto no A.I. Serenity itself appears to be able to navigate the spaceways with less computing power than my house. Some people have got city-sized spaceships, others are slaves mining mud. They've got anti-gravity, and nobody seems to have worked out what that means, for transport, and technology in general. Maybe if he'd been given a chance, he'd have explained some of the huge inconsistencies in future episodes, but I doubt it. He wanted to do a Western in space, so he did so, and simply closed his eyes to all the things about the concept that made no logical sense.
I think that tells you more about the SFX readership than about what the "best" SciFi films of all times are.
As far as I'm concerned like Blade Runner, Alien, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, Gattaca, Dr. Strangelove, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or The Thing have more more of a claim to a top title than either Star Wars or Serenity.
I just watched Serenity on cable and it reminded me of the Babylon 5 movies. If you are a fanboi they rock...but they are hardly great examples of cinematic sci-fi.
Do you think he is up to his old tricks? ;)
I don't care what the critics and the hardcores say - First Contact kicked ass.
Drunken Zefram Cochrane piloting the first warp flight, Borg Queen getting some beat down with acid by Data...it was good, very good. Better than Back to the Future, and without a doubt better than the turd mongler Matrix movies. "Red pill, blue pill", how about the cyanide pill so I don't have to watch this piece of crap for another minute longer...
I didn't love Star Wars, it was pretty good, but it's just not science fiction. Because something takes place in space with ships and laser guns doesn't make it sci fi. It was as much fantasy as the Neverending Story with a dog flying in LEO, or the Lord of the Rings with hobbits and wizards smoking the chronic.
Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.
Science fiction and fantasy are both speculative fiction sub-genres.
Science fiction is mostly defined by its setting and subject matter: outer space, aliens, time travel, imaginary technology, etc. Star Wars is certainly science fiction, even though it crosses the boundary a little with what might be considered magic (as does Dune). What Star Wars is not is hard sf, a sub-genre of science fiction in which the plot itself is based on plausible scientific theory.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Look, I don't even like Star Wars but this poll is yet another piece of evidence why polls are useless. Are they the same people that voted Oasis as better than The Beatles?
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Firstly, this was just a web poll. There were only 10 options. Serenity was always going to be in the Top 10.
Only 300 people responded. It was pushed heavily on several browncoat Forums. This is just SFX magazine trying to get some column inches (and why not? They are a business after all).
Firefly is just Cowboy Bebop with english speaking actors.
It should also be noted that imdb's ratings has Star Wars episode IV as an 8.8/10 and Serenity as only an 8.0/10. Each with a far greater pool of votes.
This only goes to show that their magazine is either really biased, it's readership is out of touch, or as others have said, Firefly fans are really rabid about their show, while Star Wars Fans are just somewhat apathetic.
Cham
It's probably more of a measure of coordination and activity of Serenity online community.
The poll was an online poll (SFX's circulation is 32,672, so having 3000 responses would mean 10% response rate) which just showed what we all already know. That there is a fan base that is absolutely fanatically in love with Serenity. Good for Serenity.
Now if only that would result in bigger box office success... But its domestic gross is less than Blade Runner and much less than Star Wars, so I don't think top 3 can be compared on an equal footing.
Hyperom.com
sorry, star wars kill serenity, and i enjoyed serenity.
but the readers of that magazine are hard core sci-fi people,a nd we all know how well the new SW movies went over with them.... so yeah, if i took a sampling of that magazine, id sure as hell expect them to be on the backlash bandwagon even more than the geeks here on slashdot.
ask normal people, and most wont even know what firefly/serenity is.
you'll get star wars and star trek. and sorry, but fanatics are that because they are a minority. would we be shocked if mormon was the #1 religion, when polled at a ward or temple? nope.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
vote on the BBC site. 17497 Votes Cast when I voted for Blade Runner. And Star Wars was way out in the lead.
I quite enjoy both Star Wars and Firefly/Serenity, but in the strictest sense Star Wars is not science fiction. Where's the science? It's not really about humanity and where it's headed, which is usually the theme of sci-fi, and instead replays a mythic story structure with laser swords and laser guns. Very enjoyable, yes, but it's more rightly called a 'space opera', or a fantasy story. Not that these classifications should affect our enjoyment of the film.
Everything else on the top ten in this list are real sci-fi films (Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes, The Matrix, Alien, Forbidden Planet, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator, Back to the Future). All pretty good ones, IMHO. But I agree with the number one ranking of Serenity. I'd be inclined to put 2001 up higher.
1) The whole "western in space" setting. (just doesnt make sense at all, no matter how you try to justify it)
2) The reavers. Those guys wouldnt be able to keep _cars_ running. "rocket science" as a qualifier anyone? Spacesfleets are a bit maintainance intensitive.
3) River. Would fit perfectly in dragonball Z, though. Or in a fanfic called "mary sues space adventures".
Those three together really tortured my suspension of disbelieve to death. While i acknowledge that the movie had intersting scenes/ideas, its impossible to take it serious in any lenghts.
Contrast this with the blind zealotry of serenity fans ("You dont like firefly/serenity? Easy, its just because you are too stupid!!11" (just read the IMDB forums...)).
All together it leads to a (a bit knee-jerk, but still justified) "i wont touch this shit again" reaction on my side.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Shaun
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
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.
It has as much weight as when Scientologists vote L Ron Hubbard to be the greatest author of all time.
what is serenity? why isn't anyone talking about Dune or something else that is probably 100x better?
waspleg
As a longstanding SF fan, I have always had difficulties understanding the popularity of Firefly. I've watched countless SF-TVshows and movies, from star trek to starwars, to blakes' seven to battlestar galactica (the old one) to stargate...and frankly, I think starfly was one of the worst SF-TV episodes I have ever seen, with the possible exeption of the new battlestar galactica.
I'm actually wondering if this is some new trend in SF on TV. I mean, for gods' sake; look at the latest BG; half of the time it is about nothing; it's like any other melodramatic soap like there are 13 a dozen of, with a very light sauce of SF poured over it. It's like "friends" or "desperate housewifes" in space. It's full of overacting, the science in the SF is completely wrong; not that that is uncommon, but what's worse, it's wrong in a mundane way. The first time I saw the new BG, I saw a man entering an office having a tedious conversation about complete trivial things (and not even acting good at it); the episode was half over before anything happend that indicated that it was an SF, instead of yet another run-of-the-mill "neighbours" or "the office".
What I remind best is, that once I gathered it was an SF, I thought how unbelievably stupid it was that the man entering was dressed exactly as a contemporary yuppie/businesman of today and he was wearing a *tie*. A tie, for gods' sake! Only a T-shirt with 'nike' on it could have been more ludicrous. They're living thousands of lightyears away, have superiour technology, have not had any contect with earth for thousands of years, and he's wearing a goddamn tie? And every other prop is exactly like what you get at walmart?
The surroundings, the content, the overacting, the whole impression that show makes is that of an amaturistic soap serie which the creators happen to have placed in space, instead of the earth as the next 'the bold and beauty' clone.
Now, firefly is better then that (the overacting is less, for one), but it still isn't great. Contrary to the new BG, I did my best to watch most of the episodes. There is only one or two I thought were really good. The rest... I don't know. again, it's so mundain. The SF seting is just there as background noise, really. For instance, episode after episode, they land on a planet which is...well...just an ordinary setting; I mean, do away with the few scenes where the spaceship lands and launches, and you could as well be watching a western, or a film about farmers who are exploited by their current lord. Most of the time, it's just boring.
The best SF-film ever, was bladerunner; at least there, SF was an integral part of the film. Not because of flashy spaceships or technology shown (though at least they did made it seem as if you were watching eastenders), but because they explored the question of what it meant to be human, when does a machine become human, what ethics could be followed in the future, etc.
Even startrek NG did a far better job at exploring the endless opportunities which new cultures, aliens, viewpoints on world/universe and the place we take in it, futuristic ethical questions, etc. could provide. It may have lacked a bit of an emotional ring to it (it was pretty cerebral most of the times), but all in all, I liked it far more then those newish 'SF'-series. It was clearly an SF, which explored things that were only possible in an SF-seting. They didn't transplant a western or mundain soap opera into an SF-setting just to be able to call it an SF, at least.
As for the best SF-TVshow which *does* have an emotional ring to it, that is without any doubt Farscape. That SF-show is really one of the best I've ever seen, especially when scorpius gets into it. The acting was great, the settings were very awe-inspiring in an alien way - sometimes outright weird, as one should expect when we're in another part of the galaxy, most of the alien characters were unbelievably original, there was a good mix of character-interaction and classic SF-action, coppled with a dose of suspence and my
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Star Wars *had* a loyal fan base.
That is, until Lucas started to repeatedly rape the fan's memory, trying to squeeze the last penny he could get out of the franchise.
I think the the new trilogy has done more harm to the fan base, than actually a concurrent franchise stealing fans.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
SFX magazine is well known for it's love of Serenity/Firefly. You only have to read a single issue to know this. SFX is also known for it's Farscape addiction. I'm surprised they didn't manage to get Peacekeeper Wars into the poll.
The only interesting thing about this article is how survey results can be influenced by current trends. In 10 years will anyone remember Serenity or will they remember Star Wars ?
the "(though at least they did made it seem as if you were watching eastenders)" should obviously be: "(though at least they didn't make it seem as if you were watching eastenders)"
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
There, i've correct the grammar
What nobody has mentioned yet is that all of these polls tend to put the most recent films first.
America, Home of the Brave.
If we where to really find the best sci fi movie ever, would we choose random people on the street, sci fi entusiasts or people that bought the serenity DVD? would all give us different results. I bet the random people on the street would have said star wars since that is the one they have seen. If we only only take results from entusiast , would that result be more valid?
The supposed superiority of the original three movies as indicudual films seems to me pure nostalgia. IMO Episode II is the best of the six by a long way (despite its awful love scenes).
Online polls:
1) Website puts up poll
2) Some fanboy/miscreant/jerk notices poll and starts canvassing all the likeminded people he knows
3) Poll results are rendered completely useless and uninteresting
I would say that Serenity is good, but you'd be forgiven for thinking it was mediocre without seeing Firefly first, which is what's really about (it was made because they couldn't get a second series). While I guess the film stands on it's own, I can't imagine it has 1/10th of the impact without having seen the series.
/. would really like it and very few would regret it.
For the benfit of those who haven't seen both, the Serenity film ties up and explains what happens in the series.
I would say *definitely* by the series on DVD and *don't* watch Serenity first! I know the series is more expensive, but I'm sure most people on
After watching the series, then rent or buy the movie (or keep an eye out for it on satellite/cable and PVR it when it comes on). I'm sure you'll be chomping at the bit for more once you've seen the series.
Well seeing how Matrix was inspired on many level by GITS.... This is not surprising. Rarely film spawn by inspiration of other film surpass their master. It happens, but rarely.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
According to the SFX site, their poll indicated that 61% of the voters chose Serenity as their pick for "the number-one Sci Fi film of all time." This number is 1830 of 3000 (assuming 3000 people were polled). That such a large number of people in a sample can agree on a concept as unclear and highly opinionated as "the number-one Sci Fi film of all time" -- whatever that means -- is simply unbelievable.
If there was a bit more definition in the polling criteria -- which movie had the best acting, best special effects, best story, etc. -- I could see bigger statistical numbers. But a highly skewed poll on an ambiguous subject usually means a bad poll (in one way or another).
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
(put my waging money on it)
People who did not see Firefly tend to forget that it already had cult status and recognition... Browncoats bought so many Firefly DVDs that they convinced Fox (or whomever) to produce Serenity in the first place!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Well, any audience that picks Forbidden Planet (never heard of it) and half a dozen others above 2001: A Space Odysse has got its priorities straight.
Man! That 2001 movie has its moments, and I guess we owe Elite's docking computer music to it, but on the whole the movie really bores the arse of me! It doesn't even have a proper ending! OK, I realize not every movie can end as spectacular as, say, Bruce Willis blowing up asteroid plus self, but a floating space baby? Come on!
Correct... LOTR and Star Wars show that high quality works well with long features, whereas the "Dune" movie proves that length alone can't save drivel... If the Serenity material were that good, we'd have seen it structured for series of movies.
If you're going to ask the question "What is the best sci fi movie ever"... you should probably ask a sample set that represents the population, not just one that represents a (rather geeky) magazine's reader base...
/. users have and saying those results fit the entire world...
That'd be like taking a sample of what browser
April Fools was *Yesterday*
Seriously. Serenity? It was ok for made for TV flick. But beating Star Wars? BAHAHAHAHHA!
Oh mercy!
They left the audience not knowing who was going to live. E.g. it could have ended with only Mel getting out. In fact, since there wasn't likely a series, Mel could have been nuked at the end too.
Much like Darkstar had all the heroes dying (or, indeed, 2001). The pathos of your movies' heroes dying despite having done enough to "win" is a highly regarded ending.
Will Serenity end that way too???
As to the operative, if you fall in to patterns, you'll find it opens up a gap in your defenses.
*never heard of forbidden planet?*
My head asplode.
Serenity was a *very good* scifi film. That's about it. Startship Troopers is at least as good as Serenity.
Good god, who comes up with this nonsense? You see crap like this published nearly every day.
The same is true of Blade Runner; well, maybe... maybe not. Thing is, in the two films I mentioned, the plot thread is still important, it still provides a context for the atmosphere and the character interaction.
Whereas with Blade Runner, what one would consider the "plot" in a conventional sense is actually quite underdeveloped (Deckard's detective work) and/or simplistic (capturing the replicants). Ford's criticism that he played a detective that doesn't do any detecting isn't entirely misplaced, and what there is, although superficially reminiscent of Film Noir is more opaque than convoluted. Meanwhile, his attempts to capture them are not- in themselves- particularly compelling or sophisticated plot lines. It could be argued that neither are they in action-oriented films, but BR isn't an action-oriented film.
What I'm trying to say is that the plot as such in Blade Runner is neither strongly nor clearly drawn; and ultimately isn't the "point" of the film. Although I can understand why people like BR, it's also understandable why it wasn't a hit at the box office. It lacks a layer; between the totally superficial level where it looks fantastic, and the much deeper levels where there's a lot going on. If all you're looking for is an enjoyable film with a clearly developed plot- even a convoluted one- you're going to be disappointed, and that's probably why it wasn't a major hit when it first came out.
I don't think the obvious defence- that BR was character-driven- would hold either; well, not at that level, anyway. Sure, a lot of people have said a lot of things about the characters, but generally after considering the more in-depth aspects of the film.
Please don't take this as an attack on Blade Runner- it was meant as an analysis, and to criticise the film on these aspects is to somewhat miss the point.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Apparently some people got drank enough not to realize that April fools is over. How can one seriously consider Serenity as number 1 Sci-Fi film ? I'm not a big Star Wars fan, but Serenity just sucks.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the popularity of Bladerunner. It's a horrible film. It has practically no depth and basically just drags on for a while and then turns into a cheap '80s action flick.
Oh, but it has oodles of style! It's basically a template for every crappy sci-fi film made since: style, weak premise, style, cardboard characters, style, action action action! and a little more style for good measure.
Bladerunner has pulled the wool over too many people's eyes. It's a BAD FILM.
If it wasn't for the prequels and "improved" editions...
all I could think was, Serenity now! Serenity now!
I can't tell whether you're being serious or this is flaimbait. I'll take it as the former and simply ask you to watch it again. The whole point of the film is that the characters look cardboard on the outside, but there's something else going on just under the surface. It's something that much of the world doesn't see, including one character to another, but that several of them come to see by the end. They have real development during this journey (well, mostly)and come out at the end changed enough to take actions very different than their "cardboard" original personas would suggest. It's also a film about a certain kind of selfishness that's ultimately important, but not overriding. It asks subtelly how "our" needs are balanced with "fairness" and in the end both viewpoints win to some degree.
That, and it has a view of the future very different from earlier Sci-Fi. The future will not be flying cars and flashy space travel with great robots for everyone, only the rich and "perfect." That vision alone is worth a commendation.
Once again, please watch the film again on DVD on a system with a good, largish screen and good sound. It's much better than you describe it.
This sums it up...
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross
By the numbers
...Insanity Later.
omfg they sooo suck! omfg they are soooo boring! augh!
Never heard of it. If it truly was that great of a film...one would figure it would begin to permeate the popular lexicon. Alas, it hasn't. Discussions in online games, around the office, and what not inevitably come around to sci-fi movies at one point or another, and I have heard nary a word regarding Serenity (or Firefly, for that matter). I'd hazard a guess that most people I know could at least quote a line or outline the plot behind every other sci-fi film on that list...except for Serenity. As an added bonus, I just asked 3 different co-workers who are sci-fi/fantasy buffs for their opinion of the movie (as I have yet to see it, as is obvious from the fact that I've never even heard of it). Two of them found it rather boring, one hadn't even heard of it before. *shrugs* Let's just say I find the poll highly suspect.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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.
Like you didn't know this would start a geek war.
There should be a special place for trolls, preferably without computer access.
- real hackers don't have sigs -
Remember the bit during the siege where the elf uses a sheild as a surfboard? I reckon there was a shark under those stairs.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Shiny!
Why? Because nothing more will actually come from it. Outside of the very active small group of Serenity fans, many of whom seem to be active Lucas haters, there are very few if any who have heard of it. Look, its an online poll, these get skewed so fast as to be meaningless in seconds.
Why was Serenity important? How was its story new and different? Those are the questions that when answered really determine how important a movie was to the genre.
Look at whats missing. Look at some of the entries that people are dismissing as silly yet at the same time claiming that others on the list are worthy.
Some missing list entries
Logans Run
Empire Strikes Back
Close Encounters of the Third kind
Star Trek 2 (what really brought it back)
Hell even ET could be on that list as a classic.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
What the hell is Serenity?
Simply put firefly fans were fanatical enough about firefly that they earned themselves a movie. When this movie came about, even though it wasn't as good as the series, they had so much personally invested that they continued to push it every chance they got. I'd suspect that a good portion of those firefly fans who voted for Serenity realize, and would even admit that Serenity isn't the greatest science fiction movie ever. But they perceive an attack on Serenity as an attack on their community, and therefore themselves, and thus feel the need to defend it.
This entire post is the most insightful thing I've seen on Slashdot in months. It just seems that being unable to rate it beyond 5 points is somehow cheating it, but at least it was correctly modded as high as possible.
Really, I don't want to be a flamebaiter here because I know all of you love Firefly so much, but I thought Serenity was not that good of a film. Sadly enough I really considered Episode 3 to be a better movie.
the Political Inquirer
Some of my favorites in no particular order:
:P
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
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
The honest and hard hitting question is.. Who would win in a fight, Firefly or Millenium Falcon On a serious note, my first time getting onto the net in the early 90s, the first usenet post I came across that had a massive depth count was a thread on The Enterprise vs The Death Star. Sometimes I miss those days.
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.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
If they don't feel like reading, why would they read your 'translation'?
Your 'translation' is not a very good one, at that. For instance, if it were about emotion, I wouldn't have praised Farscape because it has an emotional ring to it, neither would I have indicated that startrek, for all the good things it had, was a bit too cerebral. That goes directly against your claim of what I said, in such a flagrant way, that I suspect you either did not read that part, or are wilfully trolling me. I repeat: if I disliked shows which deal with emotion, as you falsely claim, I wouldn't have praised Farscape for exactly that reason.
Furthermore, instead of 'not enough technobabble' (as you claim I used as criterium, though I didn't even imply it once) I based my critique (among many other things) on the fact that many of the episodes of GM and firefly fail to explore the oportunities where SF lends itself for by exellence, and are rather run-of-the-mill soapseries (in content) which are merely happen to be set against an SF-background.
I would understand that you (and others, no doubt) don't agree with my criticism, and, since it's ultimately based on taste (for instance, people may like ordinary-soap-like SF), it is inevitable that this will happen. But at least you should have the intellectual honesty to 'translate' my post correctly.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Ten years from now people will still be talking about Star Wars, Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes, and pretty much everything else on the list. Serenity won't even be a foot note.
None of these movies can even hold a candle to Killer Klowns from Outer Space.
You've walked into a Rolls Royce convention complaining that the cars don't have that nice feel of plastic like your favorite Honda does.
Come on.
Let me throw this out there. Science Fiction:
A. The effect of future technology on human life. (Source: Gazfather)
So let me also throw this in the fire. Star Wars hardly qualifies as science fiction. I don't mean to use the term "space opera" but it seems popular here, though there is no singing involved. Really the best term to use here is "Fantasy". Sure, it shares some science fiction themes such as government corruption and the effect of interstellar transportation, but if you break it down it shares little in common with actual science fiction. Example, Koushun Takami's Battle Royale was a science fiction novel (which spawned a movie and others) but carried almost no overly futuristic technology like Star Wars, though the Science Fiction theme was defenetly there and showing the ever widdening gap between children and their parents.
To say that Star Wars is Science Fiction is very wrong. Even Lucas himself said something like this. (I think)
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Ok Fan boy. I liked Serenity. It was a good film and worth the $8.50 plus whatever I payed for the DVD.
Best Sci-Fi film of ALL time? That's a bit of a stretch.
What about..and these are only the ones I can pull out of my ass at a moments notice....
Blade Runner
2001 A space Oddessy
Forbidden Planet
The Day the Earth Stood still
The Thing
Alien/Alien 2
Need I go on?
Go and try to hunt down the b/w french 60's movie "la jettee" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056119/), shot entirely as a series of stills with the action being told by a narrator from the off. Way better than 12 Monkeys if you ask me (I saw them both in a small independent theater once, la jettee in french with english subtitles)
that Serenity is the best sci-fi movie ever made. What a load of shit lol.
The world could really use a LotR-like epic/modern sci fi movie series. I enjoyed Serenity (I own it), however, if that is the best modern sci fi can offer, wow, I'm disappointed. The original Star Wars is classic, but it is a bit comic book like for today's standards. Star Trek is also cliched and feels like a tv show. The original matrix almost got us there, but the sequels stank. Personally, as a sci fi epic, I thought the new battlestar galactica was better than most of these, but we could do so much better.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
I fell asleep when trying to watch Serenity (I got it from a friend [DivX] after reading about all the hype here in slashdot) and could not finish watching it... I was watching it with my girlfriend and she was just as bored as I was. And she BOUGHT the starwars trilogy (ep. 4, 5 and 6) DVD as she really likes it and I *love* science fiction (Asimov is my favorite author, I like Bradbury and I also liked Star wars, Star Trek, Darkcity, floor 13th and so far [gosh I even *kind of* liked Starship Troopers because it was set on the space]...
Having said that, I agree with the sentiment of some other people here who said that Serenity is just *another* scifi movie which will be remembered by some people but in no way will approach the fame of Star Wars. I think one of the differences is that, to make Star Wars Lucas needed to employ several new technology, be inventive and really think outside of the box while Serenity is just *another* Computer Graphics fest.
And using the analogy someone else has used I would say that:
Star Wars is to Windows as what
Serenity is to OpenBSD
Because only a handful of people think it is really good... I will say Linux is more akin to Star Trek
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
"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.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
but apparently my dvd player isn't up to it. It started overheating.
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I think you are misreading their intention. The goal is promotion. The fans of FireFly are hoping that if the pump up enough things to get noticed that someone will startup the tv series again. There may be a very few that view it as an attack but they are in the minority.
Serenity was pure garbage. What a ridiculous outcome.
I think I'm one of the very few (if any) that thought Serenity was much better than Firefly.
the series just didnt grab me like other scifi tv series (Farscape, Stargate, new-BSG)
I also thought that Star Wars eps 2 and 3 were also much better than 4-6.
funny thing is I grew up as a kid seeing Star Wars 4-6 in the theatres. I never thought they were that good though...well, the story itself was decent but you have to admit that the acting in ALL 6 was mediocre at best. funny thing, I have only managed to stay awake for Star Wars ep 3 in its entirety.
I have yet to be able to make it through any of the other 5 Star Wars movies in their entirety...they knock me out fast!
(go ahead, mod me down as "different")
the history of the world
Serenity suffered because Mr Joss over there had laid out the basics of about 4 seasons worth of plot arcs in the series. Then realized he would never get to finish the story so he had to wrap all that up in one 90 minute movie. For example, if the series got to live out it's life like Angel/Buffy it would have probably been more like:
Season 2 : Our bad guys get good at being bad, Doc figures out more about his sisters issues.
Season 3 : The operative hunts our favorite psycho killer teen all season. End of season has her remembering the planets name.
Season 4 : We learn about how the core planets caused the reavers
Season 5 : Our good ships Doctor finds a partial cure for the reavers, they unite with the outer worlds, and start a civil war with the core planets.
With side arcs for the romance angles (doc/hailey and that other obvious elephant in the room...)
Problem was, he had to condense ALL THAT into about 90 minutes. With that much to get in he couldn't go into half the depth he probably wanted to. Just MHO. Also, people should hasten to think about how many will remember Firefly or Serenity in say.. 20 years. I still vividly remember going to see Star Wars on opening weekend with my uncle. (I was about 7 at the time)
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
While Serenity was a good quirky movie with some excellent one-liners. George Lucas broke the ground for which many sci-fi films today travel on. Serenity goes to show that a vocal loyal following can help make things happen.
What's really sad is the original Dune movie didn't even make the top ten. Back to the Future was the 10th spot. What's up with that?
Favorites:
Star Wars
Star Trek
Serenity
"Predator and Friends" (P2, Alien and P)
Any Philip K. Dick based story (maybe; haven't seen Paycheck yet...)
Best Sci-fi not mentioned in the RTFA list:
The Day The Earth Stood Still (good sci-fi isn't necessarily exciting)
Silent Running (ditto)
various incarnations of The War of the Worlds
various incarnations of Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Fly (the original)
Fantastic Voyage
Mark me redundant, but the whole thing is just one big beauty contest, and Serenity looks good in a swimsuit. Additionally, the old films look bad because in many cases people have only seen them on TV, and the TV edits of many old classics are crap.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
I enjoyed serenity but no way does it come close to the cinematic greatness of Star Wars.
The only reason Serenity won is that younger people see Star Wars as being too old for their generation.
Does anyone think there would even *be* a Mal Reynolds if there hadn't been a Han Solo first?
Well, there was a time when the hero in a story was always entirely good - I think the modern term would be "all american" (think Flash Gordon). The idea of a hero with flaws and conflicts was popularized by Lord Byron, oh about 200 years before Han Solo hit the big screen. Here's the wiki article for further research.
I realize that you didn't actually claim that Lucas had invented the Byronic hero. I just want to make it *painfully clear* that he didn't invent it. But you're right, Han Solo did make the archetype very popular.
It bothers me a bit that Lucas gets any credit. Lucas is an idiot who stumbled clumsily into a great movie (ep. IV) that he really didn't deserve. Lucas himself has no clue what a Byronic hero is. Lucas doesn't appreciate it or value it at all. This is why he was willing to change episode IV so that Gredo shot first. Lucas is a drooling idiot staring at a movie that is accidentally good, and going "deeerrrrr, lets maik hand shot first, har har. deeeerrr."
If Lucas understood Han Solo, he would have made it *more* obvious that Han shot first.
Also, in the scene in Empire where Han is getting lowered into carbonite, Lea says, "I love you" and Han says, "I know." How cool is that guy, you know what I mean? Well, Lucas actually wrote the script so that Han says, "I love you too" but Harrison Ford changed it. What a moron Lucas is. He has no clue whatsoever.
Go read 2001. The ending is huge, but doesn't translate to visual media very well at all.
It would be interesting to see if there were demographics on the 3000 voters. Most likely it is a younger crowd. If the comparison is actually between Star Wars: A New Hope and Serenity then I can see why Serenity won with this crowd.
Star War: ANH is cheese by today's movie standards. The acting is poor and over the top (especially on the part of Hamill and Fisher) and the special effects are laughable. The characters are flat with little depth or development simply because the actors were new to the characters. You can obviously see them grow and get better in Empire and Return.
Now with Serenity the actors were playing familiar roles that they had developed and grown while shooting Firefly. The acting is more smooth and the character interaction is much, much better because of this. Also, Serenity has had 30 years of movie effects to benefit from.
So yes, I can see why Serenity won. Now if we could bring the original ANH forward 30 years and allow it to benefit from character familiarization and improved effects (without Lucas fiddling with the story and the scenes) or if we could take Serenity back 30 years without the benefit of Firefly and using movie making techniques of the day then I think Serenity would have a hard time winning such a poll.
I would put Cowboy BeeBop (series + feature) up against Serenity/Firefly (series + feature) as equals on many levels. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Firefly was inspired by Cowboy.....
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
+100000000000000000000 Funny
Seriously.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
3000 readers of a sci-fi magazine get to decide what the greatest sci-fi film of all time is? I don't think so.
Recentism trumps classics. Film at eleven. Final update will be posted in a hundred years.
Wake me when somebody has enough perspective to really judge this.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Finally someone who disagrees with my criticsm in a normal way. I didn't know what happend when my post suddenly got -30% flamebait after first getting +4 interesting. I was like: "What the...flamebait???" I mean, as I already said to another poster; I can understand that people disagree with my criticism on firefly and the new BG; it's still largely a matter of taste, after all. But I gave my honest opinion, trying to balance the different SF-shows, and I argumented why I came to that conclusion/critique. I'm rather stupified at the reaction I got, though I probably should have know since this is slashdot, and you always have some irrational fanboys who think they have to make a point by turning a post into 'flamebait'.
I do find it intresting how people differ in opinion, like you, who is clearly also a moderate, rational poster and not reacting from a fan-boy standpoint.
It seems clear that we have other things we appreciate, or that we find annoying, in SF. I can follow you a bit when you say it's strange that aliens would have the same drives as humans... it could be that aliens have totally different drives, which we couldn't possibly understand. But then again, it has to remain a TV-show which is watchable and understandle for earth viewers, after all. I mean, say there's a TV-show where aliens are standing still the whole time and doing nothing but blink with his appendices that vaguely look like eyes. Maybe that is an expression of a total alien way of thinking, or the result of (to us) completely unknown drives and emotions...but hardly anyone would actually watch it.
I hope you see my point; even SF TV-shows are made for a human populace, and that populace has to understand what the characters are doing and what drives them, and they'll only understand that, if it *is* about human-like emotions and drives. A drive or emotion that we can't recognise as such, isn't an emotion or a drive, for us. And I don't think it's possible to have a drive or emotion potrayed in an SF-serie which in some way, can't also be seen as a drive/emotion of humans; in that sense, it's impossible to give made-up aliens truelly alien drives and emotions.
I mean, take the Borg of startrek NG: you could say, well, those have another drive then humans...but is it? In fact, the concept of the Borg explores a fear of losing ones' identity, and deals with the individual versus group polemic. This is not really a (to us) alien drive or emotion or concept, thus. And, for the reasons given, it can't be. It WAS portrayed and put forward in a novel way, however... but then again, so are many of the drives and emotions and concepts in Farscape (for instance, the concept of a shizofrenic nature when Crichton was implanted with a neurochip). Similar concepts that explore the (essentially) human condition in novel ways are far between in Firefly, and even further away in GM.
As for the 'cheesy'... I'm not sure what you mean, and I suspect this one is highly subjective. I did say I had some quircks with it, and one of those was, that in some episodes, it was a bit too much fantasy, and too little science for an SF. Also, I like consistency, where Farscape was fairly good at, but sometimes (like with the episode that was actually a cartoon) it needed a bit TOO much scrapping of rational thought. Which is why I have used that example of the tie in BG too. I know, one could say; that doesn't matter at all. In a certain sense, this is true; the story itself could still be entertaining (which it wasn't). But then again, this is intellectual laziness, and it suposes a degree of suspension of disbelief I simply can not muster.
I think you have the same feeling, but directed in another aspect, as I see your complaint about the 'puppets' and characters needing to be 'believable people'. In this respect, I have a lot less difficulty; in SF and fantasy, you always have to part with *some* disbelief, but the main point is, that, once you acept the given surroundings/story, it must be consistent. Thus, I have no trouble a
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The Falcon would win in a fight...the Serenity isn't even armed. 8)
Nonsense! On board Serenity is none other than Jayne Cobb, the Hero of Canton! He is science fiction's answer to Chuck Norris!
Jayne doesn't just shoot first, he shoots *before* first!
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
All I have to say is I pity Serenity in the next online poll. If one out of 1000 Star Wars fans decides to take revenge, it's all over.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Microsoft Vista voted best operating system ever, by subscribers of Microsoft Fan Club Magazine...
I find the result rather unsurprising. First of all I never understood why Star Wars is considered "Science Fiction". I don't think it should not be consider part of the Fantasy genre just because it is in space. Unless you consider LOTR as Sci-Fi as well, and then I would just have to say that we just dissagree in our interpretation of the term.
Anyway, Serenity was indeed the best RECENT sci-fi movie. I loved the series, my non-geek gf found it ok, but we both adored the movie. So, young people have probably missed many of the older genre greats, plus older people have a very recent impression of Serenity so a few might have voted it, but more importantly their votes were divided among the classics (would you vote "Blade Runner" or "2001" etc...). Hence the "unsurprising" comment.
Personaly, my favorite Sci-Fi of all time is ST: First Contact. But I am a die-hard Trekkie. That might also be the reason for my Star Wars rant: "So, you are into the Star Wars stuff." "No. Maybe you mean Star Trek." "Yeah, same thing."
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Star Wars was released in 1977. If we're talking about the original Episode IV movie, we're talking about a movie that is 30 years old. Many movies have come and gone since then, and Star Wars still holds up remarkably well. I enjoyed Serenity, but I think its success in this particular popularity contest is primarily based on it being the best scifi movie to appear in recent years.
Take another poll in 2037 and see where the two stack up. I suspect Serenity will hold up well, but I don't know that it will have the broad effect of Star Wars. Despite its faults, Star Wars embraced big themes and grabbed hold of the imagination in a way that few films have.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Just my opinion, I would agree that the movie Serenity doesn't deserve the response in this poll, but my guess is that what most people were voting for was Firefly+Serenity.
Serenity was o.k., didn't suck but didn't think it was that great, useful in that it tied up many of the loose ends left by the sudden death of the series. Firefly proper, on the other hand, was pretty much the greatest sci-fi series to be put on T.V. Each episode was very enjoyable in and of itself, while it was clear that the series was going somewhere very interesting in an overall plot arc. Of course, then Fox completely screwed it up, aired it out of order, and then killed it when people got confused. I've never seen a squandering of a creative asset like that, ever. The series DVDs are some of the very, very few DVDs I'll watch more than once or twice.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
I would agree that Firefly/Serenity ended up with some darned loyal fans. I'm sure Star Wars has *more total* loyal fans, but Firefly/Serenity probably has a higher percent. Heck, I got sucked into being a browncoat myself, to the point that I carved Firefly Jack-O-Lanterns and made the fortune-firefly package (official fedora packages here). The Jack-O-Lanters fared much better than last year's Donnie Darko one which, while it looked great, tried to burn my house to the ground.
Let me check my notes...
Actually, I liked what you wrote, and tend to agree with it. But all of you are not taking a step back and looking at the big (cultural) picture.
Serenity will not remain more popular or better remembered than Star Wars, because science fiction has MUCH less relevance to the US & world culture TODAY than it did back in the '70s. Less people watched Serenity than Star Wars, but it had to do with the trend that the population doesn't appreciate Sci-Fi today compared to the way they did back in the '70s. Less viewers = less zealots for the future.
Frankly, I was bored and disliked Star Wars. It wasn't a science fiction story, where future technology or ideas get reflected in the culture of the future or affect the story. Star Wars was merely a nostalgia trip to the action/adventure serials that Lucas saw as a kid. In Lucas's time, its was "western in space". Political conflict in Star Wars had nothing to do with technological influences. Laser blasters kill just like projectile firearms. A light saber functioned no differently than a sword. And the bomber run against the Death Star was no different than a WWII attack on an aircraft carrier. The robots did not affect the way the culture was constructed or reacted. Star Wars was not science fiction, it was a kiddie film. And thus, it made it readily accessible to the general public. Star Wars was popular because it entertained a dumbass public, and did not challenge perceptions about their world or how to live in it.
Serenity, on the other hand, was chock full of science fiction themes. The idea that gov't testing technology on its citizens had consequences (Miranda, reavers). How communication was critical to effecting change in society. The dehumanization of humanity by autocratic, technological gov't (the experimentation on River). It even had Mal conducting strategic thought (going to Miranda to get to the bottom of his troubles, bringing the Reavers for a showdown against the Alliance.) How often do you see THAT in a movie? (Not Star Bores). But the viewing public today would rather see kiddie pirate movies, or gay cowboys. They only watch sci-fi when it entertains them. That's why NBC never commandeered Battlestar Galactica from the Sci-Fi Channel. Sci-Fi is passe; it only attracts a niche audience.
I loved Farscape, (more than Firefly) but you have to realize what made it popular. It was just an amalgamation of cultural myths reflecting the '90's.
Star Trek TOS was wildly popular because, besides presenting the idea there was a future in the apocalyptic age of the '60's, it produced all those consumable myths popular to American culture. It was white USA males calling the shots, with its badass warships, going from exotic port to port, boinking the native females. It was a culture that valued science and intellectual endeavor. It was popular world-wide because it showed a United Earth, where all races had a place. Back then, the world thought of the USA more as crusaders for democracy that rescued the world from the Fascist boot, so they didn't find it incongruous that a good looking, white USA male was calling the shots.
Farscape is merely the Star Trek of the '90's, perpetrating its cultural myths. Its still a good looking, white American calling the shots, BUT now its a galaxy reflecting the globalized world culture of the '90's; full of aliens, and now the 'Murican has to fit into that environment. Of course, the 'Murican is still boinking the white chick who doesn't even have the same physiology or nationality as him. There's less libido in Farscape than ST:TOS. To be frank, I think it reflects that jumping every X chomosome in sight is less important in the 1990's than in the 1960's. There are more negative connotations about gov't in Farscape, but it reflects the world view. US/NASA is not the unquestioned good guy anymore. And its the scrappy startup that's the hero, not the gov't warship. The only ugly aspect of the show I found was how so much was focused on possessing
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Serenity and Star Wars (the later episodes) were released quite recently and are still on people's minds as a result. Let's come back in fifty years and see if anyone still remembers them. I sincerely doubt that they will stand the test of time as well as, say, Forbidden Planet, 2001, and Metropolis have.
http://imdb.com/chart/scifi
...)
Here are some of the highlights:
1. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
2. Star Wars (1977)
3. The Matrix (1999)
4. Metropolis (1927)
5. Alien (1979)
6. Aliens (1986)
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
8. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
9. Blade Runner (1982)
10. Donnie Darko (2001)
11. The Incredibles (2004)
12. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
(... skip some
30. The Invisible Man (1933)
31. Planet of the Apes (1968)
32. Brazil (1985)
33. Kaze no tani no Naushika (1984) / Warriors of the Wind
34. Delicatessen (1991)
35. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
36. Tenkû no shiro Rapyuta (1986) / Castle in the Sky
37. Night of the Living Dead (1968)
38. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
39. X2 (2003)
40. Serenity (2005)
41. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
42. The Truman Show (1998)
43. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Mal would have no problem shooting first.
Han, depends on which edition. Is it the original one where he shoots first or the re-issue where he's holding a flashlight?
Wow, that is probably the craziest post I have ever read. Look at any movies before it that had "futuristic cities". Notice thaey all looked like Jetsons cities - clean, shiny, artsy, and horribly dated. Now look at the same "futuristic cities" in movies post-Bladerunner - dirty, gritty, dark, and realistic. How easily you discount a film that has literally impacted almost every film folliwing it in it's genre. And action flick? Dude, you better go watch it again and this time pay attention... The film is about what makes humans beings human and what separtes artificial intelligence from creatures with souls. Eh, but you are probably right - Phillip K Dick is really well known for writing stories with no depth and weak premises...
"But this one goes to 11!"
...after a half bottle of tequila I fell asleep and my friends stuck my hand into a bowl of warm water for their "further entertainment". At least it was my friend's favorite chair I was asleep upon. Haha.
I know you're entitled to your opinion, but please, this is flamebait, and though I should know better than to feed the trolls, I have to pipe in my voice and lend my opinion of Bladerunner being quite possibly the best science fiction film of all time (but I would love to debate that amongst many other fine films, which don't include fluff like Serenity.)
I would not be bothered if you said, "I just don't get it", or "I just don't like it", or "It's so slow and tedious that I don't know why anybody would like this film". That would be your opinion, and I would respect that. You are right that it "drags on for a while" -- it is a very slow and bleak film.
But to say that Blade Runner is "a horrible film", "has practically no depth", "weak premise", "cardboard characters", and "It's a BAD FILM" is just so wrongheaded that it begs correction.
To start, Bladerunner is, bar none, the best on-screen translation of Philip K. Dick's (one of the grandmasters of science fiction) visionary and perplexing ideas about identity, memory, and the soul. Since the moment I was twelve and watched Decker reveal to Rachel that she is not a human like she thinks she is, with memories, a family, and photo albums of her past, but a constructed being with implanted memories, I have been challenged by the dilemma it poses. How can you ever prove you are who you think you are? If I was created yesterday, and had memories of all the past thirty years of my life implanted into me, how can I prove that I actually existed? How can I prove that I exist even now? Blade Runner, to my knowledge at least, was the first film to present Descartes's 'Brain in a vat/Evil Daemon' dilemma in a sophisticated, mature presentation, and has yet to be surpassed. (Though many of my favorite films of the past twenty years do delve into this struggle with the nature of consciousness and memory, suck as Fight Club, Memento, and Eternal Sunshine).
When the Matrix came out, a lot of people were amazed by the 'philosophy' it featured (solipsism), but philosophically there is very little in the Matrix that was not already done in Blade Runner. Only in Blade Runner, it's not sugar coated for the masses. It doesn't beat you over the head with these ideas, rather it invites you in to ask these questions for yourself. But it takes work, acumen, and time. To be a snobby modernist for just a minute, this is what separates Bladerunner (art) from the Matrix (entertainment).
As for 'then turns into a cheap 80s action flick'. Are you mad? In what parallel dimension are you living that Blade Runner is in any way an 'action flick'. In an action flick, a hero is presented with adversity, he overcomes adversity using his leet skillz, learns a lesson or two, feels good about himself, gets the girl, blah blah blah. Violence gets glorified because it's the means to resolve a conflict, and the hero knows more badass kung-fu then the villain and so he wins. That's an action film. We all leave the theater feeling a little better about ourselves because once again, good has triumphed over evil.
None of the action in Bladerunner follows this formula. Whenever Decker kills, we don't feel good. Good hasn't triumphed over evil. Decker SHOOTS AN UNARMED WOMAN IN THE BACK. We feel sick and sad and know what's going on is wrong, just as much as Decker feels it too. That's why when we start the movie, Decker is retired, and must be coerced out of retirement. Because he's sick of it. He's sick of it and sick of himself, and knows that his whole career he's been executing sentient beings whose only crime is something that he can't even morally justify is a crime at all (being a replicant). This is your idea of a 'carboard character'? Decker is one of the most tormented, three-dimensional, and human (and by some theories, not so human) protagonists to ever star in a science fiction film.
I could go on about a dozen other things (like Rutger Hauer's Roy being one of the most fearsome and sympathetic antag
LOL you pretty much managed to sum up every point I was trying to make in 4 lines while I was writing my long tirade about Bladerunner. Good going. :-)
bullshit.
I think that was Firefly's entire audience.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This was an eloquent and well reasoned counterpoint to a troll.
If only you had used the actual Harrison Ford character's name, Rick Deckard.
So close, yet a glaring omission of accuracy. Sorry, fingernails on a blackboard.
I think Ridley Scott's cinematic visions are glorious (Alien, BR, Black Rain).
"Dune will never produce a good cinematic version, either"
I need to half agree / half disagree with this statement.
I have never seen a film do a more deplorable job at telling the story that it sets out to tell as David Lynch's Dune. The first time I watched it, I had absolutely no clue what was going on. What was the spice? Why was it so important. etc. On a second watch, I had no better idea, and dismissed the film as garbage.
Dune shone as a monument of film-making for me once I had read the novel (several times) and then returned to the film. Where the film falls flat in telling the story, back-story, and nuances of the characters, it excels in -visualizing- the unbelievably alien cultures and future technology of Dune. I genuinely question whether Frank Herbert's own inner imaginings of his works can compare with the rich visuals presented by David Lynch's film.
Today, I describe David Lynch's Dune as more of a visual aid for the book then as a proper film itself, and in that role it is one of my favorite films of all time.
When you say "this movie sucks because it's too hard to understand" you may be right, or you may be missing the point of the movie and exposing your own ignorance.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
I think this result says more about polls than any of the films that were voted for.
What better way to generate traffic than to post an article you know will guarantee lengthy, nonunique, and high thread-count conversation in the forums which... I... just... fell... for. *sigh* Oh well, Comparing Star Wars to Serenity is like saying a brick at the top of the wall(Serenity) is stronger/better/whatever than a brick at the bottom(Star Wars). The top one may have been made with improved methods, better brick, etc. But it's still being held up by the ones underneath, including the bottom one.
Star Wars isn't science fiction - It is a space opera fairy tale. While Serenity wasn't "hard" science fiction, Serenity actually deals with scientific and technological dillemas (such as the morality of using chemicals to modify human behavior). It is mostly an adventure story, but it at least makes some attempt at being science fiction.
Simon was only completely altered in the sense that you didn't see the transition from what he was at the end of the series to where he was in the movie. Throughout the series itself, Simon's character changed dramatically in how he viewed his surroundings and his own actions. Unfortunately there was no way to follow any change in him from the time the series ended to the time the movie itself takes place.
This was from a polling of 3000 readers of one SCI-FI magazine. I don't know if Serenity should even be in the top 10. Don't get me wrong... Serenity was a good movie. Firefly was even better. If you haven't watched it, go out and buy the complete series on DVD, it will only set you back $30 on Amazon and is WELL worth it. It was certainly an amazing show. What it did best was character development. It was also realistic in a way most shows and movies don't even try to be. The best part had to be the humor though, it always felt like it flowed from the story and was true to the characters. You just can't fit that much character development into 90 minutes for a movie when the series opener was two hours and you only started to get to know the characters...
I can't believe Terminator didn't score higher. I hope they were going by "series" also. I can't bear the omission of "The Empire Strikes Back", easily the best of the Star Wars movies.
"What I have trouble getting past is race after race that all speak English," ;-)
:-).
;-)
;-). It could be that don't give enough slack; it's been a while, and maybe I should re-see them again - though this probably would be more correct of the BG episodes, since I only viewed a handful (because I think those really suck, but who knows, maybe I saw just the 5 worst episodes of the series). 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 understand completely; in reality such a thing would be utterly absurd. But then again, this is a bit the same thing as like I was saying about aliens so alien that nobody would understand it. If they would make a TV-show where every alien (or even human future race) would speak a more plausable language of some sorts, no living sole (in real life, when watching the show, I mean) could understand what they would be saying. So far for any intelligent conversations, then
Now, to the defence of Farscape: in the very first episode the aliens *were* speaking alien. I think they solved the problem (they couldn't keep doing that, obviously) with some device or creature which would settle in the brain and 'translate' everything. One can discuss the unlikliness of such a device/creature, but that 'trick' is a lot less hard to swallow then english-speaking aliens. Most other SF-series with aliens don't even bother.
Come to think of it; ok, firefly took the easy way out, and didn't introduce any aliens (maybe they're actually being more realistic in that, agreed). And the 'chinese' as vulgar language is a nice touch, though it seems to be nothing more than, indeed, a touch. Come to think of it, while their onboard computervoice mumbled some chinees, I never heard any of the other characters speak any chinese.anyway, I don't have the same dislike of aliens in an SF-story; the point of aliens, even if they look rather human-like (in that respect, Farscape was not all that bad neither; the aliens there were far less humanoid, then, say, those of startrek NG where almost ALL are extremely human-like (being in reality just humans with make-up) were. At least most of the puppets diverted more of the human form then the typically human-with-make-up aliens do). Thus, the point of those aliens is that they lend themselves extremely well to exploiting some concepts that would otherwise be more difficult to swallow if it were mere humans (such as my exapmle from the Borg).
"and characters that act in ways that do not seem even close to what I understand of human nature."
Well, that's because they're alien characters! And there you were, complaining that you wanted something else than human drives and emotions!
j/k
"'m more interested in a believable and interesting atmosphere than an alien one."
I think there we disgress the most. At least when it comes down to evaluating the value of a *SF*-show. You're basically saying what I said (apart from thos times they actually used the SF setting as an integral part): the SF is largely background noise, and is irrelevant to the actual story. Now, while you found the atmosphere interesting, while I did not (most of the time), it is perfectly possible to have exactly the same 'believable and interesting atmosphere' in Firefly, whether it is an SF or not. That's exactly one of my gripes with it. In fact, if it's about a believable and interesting atmosphere, they would better have scrapped the SF part, and it could have become even more believable.
Well, ok, we both know were we stand. I don't think you're arguments are all wrong on themselves, it's just that we seem to focus on other things when evaluating an SF (though I bet we both like Bladerunner
It was nice talking to you!
Btw, unrelated; the 99bottlesofbeerinmyF...what does the 'F' stand for?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
> More to the point, the whole Force thing is generally considered to kill the science fiction-ness and turn it into science-fantasy.
Didn't they invent some technobabble about the Force existing because of mitochondria^W err, midichlorians? I guess that makes it "science" instead of magic, even if they built up a nonsensical pseudo-religion (philosophy?) around it.
Plot: nonsensical, childish fare (yeah, I will travel half the galaxy and instead of destroying you with my shipd's weapons I will use my samurai sword. Give me a frigging break).
Special effects: average.
Memorable characters: ?
Cultural significance: niche at most.
Filmographic achievements: none.
Some nerds, for reasons I completely fail to understand, are besoted with the movie and the TV series. All the power to them, but frankly this movie can't even remotely touch the movies mentioned as well as others (Metropolis, War of the Worlds 50s version, etc.) that redifined the genre for other that came afterwards. Heck RoboCop, Terminator are way above this movie.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I nominate this for the "stupidest SF movie post ever" award. Now, if you switched out "Bladerunner" with "Matrix", you would be much closer to the truth...
i would gladly give five years of my life if the show could last 'til i die.
LOL.
Look at that list, what a joke!
They have some non scifi films on there too.
IMDB sucks so bad and isn't credible.
Where's forbidden planet?
I was greatly disappointed.
But then I had forgotten I was a fan of Firefly not Joss Whedon.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Whatever movie was out LAST WEEK gets voted the top dog. People have no memories and don't care anyway, so they vote for whatever comes into their heads.
It's the same with these TV Guide "Most Beautiful Woman on TV" polls. Whatever actress was in a TV movie LAST WEEK gets voted to the top. And women who are not in prime time stuff don't get voted on at all. I recall one such poll back when Leeza Gibbons and Mary Hart were on "Entertainment Tonight". They were the best looking babes on TV - but since they weren't actresses in prime time, they were ignored. Even Oprah got votes - which is a travesty.
Fanaticism also has a play in this. One of the media mags has monthly polls for who is the "Most Elegant" and "Most Beautiful" women. They put up a bunch of photos and you vote. You can vote multiple times which is always the kicker in these. My favorite babe Andrea Corr was up against Aishwarya Rai (among others). Quite frankjly, I have to be realistic - Aishwarya IS better looking than Andrea. And it looked like every Hindu in Britain was voting for Aishwarya. But once the fact that Andrea was in the running came up on the Corrs fan boards, Andrea got voted ahead very quickly and stayed that way for a couple months running. I help by voting multiple times, too.
So these sorts of polls are meaningless.
Serenity was a pretty good movie. But the best sci-fi film of all time? No chance. Not even best space opera.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Very well put answer to a horrible post. What impresses me is that Ridley Scott managed to make two (Blade Runner and Alien) of the best SF movies of all time in the span of a few years, only to stay away from SF completely afterwards.
Scary, actually, that I knew that off the top of my head. Unless I'm wrong and it was the pilot (Serenity).
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Anybody ever seen a shirt or bumper sticker that reads "Everything I need to know in life I learned from Serenity". Didn't think so. Case closed.
"But this one goes to 11!"
LOL. You're right. Shame on me for going by memory. Next time I'll actually take the extra 4 seconds to check up on IMDB, so I actually know what I'm talking about. :-D
Not that it will be much of a SPOILER for anyone who has seen anything of the series/movie, but meeting River frozen in a box -- a box that appears to be contraband -- is a direct ripoff of Outlaw Star.
Which I will forgive because it's all executed so amazingly well. Trigun loses some of its realism with some (albeit interesting) stuff like robots, plants, and some of the weirder enemies (giants, the Bad Lads...) Outlaw Star is a bit weird, and just gets weirder at the end -- Serenity does some of the same weird stuff, but keeps a firm grip on reality, and you believe the weirdness (swords) when it happens.
Cowboy Bebop is the closest, I guess. But here, it's characters that make them each unique. Spike and Mal are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and they are both awesome.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Just figured I'd point out a few obvious. I think Gattaca is important because A) it is science fiction, in the sense that Blade Runner was B) its contemporary, an not a lot of contemporary Sci-Fi puts intelligence before action/sex/violence/effects these days.
I agree fully, nothing wrong with space operas. But when you run across a well done science fiction film it's truly a pleasure.
Quack, quack.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
sure...
:)
If you ask 30,000 computer users in one 3rd world depressed country what OS they use you'll get 98% saying " *nix."
If you ask 30,000 computer users in the US what OS they run you'll get 98% saying "Huh?"
Ask 300,000 people that are addicted to all flash no substance movies (most of them are probably under 30) and they'll most likely pick... Firefly? No wait.. the movie is Serenity...right?
Anyway...
I judge a sci fi movie by the quality of its spaceship battles. Nothing tops Star Wars, but Serenity does have a brief yet excellent battle scene.
Serenity fans prefer Serenity to Star Wars. Nothing particularly remarkable about that ... I preferred Serenity to any of the last three Star Wars films myself. They were, well, technically accomplished but lacking in substance. Serenity (especially if you watched the TV series first) delivered plenty of substance.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I thought the change in Malcolm felt natural. I think if you look out to what a few more seasons of Firefly would have brought, Malcolm would have ended up in that state. The story arc is just too short in a movie for that kind of transition to be fully fleshed out.
Most entertainment isn't emphemeral any more. Everything comes out on digital disks which can be archived for a very long time. We can buy the obscurest of books online with a few mouse clicks. When you publish something it stays published.
When you do something that's been done before no one cares, because the original is still perfectly within our grasp.
I quit!
I bet we have alot of choices; Farscape, Babylon 5, lost room etc...
How long did it take to go from "Star Wars", the movie that reviewers assumed would flop, to "Star Wars", source of the Jedi religion? "Serenity" has inspired a subculture of people who identify as "Brown Coats" in just a fraction of that time. You shouldn't underestimate the impact of the series. It may not have approached the level of fame and merchandising that "Star Wars" has, but it's still a pretty serious subcultural phenomenon. (Oh, and more people already talk about "Serenity" than "Planet of the Apes", which was pretty much destroyed by shoddy sequels and remakes).
(Voice of Jar-Jar)
... on second thoughts, let's not go to Coruscant, it is a silly planet.
Every time I look at you I don't understand
Why you let this trilogy get so out of hand
You could have ruled the galaxy if you'd had a plan
Now why'd you chat up Natalie with lines about sand?
When you first strode onto our screens you scared a whole nation
Now you're just a whiny git with a Dark Side fixation
Don't get me wrong, now
Just want to know, now
Anakin, Anakin
What kind of film did you think you're in?
Anakin, Superstar
Are you the Dark Lord they say you are?
Tell me what you think about your friends in the sky
Now who d'ya think besides yourself made the fans really cry?
Yoda was he pretty fly with his Boba Fett clones?
Or Qui-Gon Jin's midichlorians and Young C3PO?
Did you mean to be a parody of everyone's trust or
Did you know this Bantha poo would still be a blockbuster?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
The average noob may think that Serenity was no big deal but cinematographers, cameramen, costume people, and so on would be very unlikely to agree.
The question with this survey is not really which movie is better (though that's fun to debate, of course), but why _this_ group surveyed voted as they did.
:) Frankly, Chiwetel Ejiofor's assassin and Darth Vader are both among the cooler villains the movie universe has to offer. Enjoy both!
Here's the terrible truth on that. What's the average age when you hold a fanboy survey of some sort? Shall we say, charitably... 25?
Well, a 25-year-old would have been 1 year old when Return of the Jedi came out. That is to say, they never saw the original trilogy except on a small TV. Or perhaps when their dad dragged them so see the re-release, while telling them how cool it was. But the sense of wonder wouldn't be nearly as great 20 years after its release, in a world with lots of other spaceship flicks and a crappy new Star Wars trilogy to burden the originals. ("Great, a movie starring voice talent from Family Guy and Batman?")
I'm not afraid to say "I like Star Wars 'cause I'm old."
this is a post, sorry about it...
Help test the
Well "sleeping in light" is a classic example of how when the hero dies, you get a LOT of empathy and real emotion (thought you do need to have believed in the character for it to work). I watched serenity first and didn't connect enough to buy in. When I watched the DVD after watching the series, I could.
At the end of Fallout, though the hero doesn't die, he does end up losing everything he worked for.
Why is Star Wars in the running for favorite Sci-Fi? Spaceships and lasers don't make something Sci-Fi. We could have Star Wars set on earth and use boats instead of spaceships. The only facet of Star Wars that even nudged up against Sci-Fi was the mitochlorian (sp?) crap, oh and maybe the operation of the "laser swords". Even that could be described as fantasy, in the same way that every fantasy writer has an explanation for how magic works. Star Wars is a fantasy, or more precisely a retelling of ancient myths. Frankenstein was Sci-Fi, because it asked questions about science/tech and how it relates to our culture/morality. Would it be ethical to bring the dead back to life? What would happen if we stitched dead body parts together and zapped them? Who is the real monster, the creation, the creator or the village mob? Star Trek is Sci-Fi because it investigates cultural issues and technology. If we set Star Trek on Earth with boats, it would still be Sci-Fi for the same reasons as Frankenstein. Firefly has some elements of Sci-Fi. The ethical issues of personal freedom, of centralized gov't, of messing with a girl's brain to make super soldiers etc. It's more of an adventure/action/comedy bent that true Sci-Fi. Before some tard quotes wikipedia at me, remember that just because many people use the term Sci-Fi to describe things incorrectly, doesn't make them right. Impact != Effect. Spaceships != Sci-Fi.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Matter of fact I think you should go further and say that whenever you do a "best of" all time or century or whatever poll you should exclude the last 5 years or at least give it a mark down ratio to weed out the newness factor.
Poll-takers everywhere, listen to nuromutt!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"To start, Bladerunner is, bar none, the best on-screen translation of Philip K. Dick's (one of the grandmasters of science fiction) visionary and perplexing ideas about identity, memory, and the soul."
I dunno. Have you seen "A Scanner Darkly"?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
No offense to the article poster but...
"This result came in a [2]poll of 3000 readers of SFX magazine."
The article should title should have read "According to SFX Magazine..."
Hate to say it, but poor choice of title. Given the fact that I have never ever HEARD of Serenity and I am considered a geek, chances that the MILLIONS of people who have seen Star Wars that are not considered Sci-Fi geeks would disagree. I can't see how this is even considered a news item outside of the SFX community.
I'd like to see the results of the poll after 5-10 years. Serenity is still new & fresh in people's memories. Granted, Star Wars (just episode 4) was meant to help teenagers think about religon. Serenity answers the question about why bad exists.
No, I will not work for your startup
All three of these series/movies have very different points of view. In Star Trek, everything was clean and shiny, the uniforms were nice and pressed. We got an inside view of the Federation, their government, and it was basically competent. Sure, Kirk would have to disobey the occasional command, but it always turned out OK in the end. Plus, if something went wrong with the ship, Scotty would complain and promptly figure out a way to fix it. If one of the characters got an unheard-of disease, Bones would complain and promptly figure out a way to cure it. And none of the main characters died, just the redshirts.
In Star Wars, government was the enemy. Star Wars was a classic good vs. evil plot, with everything working out well in the end for the Good Guys. Even Han. Yes, he got encased in carbomite, but he got out in the end, and he even got the girl. And, like Star Trek, none of the good guys *really* died. (I know, Obi Wan and Yoda both died, but they both came back as ghosts, or whatever, to talk to Luke.)
Firefly/Serenity was different. Government was still the enemy, but there was no classic good vs. evil. Mal wasn't a Good Guy, he was a Morally Ambiguous Guy that the audience identified with. The crew of Serenity wasn't directly fighting the evil Federation, they were living on the fringes of it, just trying to make a living.
That's why I think Firefly/Serenity will continue to gain popularity (barring any crappy sequels, of course), compared to Star Wars. How often do people find themselves in perfectly defined Good vs. Evil situations in real life? The situation with Han was just one example. Luke goes to help his friends and get his hand cut off, but it's OK, he gets a new one. He goes to talk to his father, and gets electrocuted by the Emperor, but it's OK, Darth Vader saves him and turns back to Good. And the Star Wars movies had a definite Happy Ending, complete with Ewoks dancing in the streets. The Good Guys who died even came back as ghosts to say Hi to Luke.
On the other hand, bad things happen to Serenity, and they have to deal with it, and make the best of a bad situation. Honestly, how many times have you felt like that at work? The crew of Serenity has to deal, not with a government that is the face of evil itself, but an oppressive, meddling government that just won't leave you alone no matter how far you fly. Sound familiar? And when bad things happen, the consequences linger. Can't afford that spare part? The ship dies in space. And when people die, they're dead. No ghosts coming back to comfort you, just the sad reality that you've got to go on with life without someone you loved. I can empathize on a much deeper level with the crew of Serenity than I could with anyone from Star Wars.
I agree with another poster for their OS analogy. Brilliant! Still, we can compare the films entirely on their own merits.
Firefly (vis-a-vis, Joss Whedon) has a fanatic following, strong enough to resurrect a TV show into a motion picture. (When has that happened?) That’s how we come to Serenity, which tells a compelling story that refuses to take a back seat to sheer gimmickry or showboating. The characters have depth, the story has depth, even the bloody name of the ship has depth!
Whereas Star Wars (vis-a-vis, Lucasfilm) bowed to Special Interests, abused their superior technological prowess and the story suffered for it. In rating the entire Trilogy, it seems that the number of each episode is equal to their quality. (in a one-to-ten scale, of course) They sold-out depth for “dominating market share” and clearly cashed-in on their own franchise. Find the depth in that.
Were you high when you watched Serenity? Everything from the Firefly series is there, but it's hard to take it all in with the first viewing. In the end, you know what the story was about and you know that the protagonist overcame their challenge. Did you miss the interplay of the characters? Did you miss the rich “western slang” dialogue? Did you miss the bits in Chinese? Did you understand why the Tams were created in the first place? Did you only wake up for the final 10 minutes?
The only thing lacking depth here is the parent post. For best movie, (yes, -ever) it has my vote!
If j00 gunna claim FP, at least know when to use the </sarcasm> tag!
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
How about http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/pvp/789d/? Men's and women's versions available, too.
Hmm...forgot to respond..
:-))
;-)
I liked your post as well. It made an interesting comparison between the SF and our own timeframe/societies in which it was made. while I'm not sure if it's all that clear cut (you have sci-fi movies that just depict a specific idea too, IMHO, without it being a reflection of the actual society in which the author lived; e.g. solient green, THX 1138, GATACA,...).
But you do make a compelling case for popular Sci-fi shows, and I think there is actually a lot of truth in the claim you made. Especially for the Captain Kirk era... ah, I'm actually nostalgic about that. (Not that I'm from that era, but it's probably because I saw the show when it came out in my country as a little kid, about 7-8 years old, wide-eyed and completely captivated. "Oooooh!...An 'energy-field'...in the form of a giant hand! *gasp* *suspense*
I also thought the 'boinking the native females / white chick' was rather funny'.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---