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.
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
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
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?
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 !
To be even, wouldn't it have to be a prequel with Jar Jar?
In reality, science fiction is fairly loosely defined and Star Wars fits very well under some definitions and not at all under others. Firefly is given more science-fiction credit because of the fact that it didn't have random fantasy elements (well, except for River's psychic-ness, but we never got around to getting a good enough explanation of whether it would be better classified as a faux-science or a fantasy element, but from what we did get, it seemed as if they wanted to at least try to make it more the faux-science route.)
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
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).
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 ]
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.
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
Dune will never produce a good cinematic version, either. You'd think people would learn to leave cerebral books with a great deal of politicking and internal monologue alone.
Then Blade Runner is trivia.
Nothing more came from that. (not directly)
If you want innovations, here are some off the top of my head:
space shot in handcam style - everything in BSG's external shots is Firefly derivative.
The wild-west space - a genre-crossing adventure with the idea that not everyone will have golly-gee technology
Inara was wicked hot. (sorry, not a valid point, but still true)
Sure, but you can write a character out of a story without killing them just because the actor isn't available to continue the original role.
(Cf. Ivanova, Capt. Susan; Crusher, Dr. Beverly)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
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
Nothing more came from that. (not directly)
If you want innovations, here are some off the top of my head:
space shot in handcam style - everything in BSG's external shots is Firefly derivative.
Didn't Babylon 5 do this? (I could be totally wrong there)
The wild-west space - a genre-crossing adventure with the idea that not everyone will have golly-gee technology
You should check out this old sci-fi show called Star Trek... Rarely seen. They might have had an episode or two that hinted at the disparity between low tech and high tech civilizations. I think it's creator, some Roddenberry guy, called it "Wagon Train to the stars"
Inara was wicked hot. (sorry, not a valid point, but still true)
Again, this old sci-fi series Star Trek. I hear it's on DVD now. Something about a blond yeoman.
"Then Blade Runner is trivia.
Nothing more came from that.(not directly)"
Yeah, only the look for every other cyberpunk type movie that came out after it. But other than influencing just about every film in a genre that came out after it, you are right - nothing more came from it. I wouldn't consider that kind of influence "indirect".
"But this one goes to 11!"
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.
People who keep objecting to the "silly old-west" theme should perhaps talk to an anthropologist or historian or two who knows a little something about how remote or frontier societies develop, even when their parent societies are affluent.
There are places on Earth *right now* where people don't have running water or electricity, and do subsistence farming with domesticated animals. Western-style clothing evolved in the US because it was *practical* for low-tech manufacture with locally available materials and for the local environmental conditions. Why would you think that all remote space colonies would all have their own replicators and Mr Fusion generators?
Compared to almost all other sci-fi shows ever made, more of Firefly was realistic than fantastical. There was no faster-than-light travel or wormholes of folding space or whatever. People had to grow and raise their food, and it was real food not bioengineered food paste. The entire show took place within one single solar system. People had idiomatic speech patterns that were not simply "This is how we talk today with some made-up words thrown in". Which is not to say the show was pure science-based speculative fiction, but it generally took much smaller leaps than the typical sci-fi show.
Firefly isn't going to bring about a golden age of peace and prosperity or foster a new religion, but there was a lot of positive things to say about it as a representative of the sci-fi genre.
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.