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.

Comments

I hate Star Wars

[TodMinuit]

But Serenity wasn't that great of a film. Firefly was an amazing TV show, but the film was without the same depth.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Hal_Porter]

I think if they were operating systems Serenity would be Linux (small market share in general, but popularised in geek circles by very loyal fans/users). Star Wars would be Windows (huge market share, almost no loyalty). This being a nerd poll, Serenity will win by a huge margin.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[vux984]

but the film was without the same depth

That's what happens when you only have ~120 minutes (movie) instead of ~650 minutes (series)

Few people will sit through a 600+ minute movie, no matter how deep it is.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Seumas]

I'm confused as to where the sci-fi was in the movie? I mean, there wasn't any sci-fi in Star Wars either. Fantasy based in the future, sure. But sci-fi? Why, because there's space ships?

And while I thought the movie was okay, I didn't care nearly as much for the television series. In fact, I would say that if the television series had tried a little less to be Brisco County Junior and had been a little more like the movie, it would have at least made it a full season or two.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[paganizer]

weeellll... I saw Starwars in a theatre in Bakerfield, CA when it first came out. I saw it 6 times on opening weekend. Whenever anyone says "Star Wars", it takes me a minute to realize that they aren't talking about Episode IV. So to me, Star Wars is Episode IV, and blows the airlocks off of Serenity without even trying. However, if you consider "Star Wars" as everything put on film as being Star Wars "canon", and Serenity also including Firefly as "Canon", then serenity/firefly wins.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Jason Earl]

Are you saying that Star Wars doesn't have a loyal fan base? That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. "Jedi" is an organized religion in many countries. Serenity can't touch that.

Let's be realistic. Star Wars is popular to the point of becoming a cultural phenomenon, and there are more Star Wars fans that are completely obsessed with the franchise than there are people who even saw Serenity. Heck, more people dressed up as Wookies last Halloween than saw Serenity.

What's even more hilarious is that Serenity even made the top ten. 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.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[slarrg]

Does that make Apple the Star Trek of the analogy?

Re:I hate Star Wars

[AigariusDebian]

I wonder why animated sci-fi was not included in the same vote. For example anime series such as Cowboy Bebop and Trigun could very easily compete with Serenity and Star Wars in all departments, especially in story and characters.

BTW: if you liked Firefly/Serenity, then watch Cowboy Bebop series - it gave a lot of inspiration to the Firefly. And Trigun is of very similar quality but with more humour and even more bitter end.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[shmlco]

"I'm confused as to where the sci-fi was in the movie?"

How about what happens when an oppressive government secretly uses drugs in an attempt to make its citizens docile, peaceful and obedient?

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Fallingcow]

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

Hell, I'd even say that Farscape has a better shot at enjoying some level of popularity 20 years from now than Firefly does.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[julesh]

Let's be realistic. Star Wars is popular to the point of becoming a cultural phenomenon, and there are more Star Wars fans that are completely obsessed with the franchise than there are people who even saw Serenity. Heck, more people dressed up as Wookies last Halloween than saw Serenity.

Yes, but what's the cross-section of those fans with SFX magazine's readers? My guess is that most of those fans are pretty-much exclusively star wars fans, and therefore likely wouldn't read a general scifi magazine like SFX.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Captain Splendid]

Hadn't thought about it that way, and I have to say you've got my vote on that, and I'm a huge Firefly geek. And when you stop to think about the styles and skills of the involved auteurs, it makes a lot fo sense: George Lucas, able at times to bring out work that is simply stunning, but leave him running too long and he'll fuck it up, whereas Joss Whedon's always plan for the long haul (yes, I know that's par for the course when you work in TV, but his methodology is evident in most everything he does.

One is a visionary, well-versed in the peaks and troughs associated with that status. The other is simply a master storyteller, laying his foundations like a brickie and keeping his eye on the finish line.

Dang, it's 4AM, Hope any of that made sense, as I'm not gonna preview it!

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Fallingcow]

Good point.

If that'd happened with B5, I'd be able to comfortably and comfortably call it the greatest sci-fi series of all time, past and future. Sadly, we've got a rushed 4th season, an off-kilter and mediocre 5th, and a couple of (reputedly, I haven't watched them out of fear of the suck) crappy tv movies, thanks to the bastard suits.

I really, REALLY want the US tv producers to get their acts together and start producing reasonably-long (1-5 seasons, not never-ending 10-season monstrosities) with full story arcs. Tell me a story, goddamn it, and don't leave me constantly in terror that you will yank the show JUST before it gets a chance to wrap up, or push the writers in to making it much longer than it ought to be, then making them rush in an ending.

If they do that, then I can stop watching anime. I don't WANT to watch anime, but their well-developed characters and pre-planned series-length plot arcs are such a draw...

So please, corporate media gods, save me from anime. For the love of god, save me. 90% of the other Americans who watch this stuff are ugly, introverted, cheeto-faced losers with no social skills, and I'm afraid that their disease is contagious :(

Re:I hate Star Wars

[EonBlueTooL]

Phantom menace: 133 minutes
Attack of the clones: 142 minutes
Revenge of the sith: 140 minutes
A new hope: 121 minutes
Empire strikes back: 124 minutes
Return of the Jedi: 134 minutes
For a total of 794 minutes.

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

You don't have to force an entire story into 120 minutes. What would happen if they did that with the lord of the rings series? Star Wars? (I've watched them both at seperate times back to back, infact I prefer it that way, but im usually the exception and not the rule)

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Look at it like this: if the Star Wars franchise is the Roman Catholic church, then who is Jar Jar Binks? The antichrist? Or just Martin Luther?

Re:I hate Star Wars

[HexRei]

"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."

Out of all the other hyperbole in your post, this stands out as the most inaccurate. Serenity was an important scifi film and will be talked about still in ten years, as will the Firefly series. Perhaps not as much as Star Wars, but it doesn't help your argument any to overstate your case and alienate fans of both properties.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[master_p]

But Lord of the Rings was a very successful 600+ minute movie, and many went out and bought the DVD with the extras, despite having watched the movie at the theaters. And I have been in a few Lord of the Rings whole-day-viewing marathons myself.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

if the Star Wars franchise is the Roman Catholic church, then who is Jar Jar Binks? One of those child-molesting priests?

Sorry... :-O

Re:I hate Star Wars

[TapeCutter]

"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."

I second that! I am a middle-aged geek who has enjoyed SF for the best part of five decades, my mental list of "favorites" is long, I estimate my "forgotten" list is at least an order or two of magnitude longer. "Serenity", vaugely I've heard of it but before RTFA I thought it was a phyco-drama, it's been available for what? - A year or so?

In fairness to the slashvertisement I will give it a go.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[carpe_noctem]

Longtime, loyal, somewhat-crazy fans, first marketplace claims, static marketshare... I'd say the only thing your analogy is missing is "good taste in design". Never cared for those hideous jumpsuits and pager-pins myself..

Re:I hate Star Wars

[@madeus]

Who gives a rat's who reads SFX? Gosh, I cant see how that would be relevent to the poll. You may want to RTFA.

And the grandparent's comment stands: "More people dressed up as Wookiees last Halloween than saw Serenity." People. Not SFX readers. People. Period." Star Wars is more popular, it doesn't mean those who like it feel more strongly about it or make them 'loyal fans'. It's pretty hard to be a 'loyal fan' when the quality of the material varies so greatly. If anything, have a wide popular fanbase it means the strength of feeling is likely to be much diluted - think Manchester United supporters, for example.

I know people who are loyal fans of a few different stories/franchises. While most people I know really like Star Wars and we'd trape along to the cinema if a new trilogy was coming out, I don't really know anyone that feels as strongly about it as people do about smaller, tighter (i.e. more consistantly good quality) franchises like Firefly.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Cappy Red]

"What's even more hilarious is that Serenity even made the top ten. 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."

I disagree. People will still be talking about Serenity because people will still be talking about Firefly. It isn't a question of Serenity's value by itself, in a similar way to Star Wars' appeal not being a question of the original film by itself.

Without the latter two films in the original trilogy, Star Wars wouldn't have nearly the fanbase it does now.(Yes, including RotJ, Ewok haters) The three films of the original trilogy came out in a manner that allowed the series to span the childhoods of its first generation fanbase.(and as much as it pains me to say it, there's a good chance that the second trilogy will benefit from a similar effect) Anyway, none of the films by themselves would have inspired the fanatical devotion they enjoy now.

Though Firefly and its associated stories won't have that childhood-spanning quality, with the revolutions and evolutions in media and entertainment, Firefly won't need it. Star Wars came out at the dawn of the VCR. Firefly was born into an era where the home entertainment industry is not just well established, but arguably as important as the theatre industry. Even more importantly, Firefly was born into an era where movies and television shows are traded on file-sharing networks. It isn't nearly so hard to stay in the public consciousness now as it was in 1977, 80, or 83. If you raved to a friend about this movie you saw then with lasers and swords and intensive breathing apparatuses, and it was out of theatres or on its way out, there wasn't much chance of your friend seeing it.(not that you would have been a particularly good friend had you waited that long to tell them about it) Now your friend can get the show off the net and be on their merry.

And then, of course, there's also the penchant of the internet to foster geeky forums devoted to minutiae. If the internet can resurrect a forgotten Sega Mega Drive game from 1989 and turn its horrible translation into a cultural phenomenon, then surely it can foster a fanbase for a well conceived but ill-fated sci-fi franchise from 2002.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Hal_Porter]

Well look at it this way. You can market a movie to two groups.

One group is 30 something Sci Fi fans. Admittedly, they're are fanatically loyal and will spend hundreds of dollars but they are not very numerous and are the sort of people who get refused access to Chuck-E-Cheese. Soccer moms don't want to get near them, and they sure as hell don't want their kids near them. So targetting them gets in the way of targetting the other group, basically kids worldwide and their parents. Interestingly, that was the demographic that the original Star Wars films were aimed at, and they made a fortune too.

So if you want to make a lot of money which the Star Wars prequels did, you make sure that you do a few things to alienate the first group which the second group won't notice much. Like Ewoks or better Jar Jar Binks. That's not to say that loyal, older fans don't exist both, just that they are an irritant to George Lucas but essential to Joss Whedon, and both sets of fans know this.

So we have Serenity aimed at nerds vs Star Wars aimed at kids. It's not surprising that when you poll nerds, Serenity comes out on top. They were the target market for it, and they were explicitly excluded from the target market for the Star Wars Prequels. And most nerds tend to be skeptical of mainstream things anyway. When you poll the population at large however, for example by seeing how many of them want to buy a movie ticket, Star Wars comes out on top by a huge margin.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[holysin]

I think jarjar would be Judas, I can't see Jarjar starting a "new" religion. But he did cause the first movie to be fairly crucified by a lot of the Star wars lovers, so yeah, I stick with Judas (and not the Book of Judas sort of Judas either ;-) )

Re:I hate Star Wars

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Serenity was an important scifi film and will be talked about still in ten years, as will the Firefly series.

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

The only way that I can see it being talked about is as an afterthought to the series, assuming it's good.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[p3d0]

... an utterly unoriginal storyline. You know, it's only fairly recently that originally trumps all else as a measure of value. God help Shakespeare if he were trying to make a living with today's critics.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[TheRaven64]

Your comment sums up the most important difference between Serenity and Star Wars. Star Wars stood on its own. Serenity was a great film, but it did not make much sense without the half-season of character development that had gone on before it. Characters died in Serenity, and the audience cared because they had been introduced earlier, and we knew them.

If you haven't seen FireFly, then I wouldn't expect you to think much of Serenity, because you don't have the correct context in which to place the film. I would thoroughly recommend the series to you, by the way, but your comment highlights exactly why the movie did so badly. The potential audience for Star Wars was everyone who liked cowboy films, space films, or both. The potential audience for Serenity was a subset of people who had seen FireFly. From the DVD sales, this was a fairly large number, but still tiny in comparison to most other films.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"If it is, think back to you're 20's and remember how dumb you were.." And still are, it seems. Serenity isn't only good because of fancy special effects. It's a good movie because it's a good movie. Well written and well acted, in my opinion.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Frumious Wombat]

That's the issue, isn't it? A friend and I went and saw Star Wars (ep 4 to the younger gen) when it was reissued (we'd originally seen it when we were 9, in our respective home states), and it's still a great adventure yarn (even if more than one you wish that Han had followed up on his threat to let Luke float home). Empire is a solid follow-up, with the beauty that the good guys don't always win (an important lesson), and if Lucas had stopped there, it might be a respected cultural phenomena, still discussed as part of the explosion of memorable films from the 70s. But he didn't, and ended up parodying himself. Jedi was the start, and really should be lumped in with the new 1,2, and 3 in terms of having escaped from quality control.

OTOH, I just sat through the Firefly episodes, and can't believe that Enterprise was given three seasons to wander around and die, while an arguably superior, if somewhat strange, alternative got jacked around by Fox and then cancelled. "Serenity" is an OK movie, but by the time you get to the later FF episodes, where the crew has gelled, or at least become interesting, and the stories are becoming somewhat ambiguous in what's been accomplished, you can see that Whedon was really going somewhere. The episode where they raid the hospital so that Simon can subject his sister to first-world medicine is simultaneously a hoot and scary in parts (the men with blue hands), and the story about the kid who never really comes back from the war and becomes a gut runner is both entertaining and sad. Unfortunately, now that he's killed both Wash and Book, as well as the rousing success of Serenity, it's hard to believe that anyone is going to give him the chance to expand on those stories.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[C0rinthian]

"...but if your hand touches metal I swear on my pretty floral bonnet I will end you."

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Volante3192]

If you haven't seen FireFly, then I wouldn't expect you to think much of Serenity, because you don't have the correct context in which to place the film.

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

Did I understand everything? Probably not. But even after seeing Firefly I still don't, but on the other hand, I found the verse crafted well enough that I figure even if I don't know an exact reason for something, one exists that makes sense.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

the Firefly franchise already has an extensive and very very loyal following, and I don't see this fading so quickly.

Flares man, Buy them up, they'll never go out of fashion. And they go great with your mullet.

Disco is here to stay!

That Kevin Costner is one of the world's greatest actors. I wonder what he'll do next?

This Pokemon game is the best thing since the Rubik's cube!

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Homr Zodyssey]

IMHO, Firefly didn't lose viewers because of the quality of the shows. It lost viewers because the network kept switching the schedule around and airing it at bad times. I was only able to catch two episodes (which I loved) when it was on its original run.
Now, when sci-fi channel brought it back, I caught every single episode. Of course, it helped that I had a TiVO by that time.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[Cpt_Kirks]

I am kind of a Trek fanatic (couldn't have guessed that, right?), but STTMP (the first Trek movie) kind of blew. Hell, I FELL ASLEEP during the approximately 3 hours it took the Enterprise to fly through the V'ger cloud.

Now, the other Trek movies were MUCH better. "Wrath" is so good, I watch it constantly.

Re:I hate Star Wars

[walkerp1]

Count me in on that. I had not even heard of Firefly when Serenity came out. I think my first glimpse was an Inara screen saver that I downloaded (one in probably three screen savers in my lifetime). I drooled over Morena Baccarin and counted the days for the release of Serenity. I ditched work and deceived my wife to carve out a time slot to see it.

And I was truly amazed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I hate Star Wars

[StarvingSE]

Serenity was a great film, but it did not make much sense without the half-season of character development that had gone on before it.

This implies Star Wars has some sort of well-written character development, which it does not. I love Star Wars as much as the next guy (or gal), grew up with them, but I will never say they have good character development. Star Wars has always been about action and good vs. evil.

Having said all that, Firefly/Serenity are watched weekly in my house, and have ever since the dvd's came out. Star Wars hasn't been in the dvd player for God knows how long.

Serenity was good...

[evanbd]

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.

Re:Serenity was good...

[pmc]

Blade Runner - the plot was fairly straightforward.

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

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

Re:Serenity was good...

[Threni]

> I can see it beating Star Wars. But the likes of Blade Runner?

I've never even heard of Serenity. Isn't this just an example of a film doing well in a poll because it's new? It's possible that in ten years time it won't even appear on the list.

Re:Serenity was good...

[scotch]

The Blade Runner soundtrack is by Vangelis, and it stands on its own quite well. You may be too young and immature to realize that the technology involved in art changes, but that change doesn't diminish the value of the earlier art. You must be a real hoot to watch Casablanca with.

Re:Serenity was good...

[TheRaven64]

The questions that the plot raised - what made the replicants not human? what makes humans human? Unfortunately, much of the plot from the book which supported this question was dropped from the film. In the book, humans were regarded as superior because they were capable of empathy, while replicants were not (hence the test from both the film and the book). This was taken much further in the book; humans were expected to keep some kind of pet to prove (socially, rather than legally) that they were capable of empathising with animals, while replicants were happy to kill animals (and humans). Some of the revelations later in the book cast doubts on whether this was actually a good metric.

Re:Serenity was good...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Blade Runner...The questions that the plot raised...Was the cop human or not?...are all pretty...ambigious.

Uh, no. Not *that* question, at least. As a kid, the first time I saw it, I figured there was a high probability the cop was a replicant. Later, the expanded director's cut (or whatever they called it) with the unicorn sequence made it completely, unapologetically, smack-me-in-the-head-with-a-two-by-four obvious that the cop was a replicant. I had my misgivings about the need to make it so obvious but ultimately decided that having this knowledge while following Deckard on his journey of self-discovery (We know he's a replicant, but just when, if ever, does he figure it out? Now, that's heavy stuff, there.) made for a better movie.

Yeah, I agree that there were lots of great questions about the human condition in the movie. It was a great movie. Absolute top of my list. All the questions were beautifully asked. But as for the status of the cop - by the end of the movie, there was no ambiguity there.

Re:Serenity was good...

[pmc]

I thought that the dream of the unicorn was his transition from replicant to human (along with his falling in love with Rachel). Pointing towards that humanity is an accumulation of experience and a result of interactions with others, rather than a given state for an organism.

But the fact that the movie can even provoke such a discussion is a sign of a classic.

Rigging

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rigging

[aadvancedGIR]

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

"Serenity" has a vocal but minority following

[DavidinAla]

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

Re:"Serenity" has a vocal but minority following

[Bodrius]

If you had not seen/followed Firefly before, I'd have to agree with you, even though I really liked Serenity (to be expected, being a fan of the series).

I think the movie is pretty good, technically speaking, but it made some gigantic assumptions on the exposition of the characters, plot details, etc. It felt like a really good TV season finale, not a theatrical movie that stood by itself.
I can see how watching the movie without following Firefly would feel like catching the last episode of a series you don't watch, with closures for plot points that were never opened, and characters that you have no reason to care about... fine for late night cable, but not the same entertainment bar for paying a ticket to watch a movie in the theater.

Admittedly, I doubt adapting it to a stand-alone movie would work. A lot of what was great about Firefly as a series depended on having that span to explore the universe and the characters over an episodic show. The tempo would have to be very different.

As part of the show, I think the "movie" was great and well worth it.
As a movie per se, it was overrated, because the very vocal fans are Firefly fans, and saw it (and hyped it) as part of the show.

It reminds me of the X-files movie in that sense, except Serenity was better made and had more of the grass-roots-hype, and less of the bovine and equine abuse.

Re:"Serenity" has a vocal but minority following

[Lisandro]

Serenity is a good movie, and i think their producers did a fine job of keeping the storyline as independent of the original series, Firefly, as possible. Having said that, yes, i felt the same as you did - it's too convoluted of a story. Sadly enough, a lot of things in the movie simply won't make much sense without having watched the series.

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

Re:"Serenity" has a vocal but minority following

[quantaman]

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. I watched and really enjoyed firefly, when I heard about the movie I was very sceptical that it would translate onto the big screen, I found the movie enjoyable, maybe even good, but I'd stop far short of labelling it great.

I find people have a tendency to ally themselves with a certain bit of media or subsection of culture, they'll then defend any show, movie, or book that falls into this subsection even though they realize that it isn't very good. Conversely they'll denigrate anything that falls into categories that they don't like, regardless of its quality. I know I've often found myself wrestling with these very tendencies.

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.

Let the Flamewars begin....

[Socguy]

Me and my mod points are going to maintain a distance of no less than 3 articles from this inevitable flame-fest.

Who Has the More Active Fanbase

[Coryoth]

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.

Obvious unfair advantage.

[bobdotorg]

Let's see of the results hold after Serenity makes a sequel with Jar Jar Binks.

I thought so.

Re:Obvious unfair advantage.

[Faylone]

To be even, wouldn't it have to be a prequel with Jar Jar?

Come on

[MemoryDragon]

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.

Re:Come on

[Nimey]

I thought the second worst sin committed was killing off certain people needlessly.

No. There were Real Life reasons for killing Book and Wash. Book's actor wanted out of acting to do political activism full-time, and Wash's actor had other acting commitments.

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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)

Not even most active

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Not even most active

[Iambic Pentametor]

But, look at what happened when Flanvention II fell through. By all reports, the Browncoat Backup Bash was better than Flanvention II ever would have been.

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

Me? I'm a proud Browncoat.

Re:Damn Brits!

[Umuri]

How exactly is star wars somehow less scifi then firefly?

I'd wager that there is more theoretical technology and theoretical futuristic social structure in star wars then serenity and probably most of firefly.
So what do you define as science fiction?
I mean, it's fiction, about science.
Firefly barely had enough science to make it not qualify as a current fiction w/ spaceships.

Concentration of Quality

[Zapraki]

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?

All Hail Terry Gilliam

[Hobbex]

Where is "Brazil"? Where is "12 Monkeys"?

"Serenity" was fun and all, but those are good films...

Re:All Hail Terry Gilliam

[Secret Rabbit]

When you get older, you'll understand.

Awesome sampling, really

[svunt]

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.

Why did either one win?

[edwardpickman]

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.

What ???

[BlueTrin]

Serenity named top sci-fi movie
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 ?

3000 people?

[bushboy]

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.

puh-lease

[Tumbleweed]

Does anyone think there would even *be* a Mal Reynolds if there hadn't been a Han Solo first?(and yes, they both shot first!)

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

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

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

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

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

The Star Wars film that most fans seem to think was the best (Empire Strikes Back) wasn't even on the list? That seems a little odd.

Re:puh-lease

[meringuoid]

Forbidden Planet for me, every time. Thank God no-one has remade it.

Saw this play once, actually. Live-action, actors there in person on stage, you know the type. Had this Renaissance-era wizard and his daughter on this island with a monster and fairies and stuff, and a shipload of guys who end up there with them. Took me a while to realise it, but - total rip-off of Forbidden Planet! Amazed they got away with it really.

Star Wars is Sci-fi

[Rocketship Underpant]

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.

Re:Star Wars is Sci-fi

[p3d0]

No. Science fiction is a means of exploring the human condition. Star Wars is a space opera, nothing more. Opera doesn't explore the human condition?

Re:Serenity was godawful.

[mwvdlee]

I love sci-fi, but I've never liked Firefly or Serenity. It just seemed like a western in space, and not a very good western at that. Firefly/Serenity is about as sci-fi as the Jetsons. Just because it's set in the future, doesn't make it sci-fi.

Re:Damn Brits!

[masterzora]

The main argument against Star Wars being sci-fi is that it is better considered science-fantasy. More to the point, the whole Force thing is generally considered to kill the science fiction-ness and turn it into science-fantasy.

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.)

Don't take the results too seriously

[91degrees]

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).

Different times, different appeals.

[BrianRagle]

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.

Star Wars *was* the top

[DrYak]

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.

Re:Star Wars *was* the top

[theshowmecanuck]

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

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

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

Be sure to watch Firefly THEN Serenity!

[@madeus]

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.

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 /. would really like it and very few would regret it.

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.

Re:Be sure to watch Firefly THEN Serenity!

[Se7enLC]

I agree 100%

I had never seen Firefly, but I had a lot of friends who were fans of it. We all saw Serenity, and while it was a decent movie, if you asked me a week later what I thought of it, I wouldn't have even been able to recall what it was about.

Recently, I was convinced to sit down and watch all of firefly. I really enjoyed it. Then I watched Serenity again. It was like I was watching a completely different movie!

Seeing the movie by itself, you don't really get attached to the characters like you do in the TV show. [Spoiler] When Wash and Shepherd die, you don't really feel badly about that in the movie, because you didn't really know them. Shepherd especially, he wasn't much more than a background character.[/Spoiler]

Bad Poll

[meabolex]

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).

I would

[hummassa]

(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!

Agreed...

[digitalhermit]

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.

my pet LoTR peeve

[Hognoxious]

Remember the bit during the siege where the elf uses a sheild as a surfboard? I reckon there was a shark under those stairs.

Shiny!

[cain]

Shiny!

Re:Serenity/Firefly: overhyped?

[Paulrothrock]

I'll translate for those of you who don't feel like reading: Serenity and BSG have too much emotion and too little technobabble. I'm uncomfortable with the former and therefore dislike shows that deal with it.

Sci-Fi Movies...

[thejynxed]

Some of my favorites in no particular order:

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

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

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

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

BTW: Everyone needs to quit dwelling on the whole "Luke this" "Luke that" thing. The entire story arc of the movie series was about Darth Vader, not Luke. The whole Luke obsession thing is almost homo-erotic :P

Re:On topic of length versus quality

[syrion]

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.

You are all avoiding the real question

[saboola]

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.

Re:You are all avoiding the real question

[Daoenti]

I think what you're looking for is a YT-1300 vs. a Firefly. I think I'm a little ashamed that I know that.

Re:You are all avoiding the real question

[wiggles]

Battle Star Galatica (even that raping-of-my-childhood bastard new series)

See, that's why I avoided the new BSG series for two seasons before I got on board with it. But then, once I got it through my head that it has nothing to do with the series from the 70's, the show instantly became enjoyable. All you have to do is not compare the two series, realize that the new series is completely separate from the old series, and you're in business. Kinda like the Batman series of movies from the late 80's/90's and the new Batman Begins series, or like Star Trek vs. TNG -- just reboot the part of your brain that pays attention to BSG, or create a separate partition for it, and you're good to go.

Pity that doesn't work for Star Wars.

Re:You are all avoiding the real question

[sconeu]

But wait! The name of the space ship is the USS Ditka!

Re:You are all avoiding the real question

[AeroIllini]

Damn yokels can't even tell a transport freighter ain't got no guns on it.

Re:Serenity/Firefly: overhyped?

[KoldKompress]

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? I know what you're saying. Everyone in the future wears aluminium foil and silver jump suits. Duh.

But these are all so recent ...

[eck011219]

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.

Re:But these are all so recent ...

[AdamThor]

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

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

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

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

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

BTW - I agree with your point about classic SF.

Science Fiction?

[ZeroSerenity]

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)

To quote Mal...

[theghost]

"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.

Re:Serenity was NOT good...

[elrous0]

First of all, let me say that I was a HUGE Firefly fan (though not a fan of Whedon's other work). I thought the series was absolutely groundbreaking at its best. Episodes like "Ariel," "Out of Gas," and "Jaynestown" subverted the classic hero stereotypes and stock character expectations which had generally been the mainstay of sci-fi television. But, that said, I *HATED* "Serenity" the movie. No, that's not accurate. I HATED HATED HATED it (to paraphrase Roger Ebert's review of "North").

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Serenity will be relegated to trivia

[Monkeyboy4]

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)

A bit of historical context

[oni]

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.

Nonsense!

[Goldarn]

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!

Star Wars... Sci-Fi?

[Ecuador]

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."

1977

[Infonaut]

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.

Re:Serenity will be relegated to trivia

[stickyc]

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.

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.

Re:Serenity will be relegated to trivia

[Mister Whirly]

"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".

Re:"best" versus "favorite"

[geekoid]

The demo of the magazine is Serenity's demo.

Nice to see silent running on your list. Thinking Sci-fi is rare.

I also like , what I call, the 'Charlton Heston' 3 pack:

Soylent Green "Tastes Different from person to person!"
Planet of the Apes "From Chimpan A to Chimpan Z!"
Omega Man "1 million zombies on the, shoot some down, 1 Million zombies on the wall."

Re:For what it is worth...

[mrbooze]

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

[RexRhino]

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.

Re:Browncoats

[Miseph]

"last year's Donnie Darko one which, while it looked great, tried to burn my house to the ground."

Before or after you carved it?

Re:sorry! Better readable post here!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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