Star Wars III vs. Serenity by deepgirl187

Star Wars III.

Was that unexpected?

Oh well, I guess we all preach to the choir. I actually didn't hate Star Wars III, but that was probably only because Lucas took the reins off of hienous and unexpected damage to people. It really shook me off of thinking about the plot and characters. Yeah, now that I think about it, it was a pretty dumb movie.

_____________ Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:28 PM

JOSSISAGOD

Serenity, HANDS DOWN!!

I loved the original Star Wars Trilogy, and expanded Universe books, but the prequal trilogy was horrible!

Now, I have a new 'verse I've fallen in love with!

the difference between Star Wars 3 and Serenity was that along with cool visuals, Serenity had a plot with intricate characters. I believe, it's on the Star Wars Commentary that Rick Mccallum said, "This is CLASSIC George, this is how do I tell a story completely visually." A good director knows that you can no longer tell a story with visuals alone, esspecially one as deep as Star Wars!

To sum up: Serenity was, Pretty, Pretty lights with plot!, Star Wars EP.3 was pretty, pretty lights and a few miles later I was bored out of my skull!

JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:34 PM

KAYNA

I love my captain

Around here, I think you'll mostly find folks who think Serenity was way better but this is a Firefly/Serenity fansite. Not the place for an unbiased opinion.

My personal opinion is for Serenity (of course). It had better characters, better acting, better...everything. But that's just me. And I am obsessed.

If you go to an SW fansite, you'll probable find some strong arguments for the opposition. Some may whant to slaughter you. Just try saying that the SW prequels where superior to the BDM in every way, around here and you'll see what I mean.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost. Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:50 PM

NANOMOOSE

It's actually a little less unbearable in theatres. The explosions blind and deafen you and you don't have to listen to the dialogue. But oh, oh how I wish Revenge of the Sith could have had the same effort put into it as Serenity. I mean, you compare the two...Ep 3 is just an excuse to turn your brain off, Serenity actually has heart. The Ep 3 script makes you want to stick your fingers in your ears, the Serenity one brings tears to your eyes, both of grief and laughter. And if I could just cite one very specific example...look at Padme in the shots while she's on the balcony in Coruscant. Then look at River...anytime, in the movie, ever. It's just...wow. How did those Padme shots get through editing?

The thing is, I like Star Wars. I really do. I recommend you read the movie novel, it makes way more sense than the movie itself.

ETA: Aaaaand now I realise I'm totally proving Kayna's point. Wow. Oh well, maybe I'll get some people to read Matthew Stover's book and not have their money wasted listening to Anakin try to make the phrase "You will try" sound menacing.

Yub, yub.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 2:01 PM

SCRUFFYHANSOLO

I have said this to many of my friends, i firmly beleive Serenity is the best scifi movie since Empire Strikes Back. I also beleive that Firefly is the best scifi tv show ever. It is sad for me to even think of Star Wars episodes 1-3. They are a stain on the Star Wars universe. I read the novels (not all of them are good either) but i had a hard time stomaching episode 1. Episodes 2 & 3 were better but still highly disappointing. i think my screen name says what i think of Star Wars OTC though.

))<>((

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 2:03 PM

GIXXER

SW3 v. Serenity?

SSA Antwerpen* v. Real Madrid

* in the 1995/96 Belgian 4th Provincial League A

Games played 30 Games won 0 Games Drawn 0 Games lost 30 Goals scored 12 Goals conceded 271

The UK will not be outshone. 4 March 2001 Willenhall Town 57, Burton Brewers 0

- in the West Midlands Regional Women's Football League, Division One North (5th level).

(Note to American football fans, a soccer match usually lasts 90 minutes in a game of two 45-minute halves, Brian...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 2:10 PM

Brits... always assuming Americans are ignorant. I think most can muster up the 90 minutes trivia.

Point of interest, the world will be shocked as Wayne Rooney shows his face in the World Cup. Absolutely fabulous player. Never seen a guy take a ball full volley and curl it into the top corner from 30 yards out... again, and again, and again...

_____________ Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 2:36 PM

ADAMWANKENOBI

IMHO, Revenge of the Sith was much more enjoyable than Serenity. However, Firefly has them BOTH beat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:16 PM

GIXXER

Wrong, matey. The only assumption I have about Americans is that they have a good reason for putting the steering wheel on the passenger's side.

90 minutes chucked to highlight the goal rate, compare with how ever many number of hours a Superbowl lasts, and to save anyone a trip to Google.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:48 PM

20THCENTFOXHATER

I have to agree with you on a couple of levels there. While I did like Star Wars 3 (besides the dialogue), it has no replay value to it. All my friends, except for one (I call him the "smart one"), think that Star Wars is far better than Serenity on the reason that "it's Star Wars".

They all hate sci-fi except for Star Wars and have such a closed mind to anything besides hollywood blockbusters, it's pathetic. Serenity is FAR better than Star Wars and re-affirmed my faith in science fiction after my disappointment in the new Star Wars.

And trust me when I say this, my life revolved around Star Wars for 5 years of my life (grades 3 to 7), and now that I'm in university, I can firmly say I will be a Browncoat for life.

"I aim to misbehave." "Can't do something smart, do something right".

HOMER: "Oh Lisa, you and your stories; Bart is a vampire, beer kills brain cells. Now lets go back to that... building thingy... where our beds and T.V.... is".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:54 PM

MILFORD

I can tell you think without any qualms of conscience:

The dialogue between Anakin and Mace Windu in the hanger area, when Anakin is pouting about not being able to do whatever he is that he wants to do, is, and I'm using every method of of emphasis in my power here, THE WORST BIT OF DIALOGUE AND ACTING I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!:vomit:

I've watched plenty of bad films in my life, Zadoz is the one that comes to mind right now, horrible movie about Sean Connery and sex, and there's tons of crappy junk out there. However, the dialgoue and acting in that movie were atrocious. To even have Serenity and Sith in the same sentence is only allowable by nature if you are using them in a state of antithesis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre That's why I don't kiss'em on the mouth- Jayne Cobb

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 4:08 PM

EVILDINOSAUR

Definitely serenity, no contest, though I did enjoy episode 3, i thought it was the best of the prequels.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Gixxer: Wrong, matey. The only assumption I have about Americans is that they have a good reason for putting the steering wheel on the passenger's side.

Though provocative and inflammatory, that was really quite funny. Utterly an untrue implication, of course.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gixxer: 90 minutes chucked to highlight the goal rate, compare with how ever many number of hours a Superbowl lasts, and to save anyone a trip to Google.

That strike anyone as hypocritical? A superbowl is 60 minutes of gametime, or any football game for that matter. Yes, 57 goals in a game is quite large. I'd catagorize four goals a game as pretty high up there, myself. But your statement was still directed at us ignorant Americans, as you pointed out. (Ok, some I'm putting the word "ignorant" in your mouth. Breaking my own rules of debate.)

Premise 1: Americans drive on the right side of the road. Premise 2: British drive on the opposite side of the road. Premise 3: The opposite of right is wrong.

Conclusion: British drive on the wrong side of the road.

Anyways, when America wins the World Cup come June, we'll talk more about soccer. Some call me delusional. I call myself a Browncoat. Landon Donavon, will you be my Big Damn Hero?

(For another point of interest, this is entirely tongue-in-cheek. If you're really offended, just laugh at the next American killed in London for loooking the wrong way before crossing the street)

_____________ Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 02, 2006 4:50 PM

JIGMAN

On visual grounds SWIII pulls a ways ahead, but for only two reasons. First, George Lucas owns the company that did the special effects for the movie. What lucas asks for, he gets, and more than likely at a discount. Secondly,(and more important) SWIII had a budget around five times as large as the one for Serenity. This in turn allows for cg effects shots to be extended to an incredible length and detail, which Serenity, I am sorry to say, just cannot compete with.

However, in sheer storytelling, not to mention acting intensity in general, Whedon's creation pulls far ahead. The actors loved thier characters, it was obvious, and were able to get back into thier roles with the familiarity of putting on a leather coat one has worn for years. (I use this metaphor mainly beacause I know how this feels. Yes, I wore a brown coat before ever even hearing of this beautiful verse.) Further, while SWIII was simply tying up loose story ends and showing one man's rather whiny fall from grace, Serenity deals with the much more interesting ideal of the freedom to be who you are, and that a person's flaws and emotional passions, while maybe problimatic from time to time, are some of the things that make us induvidual humans in the first place, and should never be subject to change by those who think they know better. a story like Serenity's (on and off the movie) shows a verse where people with a stiff enough resolve can do anything, and that is the freedom embodied by the show, movie, cast, creator, and fans. This is why Serenity outdoes that visually rich, plot thin space opera Star Wars, and just about everything else I have seen on or off the silver screen.

Oh yeah, Serenity also has a much better sense of wit than SWIII, which keeps it from becoming overbearing.

All good things must come to an end.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 1:09 AM

NUCLEARDAY

Yeah, big shock, I'd pick Serenity, too ;p

I agree with 20THCENTFOXHATER about the replay value bit. I've seen Serenity quite a number of times now and it's never come close to getting old. I think seeing Ep III the one time as a rental satisfied me for a long while ;p

Now, I grew up in the 80's, and with the exception of the original version of Episode IV, have seen all the original trilogy in theatres, including the reworked versions. (Was born in '79, so I sorta missed out on Ep. IV :) So I've been a big SW fan for a long time. (I used Chewbacca's head as a teething ring, fer cryin' out loud, okay?)

But my prob with eps 1-3 was that I liked them almost because I felt I should. Lucas' dialogue feels particularly stilted in these, and that can't help but affect the acting. Any director who makes Natalie Portman come off as a bad actress is obviously doing something wrong, IMHO. Plus, there just obviously wasn't any chemistry at all in that cast.

Serenity just happened to have scored on each of those flaws ;p Great dialogue that actually sounds natural coming from an actor's mouth. Which leads to stellar performances from a talented cast that obviously seem to be enjoying the work they're doing, with a palpable chemistry that can't help but shine through in the film.

For special effects, SW has to win, of course. But i like the more old-fashioned effects anyways. Too much CG turns me off. The reason I'm still more likely to watch the original versions of eps IV-VI, is I like the textural and 'real' quality it has. I think the best special effects are the ones where you don't realize, or don't think about them being special effects. If it draws you out of the experience and makes you go "hey, neat CGI!" then it's at a detriment to the movie. Serenity I rather liked 'cause they stayed away from blue screens, and visually my "oh wow" moments were due to a particularly inspired composition or camera angle.

Anyways, that's my two cents. (Or a buck and change, looking at the length of this post :)

________________________________________________ You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 1:17 AM

ADAMWANKENOBI

I liked Star Wars III because of its plot, not because of the writing, directing, or acting. For me, what's important is substance over style.

I didn't like Serenity as much because the plot wasn't great, and it seemed too rushed. Although it had GREAT writing, acting, and directing, it just didn't cut it for me.

Firefly had everything. ALL of it was done EXTREMELY well, therefore it is better IMHO than both Serenity and Star Wars III combined. Firefly had an excellent plot, and the writing, directing, and acting simply accentuated it. THAT is what makes Firefly superior, IMHO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 2:48 AM

EIEN

I really tried to like SW III. I thought, here we go, he had to do all that crap before for set up. Then what a whiny let down. Graphics were nice, but he has millions to just PLAY with. But the chemistry was just not there. I frequently say by the end of that movie I only feel bad for one person...Obi Wan. He has to deal with all that whiny teen angst Anakin and Padme screwed everyone over with. Everyone else just had such a bad time portraying much belivable feeling.

It was some of the worst screenplay known to cinema. Had these been stand alone with no ep 4-6 I firmly believe they would have flopped.

Serenity had everything I look for in a story. Only thing it didn't have was Lucas' budget. And that goes to prove money canot buy you talent. Albeit a little rushed....serenity had it down pat. Actors who understood and loved their role, story, heart, and wit to boot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 3:06 AM

XEYRA

I liked Star Wars III. I've always been a big fan of this universe, reading a lot of comics and novels, seeing the original movies countless times, and I liked the prequels, though not with the same enthusiasm and love of the first three movies (episodes 4, 5 and 6). Although I liked the prequels, I was not blind to its problems: the character development and dialogue was badly done and the CG were used abundantly -- too much so.

Serenity, on the other hand, like most everyone around here has stated, was a story with plot, character development and computer graphics that didn't interfere with the story, didn't steal away from the characters and indeed helped tell the story, not the other way around. It was one of my favourite sci-fi films ever and I've watched it again and again since getting the DVD. I love this universe, I love the characters, I love the ship, I love the dialogues (come on, who doesn't? Joss Whedon writes the wittiest dialogues ever!) and, without a doubt, love Serenity more than Episode III, even though it was my favourite of the prequels.

My two-cents.

Xeyra

******************************* Wash: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting. Mal: Define "interesting". Wash: [deadpan] Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 10:16 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by milford: The dialogue between Anakin and Mace Windu in the hanger area, when Anakin is pouting about not being able to do whatever he is that he wants to do, is, and I'm using every method of of emphasis in my power here, THE WORST BIT OF DIALOGUE AND ACTING I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!:vomit:

I wouldn't go that far.

The scene where he turns to the Dark Side (in the span of a second) is worse, IMHO. Bad dialogue coupled with a bad plot.

----- We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 10:32 AM

RIVERTAMKICKSASS03

I realy dont get why everyone always compares the two, Serenity and Star Wars are completly seperate. Serenity is fantastic but so is SW

As for all the comments about worst this and worst that, can anyone say Star Wars 1,2&3 are worse than basic instint 2, scary movie 4, commando, hard target (any vamn damn film) mortal kombat.

I hate people bitching about revenge of the sith. If you didn't like 1 and 2 why watch 3

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 11:31 AM

AGIRLYMAN

Episode III is a great movie, so is Serenity. I love both these movies, but Star Wars never moved me like "Firefly". Maybe it's because of all the cute "Fuzzy-wuzzies", Lucas tries to force down your throat.

P.S. Jar jar? Ewoks? No tanks.

AM I NOT MERCIFUL?!?!?!?

Tee Hee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 1:11 PM

Greetings, fellow Browncoats:

Well.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Y'all are looking at the Star Wars prequels all wrong.

George Lucas owns Industrial Lights & Magic (ILM). He owns Lucas Arts (multi-platform game development). He owns THX (named after his first feature film, 1971's "THX 1138"; it's the industry standard for theatrical audio). He gets the lion's share of every Star Wars book or toy sold, every cereal endorsement deal.

The prequels were nothing more than a test-bed for ILM. They display the latest cutting-edge CGI, blue/green screen effects. Other film makers squeal, "Oooh! That's a bit of alright!" Next thing you know, you've got "War of the Worlds", "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", et cetera, ad infinitum. (For a complete listing of all 247 films: http://imdb.com/company/co0072491/)

The beauty of this, for Lucas, is that he risks nothing in those films, yet he still reaps a whirlwind of dosh. Film makers pay for ILM's services; if the film tanks, they don't get a refund for those services.

Next, consider the rabid Star Wars fans. Why are they so rabid? Because they've been brainwashed by the books and games; because they actually cut their teeth on Chewbacca's head fer Pete's sake! When they see one of the prequels, they're just so happy to see the Star Wars trademark scrolling prologue-against-a-starfield, that what happens after that is anticlimactic. In the case of some die-hard geeks, literally...:smokin: And what happens immediately following the end of the scroller? Anybody? (Buehler?) Big freakin' CGI gut-punch, that's what!

That prologue scroller, to these from-birth fans, is like rolling up their sleeves and tying their belts around their biceps. 'Big freakin' CGI gut-punch' = heroin hitting the bloodstream. It's all about addiction, and George is the Grand Master Of All Pushers. Who cares if the highs are no longer as heavenly? Who cares if you regain consciousness in a puddle of your own excrement? You gotta have it...

How excellent is it, therefore, that Ewan McGregor -- who burst onto the scene in "Trainspotting" -- is the star of the prequels? (Sit on that suppository, for irony.)

And of course, it all sells games, and books, and toys, and Happy Meals, and 2-liter bottles of Pepsi, and meticulously hand-crafted costumery, and licensed replica weaponry, and...

Imagine yourself in George Lucas' life. As you sit in your throne room at Skywalker Ranch, meticulously grooming your Ewokian beard, 'A Thought' occurs to you: Yes, the books and games and toys and killer-for-hire CGI business is going well, but it's all starting to lose steam, 15 years down the road since RotJ closed theatrically. The books and video games have been keeping the interest growing, but it's become clear they need some help to reach their full potential. What to do? Why, make a new showcase for your fine products, of course!

I could go on (and on, and on...), but I think I should have painted a clear enough picture by now. Anyone who thought the Star Wars prequels were made for the fans -- for entertainment, for Art -- are wallowing in their addiction. They were made to sell more CGI contracts, and books, and games, and...

Personally, I can hardly wait until the Star Wars-based live-action television series airs. There's nothing more exciting than the prospect of a couple million fans mainlining C₂₁H₂₂N₂O₂, thinking its C₂₁H₂₃NO₅.

Clairvoyantly,

zoid

P.S. Uhh... I preferred "Serenity" to "Revenge of the Shith". And I need another fix. And I'm sooo jealous of Star Wars geeks, cuz they got some great paraphernalia we can't get. All's I wants is a PC RPG! Is that too much to ask? Hell, I'll even run out and steal grandma's silverware to buy an XBox 360, if that's the only platform VU Games make it for! _________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 1:22 PM

CHRISISALL

Down the centuries you have slurred the meaning of the words, WE THE PEOPLE...

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

The scene where he turns to the Dark Side (in the span of a second) is worse, IMHO. Bad dialogue coupled with a bad plot.

Yep.

NOOOooooo! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 1:42 PM

Zoid, was that really necessary? I mean, couldn't you have just said "rat poison" and "heroine"?

_____________ Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 2:10 PM

Wow, what a choice! :vomit:

CAKE OR DEATH?

Isn't that the real question here?

I mean, even the public at large rejected the new Star Wars movies. These are the same people that make things like XXX-2 into moneymaking machines, and are probably going to go see "3 Fast, 3 Furious", or whatever the hell they're going to call it. A wag of the finger at Pixar too. The number of bad CG movies that they spit out should be considered a war-crime.

Why bother to compare "Sith" with a good movie?

I'll take cake, you can have as much death as you want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 03, 2006 2:31 PM

ThePistonEngine wrote:

Quote:
Zoid, was that really necessary? I mean, couldn't you have just said "rat poison" and "heroine"?

Ummm... Where's the fun in that?

Besides, I thought it was kinda interesting to note that both heroin and strychnine are composed of the same elements, in the same order; just subtract a hydrogen, add a nitrogen and subtract 3 oxygens, et voila! The addict reaches the finish line ahead of his peers!

Covalently,

zoid

P.S. ...In much the same way that the original Star Wars trilogy and the prequel trilogy have the same elements in the same order. Savez? _________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid: zoid wrote:

Besides, I thought it was kinda interesting to note that both heroin and strychnine are composed of the same elements, in the same order; just subtract a hydrogen, add a nitrogen and subtract 3 oxygens, et voila! The addict reaches the finish line ahead of his peers!

Covalently,

zoid

Uh, isn't all organic chemistry based upon groups composed out of those same elements? Edit: ... along with carbon, obviously.

Counterintuitively,

-aztechrome

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:07 AM

KAYLEESTHEGREATEST

I have been a star wars fan for quite a while to be precise i have watched starwars and other starwars related things scince before grade school but even i, the die hard starwars fan that i am must say that serenity and firefly beat any tv show or movie that has yet to come on telivision. Though starwars is a very respectable movie and has a great cast and script it does not match up to Joss's stellar creation. The cast is very uniqe and potrey an enormus amount of diverse emotion, and Jewl Stait is one of the bestlookig person on the face of the earth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:21 AM

STORYMARK

Well, I enjoyed the SW prequels (well, Ep. I not so much...).

I think it's a bit silly comparing Star Wars to Serenity - obviouse Han Solo influences aside. Especially in the case of the prequels. Just because they're both set in space, does not make them the same thing. Just as Solaris, 2001 and Event Horizon are all sci-fi "space" movies, but very different in style, tone, approach, ect.

Firefly/Serenity is more or less about "real" people living in space, dealing with the day-today affairs that come along. Star Wars is a imagined mythology dealing with character achetypes (as opposed to "real" people), who are mostly knights, royalty, or politicians.

It's like comparing "Silverado" to "Excalibur".

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:27 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by aztechrome: Wow, what a choice! :vomit:

CAKE OR DEATH?

Isn't that the real question here?

I mean, even the public at large rejected the new Star Wars movies. These are the same people that make things like XXX-2 into moneymaking machines, and are probably going to go see "3 Fast, 3 Furious", or whatever the hell they're going to call it. A wag of the finger at Pixar too. The number of bad CG movies that they spit out should be considered a war-crime.

Why bother to compare "Sith" with a good movie?

I'll take cake, you can have as much death as you want.

Uh.... XXX-2 was a huge money-looser, not a money-making machine.

And sure, there are plenty of vocal detractor's of the SW prequels, but it's hardly "rejected" by the public at large when it's the highest-grossing film of the year, and (I think) the highest-selling DVD as well. If everyone hated it in the theatre, I doubt they'd rush out and buy the DVD.

And which crappy CGI movies has Pixar made? There have been plenty of bad GC flicks lately, but as far as I can tell, they're the non-Pixar ones. Unless you're just attributing every CG film to them, which is unfair.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:09 AM

aztechrome braced me, thus:

Quote:
Uh, isn't all organic chemistry based upon groups composed out of those same elements? Edit: ... along with carbon, obviously.

Counterintuitively,

-aztechrome

Yeah, sure, more or less. But not in the same order, separated by a total of five atoms in a complex molecule.

By way of contrast, examine my personal favorite poison: C₂H₅OH. See the difference?

In-toxic-atedly,

zoid

P.S. From 'hero' we get 'heroism', defined as "heroic conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a high purpose or attaining a noble end". Following that reasoning then, the definition of 'heroinism' should be, "female heroic conduct... attaining a noble end", derived from the term 'heroine', right? Nope. 'Heroinism' is heroin addiction and related socially unacceptable behaviors. Ergo, a heroine exhibits heroism, even though it's distinctly masculine to do so; if she exhibits heroinism, she is no longer a heroine, because of the heroin. It's enought to make a heroine want to smoke crack.

Ain't it great to live in a male-dominated culture? Pass me another beer, aztec...

P.P.S. Wouldn't that make a great t-shirt? "C₂H₅OH Me", or "Instant A$$hole: Just add C₂H₅OH". Fantastic, if you prefer to remain undisturbed by feminine companionship while at the pub. _________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:19 PM

WHOOPS

Im deffo a Firefly / Serenity fan but i dont think you can compare the both. For me there different films all together.

"Love, you know all the math in the verse but if you take a boat in the air, you dont love she'll shake you up sure as turn of the worlds" Mal

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:16 PM

THEJEAN

Okay, I'm fairly new to the 'Verse. Even before I became aware of our beloved characters on FF/Serenity, I was a fan of the "original" SW movies, especially when the special editions came out. The thing that really turned me off of the prequels is the onslaught of obnoxious characters that they included to make the movies geared more for small children. Jar-jar Binks, young Anakin, anyone? I hope I'm not alone being irritated by these characters. There are definately things that they could have left out.

But I do have to say that the third is the best of the Star Wars because it ties everything together, it's transitional. However, NOTHING beats our BDM as far as the humor, the believability (is that a word?) of the characters.

Star Wars is good vs. evil. Serenity/Firefly shows us that even the good guys are in that grey area. That speaks volumes on the true human condition. It's just more relatable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:
Originally posted by aztechrome:

CAKE OR DEATH?

Uh.... XXX-2 was a huge money-looser, not a money-making machine.

And sure, there are plenty of vocal detractor's of the SW prequels, but it's hardly "rejected" by the public at large when it's the highest-grossing film of the year, and (I think) the highest-selling DVD as well. If everyone hated it in the theatre, I doubt they'd rush out and buy the DVD.

And which crappy CGI movies has Pixar made? There have been plenty of bad GC flicks lately, but as far as I can tell, they're the non-Pixar ones. Unless you're just attributing every CG film to them, which is unfair.

My wasn't I feeling high and mighty last night. ;P

You're right on all counts about those films, of course.

I'd rephrase to say that the public reaction was rather tepid and moderately disappointed throughout the trilogy. It just worries me that people kept paying to see them. Also, IMO, I think people will look back and compare the Rings trilogy with the new Star Wars. LOTR wasn't perfect, but if you asked me whether Peter Jackson or George Lucas made a better film.... well.

I'm more concerned about the investment of huge chunks of production money into films like XXX-2 or Electra, or Catwoman, or Stealth, and the upcoming 3 fast 3 furious. It makes me upset to see enough money for 4 good films to be wasted on Electra or Stealth. We used to have some room for flavor in our cinema. Now it's all too rare. (Serenity, Serenity, Serenity)

I guess Im done ranting.

I still say this is a cake or death question. I'll have cake/Serenity please. :smile:

Thank you.

N

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid: aztechrome braced me, thus:
Quote:
Uh, isn't all organic chemistry based upon groups composed out of those same elements? Edit: ... along with carbon, obviously.

Counterintuitively,

-aztechrome
Yeah, sure, more or less. But not in the same order, separated by a total of five atoms in a complex molecule.

By way of contrast, examine my personal favorite poison: C₂H₅OH. See the difference?

In-toxic-atedly,

zoid

Ain't it great to live in a male-dominated culture? Pass me another beer, aztec...

P.P.S. Wouldn't that make a great t-shirt? "C₂H₅OH Me", or "Instant A$$hole: Just add C₂H₅OH". Fantastic, if you prefer to remain undisturbed by feminine companionship while at the pub.

Zoid = Chaotic Evil Robot

Phew, Ok. That should raise the nerd level to the point where few will read this post. :biggrin:

First off, any guy with a chemical molecule on his T-shirt is guaranteed to remain unmolested by anything resembling a female if he's sitting in a pub.

I'd rather just wear my C₂₁H₃₀O₂ shirt into a cafe in Holland. I'll just point and say, get me some of this and mix it into my hot coacoa. Then I'd watch all the boats. That's my idea of kicking back. :smokin:

Of course if you like drooling on yourself you acetylize some opioids. You're definitely going to have a hard time asking for more (5α,6α)-7,8-didehydro-4,5-epoxy- 17-methylmorphinan-3,6-diol diacetate (ester). I guess Diacetylmorphine would be a little easier.

Personally, I'm going to grab a beer.

Solipsistically,

-aztechrome

PS: Does anyone in Firefly (Other than Simon), use pharms? People drink alot, but I notice that other things don't seem to be in the 'verse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:23 PM

BLUEEYEDBRIGADIER

Well...I think drug usage is mentioned in passing via a throwaway line about "drops," presumably some sort of hallucinogen (like LSD) or something. But none of the BDMs use any drug stronger than caffeine.

And to ensure this entry covers the original topic...I liked both the prequels and Serenity, but for different reasons.

Revenge of the Sith did it's intended job...it was a throwback to Saturday afternoon serials of Lucas's youth where the acting and plot were secondary concerns behind the crazy FX and plot twists. It was about good vs. evil and campy characters. Only reason the Original Trilogy gained significance cuz it wan't all Lucas all the time in control and there was still some mystery to be had. No one exactly knew how Darth Vader got the suit or how the Empire got to power specifically. We could imagine those things. Prequels answered those questions but with a singular vision with a visuals-focused creator.

Serenity (and Firefly before it) was more about classical Western or suspense films. Darker, dangerous, emotionally charged with real-life issues. Joss doesn't need visuals to succeed. He can write stuff with minimalist set and props - just the actors working the magic (like Dogville or Glengarry Glen Ross) - and it works. Serenity succeeds cuz it goes for the meat rather than just the skin or packaging. We still want more (this site proves that in spades) and we'll keep dreaming up stuff to stucco the holes until we get another comic book or novel or something to act as a proper patch (Joss certified and all:wink:).

Comparisons seem rather apple-and-orange to me. Both George Lucas and Joss Whedon are borrowers. They just borrow in different ways from differnt sources.

BEB

Literature has shown us some of humanity's greatest achievements; history, some of our greatest failures -- Alun Lewis

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:22 AM