# Serenity DVD [SPOILERS]



## Eosin the Red (Dec 23, 2005)

First a few caveats - I never watched Buffy or Angel. Came to Firefly after it was out on DVD... Couldn't get to the theaters fast enough to see Serenity on the big screen. I guess I am mister 1 minute too late.

I did see the movie last night and it was powerful good. I wanted more Jane, Book, and a whole bunch more Inara. Alas, such a movie can only provide so much time for each of the principals.

I knew that there were only two characters that bit it going into the movie -- but even still -- for awhile I was pretty sure that it was going to be a TPK. Overall, the sense of threat and foreboding was very high during the last portion of the movie. And what a way to go... death by Reaving sucks.

The Operator is one of the coolest villains that I have seen done in a movie for a very long time. A true believer willing to kill for his belief so that others could hold on to their naive bliss. Polite and intelligent but what a presence. He creeped me out when he said [paraphrase] "I kill small children and sleep well at night." He came across as having oriental influences (dress, weapons, and fluid motions of martial arts) but retained a sense of total otherworldliness at the same time. He didn't seem identifiably Samurai or Ninja or anything like that.... A strong, bold flavor without overdoing it.

Great take on the Reavers. Great sound effects for them as well. Ahhh, society and its search for social engineering. I had some serious doubts about the reavers in the series ... "OK, you have a bunch of rabid humans who eat their captive alive? How in the world does that society develop?" I am glad to see that we were rewarded with a eerie explanation.

The last great big like... Inara and Mal. "Plowing her nethers" would have detracted a good deal from their relationship. 

So, what did you like or dislike about the movie? Mind you, if you just want to qip for or against Joss save the wear-n-tear on the keyboard this is about the movie and he is only one part of that.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Dec 23, 2005)

Basically summed up my feelings on the film:  Excellent bad guy, great finale action sequence, very neat explanation on the Reavers.  

I also think the shot towards the end where you see a Reaver snarling, and then slow-mo River punching him, was one of the most enjoyable moments I've had watching a movie in quite a while.  

The film had some serious flaws regarding accessibility to non-Firefly fans, which may or may not have been fixable, but in the end I'm very happy with it.  I'm also amazingly pleased I managed to avoid spoilers on the ending.  He really sold me on the threat level there.  I knew at least one character would die, and considering possibilities I did come up with a correct one, yet he still managed to suckerpunch me with the way things turned out.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 23, 2005)

I liked the movie overall, but I didn't think we got to see enough of the entire cast.  Too many characters, I guess.

I didn't like the 90-pound supergirl.

Nothing really jumps out at me as "super-awesome".  Good, solid movie.

edit: And what's up with the Chinese swears?  I'd figure that there'd be a few asians out there if everyone's speaking Chinese, but I don't remember a one.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 23, 2005)

I liked the movie just fine, but the Operator bored me to tears.

"A suave, literate, philosopher-assassin. With a katana. See, he's like a sci-fi samurai, get it? Get it?"

At no point in the film did he seem like anything but a writer's construct. Which is sad because Whedon actually_ can _create compelling, unique characters.

The Operator ain't one of them.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Dec 23, 2005)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> The Operator ain't one of them.





It's Operat_*ive*_, actually.  Not that AT&T employees haven't always filled me with dread.


----------



## Dagger75 (Dec 23, 2005)

The commentary was boring with only Joss talking.  Would have been better with another person.   Some of the stuff he said was funny like if you are keeping score Mal shoots 3 unarmed men in the movie.  That was his homage to the original Greedo scene in star wars before Lucas ruined it.


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 23, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> It's Operat_*ive*_, actually.  Not that AT&T employees haven't always filled me with dread.





Not to mention the topic of that Sade song...

::shudder::


----------



## Lazybones (Dec 23, 2005)

I expect to be getting the DVD tomorrow... but what about the special features? Deleted scenes, etc...


----------



## Justin (Dec 23, 2005)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> I expect to be getting the DVD tomorrow... but what about the special features? Deleted scenes, etc...




The outtakes are great, and since this is a spoiler thread: "Jayne, try not to steal too much of their s**t."


----------



## Dagger75 (Dec 23, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> The outtakes are great, and since this is a spoiler thread: "Jayne, try not to steal too much of their s**t."




That is the BEST outtake.

Yes there are deleted scenes.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 23, 2005)

I liked this one:

"Did we fight?"

"No..."

"*TRAAAAP!!!*

Can I do that one over again?"


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 23, 2005)

I liked *Serenity*, but didn't think it was the greatest sci-fi movie in years like some did.  Still, it was enjoyable enough for feeling like an extended episode of the television series with nicer special effects.

I've never liked the character of Inara.  She never interested me much in the series, her acting annoys me, and it seems like only real purpose was to provide a prospective love interest for Mal.  Watching *Serenity* made me dislike Inara even more, mainly due to the reaver fight near the end of the film: what kind of freakin' _moron_ chooses to fight with a bow while defending against a human wave assault when automatic and semi-automatic firearms are available?  To me, that indicates a downright stupid love affair with archaic weapons.

I didn't care much for the Operative (for reasons stated by Wormwood) or the 90-pound supergirl.  I also thought that Book's death was very cliche:  With his dying breaths, he manages to give Mal a poignant speech and then dies as soon as he's said his piece.  It reminded me of Trinity's death scene from *The Matrix: Revolutions*.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 23, 2005)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> At no point in the film did he seem like anything but a writer's construct. Which is sad because Whedon actually_ can _create compelling, unique characters.



But Whedon's characters _always_ seem like writer's constructs. They're very up front about it, and that's part of their charm. Whedon starts with broad, often instantly familiar stereotypes, and then he spends an inordinant amount of time making them into people.

Start with almost cardboard cut-outs, and then surprise the audience by imbuing them with an inner life. That's my take on the game he's been playing all these years.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 23, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Start with almost cardboard cut-outs, and then surprise the audience by imbuing them with an inner life. That's my take on the game he's been playing all these years.




*nod*  Joss - the Jiminy Cricket of the genre.  Shepherding all the wooden puppets along until they become real people.  

The problem with the Operative is that the process takes a bit of time, and there wasn't a whole lot of time to spend on the Operative...


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 23, 2005)

Well, obviously I'm one of the gushing Firefly fan-nerds so you know already that  I am biased, but I really loved Serenity. I liked how it could go from laugh out loud to *gasp* in the space of 10 seconds (you all know the scene I'm talking about) and that it raised some very interesting moral questions that have relevance as much real world as they do in the movie (How far should a person or government go to protect what they believe is a greater good for example). It's definately a DVD I will buy and watch many times (as soon as I get off work, AARRRRGGGHHH!!!).


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 23, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> With his dying breaths, he manages to give Mal a poignant speech and then dies as soon as he's said his piece.  It reminded me of Trinity's death scene from *The Matrix: Revolutions*.



I was surprised while watching Matrix Revolutions that when Trinity finally died after reciting her memoirs that when they cut back to Neo he wasn't sporting a full beard.  I know I was when it was finally over.


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 23, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I was surprised while watching Matrix Revolutions that when Trinity finally died after reciting her memoirs that when they cut back to Neo he wasn't sporting a full beard.  I know I was when it was finally over.





I used that time to take a language course and a cooking class.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Dec 23, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Watching *Serenity* made me dislike Inara even more, mainly due to the reaver fight near the end of the film: what kind of freakin' _moron_ chooses to fight with a bow while defending against a human wave assault when automatic and semi-automatic firearms are available?  To me, that indicates a downright stupid love affair with archaic weapons.




I think it's implied that those are the only weapons she knows how to use.  In the Firefly episode "Shindig" she's good with a rapier and in a later episode she admits to being a lousy shot (the one with the laser pistol and Mrs Reynolds).

Of course none of that is established in the movie and you have to be a Firefly fan to pick up on the rest.


----------



## Hijinks (Dec 23, 2005)

From what I gather in the Firefly series and what I've read here and elsewhere, Inara's use of the bow ties into her Companion training.  Obviously in this verse, being a Companion means being well-versed in many old traditions, such as pouring a proper tea (we see her doing this in the film, iirc - I haven't watched the DVD yet, just got it last night, and it's been a while since I saw it a 2nd time in the theater).  She was trained to use archaic weapons because that's what she IS - archaic, formal, never casual like a laser gun would be.  I guess you just kinda gotta look at it from the perspective of the character and profession, not just "is it practical to use that kind of weapon?"

My favorite outtake:  "Kaylee, find that kid who's taking a dirt nap ... we need a hood ornament."  Gawd.  *wipes a tear from laughing*


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 23, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I think it's implied that those are the only weapons she knows how to use. In the Firefly episode "Shindig" she's good with a rapier and in a later episode she admits to being a lousy shot (the one with the laser pistol and Mrs Reynolds).
> 
> Of course none of that is established in the movie and you have to be a Firefly fan to pick up on the rest.




Having used guns and bows for both hunting and recreational target shooting, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Inara could be completely clueless about how to use a gun but skilled with a bow (especially being around types like Mal and Jayne, who definately like their guns).  It's even harder considering that becoming a good shot with a bow is harder than becoming a good shot with a gun.

Plus, there's also the fact that in a close-quarters firefight like the one at the end of the movie, pinpoint accuracy would be a minimal concern.



			
				Hijinks said:
			
		

> From what I gather in the Firefly series and what I've read here and elsewhere, Inara's use of the bow ties into her Companion training.  Obviously in this verse, being a Companion means being well-versed in many old traditions, such as pouring a proper tea (we see her doing this in the film, iirc - I haven't watched the DVD yet, just got it last night, and it's been a while since I saw it a 2nd time in the theater).  She was trained to use archaic weapons because that's what she IS - archaic, formal, never casual like a laser gun would be.  I guess you just kinda gotta look at it from the perspective of the character and profession, not just "is it practical to use that kind of weapon?"




If she's in a desperate battle and chooses a substandard (bordering on useless) weapon because using a gun would be too "casual"... Well, that's just idiotic no matter which definition of the word you use.


----------



## Hijinks (Dec 23, 2005)

> I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Inara could be completely clueless about how to use a gun but skilled with a bow (especially being around types like Mal and Jayne, who definately like their guns). It's even harder considering that becoming a good shot with a bow is harder than becoming a good shot with a gun.




Hmm.  I guess I didn't make myself clearer.

I never understood that Inara was "clueless" about guns, but that she preferred weapons that took style, finesse, and skill to use.  Any idiot can shoot a gun and with luck hit a target, but a bow requires much practice and innate skill to use well.  Inara is not a thug.  She is not going to use a brute force weapon.  She's going to use a weapon that suits her, rather than a weapon that necessarily might work better.

Why does Wolverine of the X-Men use claws instead of a gun?  Because the claws are him, not because they're better in a fight. 

I, personally, think it's silly to expect everyone to use what YOU consider to be the perfect weapon, just because it has the best chance of success.  We don't know what weapon she was using, frankly, only that it appeared to be a bow.  I thought it suited her character very well, and I do not expect fictional characters in movies to only do the most practical thing every single time.  I LIKED the bow, because it suited her character, even if I don't particularly like her character (which I don't), and that's all that matters to me.

*shrug*


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 23, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Any idiot can shoot a gun and with luck hit a target, but a bow requires much practice and innate skill to use well.  Inara is not a thug.  She is not going to use a brute force weapon.  She's going to use a weapon that suits her, rather than a weapon that necessarily might work better.




I'm sorry, but while bows do require lots of practice to use well, the notion that any idiot can be good with guns and that they're a "thug" weapon is downright absurd.



> Why does Wolverine of the X-Men use claws instead of a gun? Because the claws are him, not because they're better in a fight.




In a close-quarters battle like the fight at the end of *Serenity*, Wolverine's claws would be a lot more useful than a bow.



> I, personally, think it's silly to expect everyone to use what YOU consider to be the perfect weapon, just because it has the best chance of success.




Would you use a shotgun against a tank?  Would you use a javelin (the throwing spear, not the guided antitank missile) against a helicopter gunship?  You you use a sword against a machine gun nest?

Inara's choice of a using a bow to defend against a close-quarters human wave assault was more than just slightly-less-than-optimal.  It was completely devoid of common sense or any logic whatsoever.  Anybody who would endanger themselves and their comrades like that just to make a fashion statement dosen't earn much respect in my book.


----------



## Joker (Dec 24, 2005)

I really did like the movie.  It was fun and simply an enjoyable thing to watch.

What I especially like (besides the assasin) is the space battle.  I really got the feeling of it being a space battle with three dimensions.  Most films with space battles emphasize the horizontal.  Take the last SW flick.  The battle in the beginning.  It was like they were in the water.  The broadside cannons didn't help much, either .


----------



## Dagger75 (Dec 24, 2005)

The novelization of the movie described companions as training in bows.  Zen like and all that crap.  Considered a high society weapon, like a sword.


----------



## Jeremy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hawkeye feels that the bow is a great weapon in any situation.

Of course, I've seen him die twice lately.  But only one of those times would having a gun have helped him.

But in a situation where people are coming to rape, kill, skin, and eat you (hopefully in that order--er, put kill first)..  They're banging at the door, you've got no hope of survival...   I gotta imagine that's gotta be a little unnerving.  Maybe a bow ain't the smartest choice of weapon, but breaking cover and charging the door with a shotgun that only has 4 shells in it wasn't too bright either.  And that was done by the career military one.

The bow afforded her a sense of .... hee hee...  serenity as that's the kind of weapon it is, it harkens back to her elegant training not in killing, banditry, and siege warefare but in calligraphy, archery, poetry, and whoring.

Oops.  Don't know how that last one got in there.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 24, 2005)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> Maybe a bow ain't the smartest choice of weapon, but breaking cover and charging the door with a shotgun that only has 4 shells in it wasn't too bright either.  And that was done by the career military one.




I too was a little suprised that a former career soldier like Zoe would do such a stupid thing, but I just attributed it to a desire for vengeance (the reavers did just kill her husband, after all) overriding her good judgement.


----------



## Jeremy (Dec 24, 2005)

Yup.  People have their limits.  What Joss did to Zoe far exceeded hers.  And she had quite a high threshold.  Ask Niska.


----------



## Dark Psion (Dec 24, 2005)

My one complaint is that the best line in the movie is in the deleted scenes.

Mal and the Operative's chat is longer and as Mal goes back into the ship;

"What a Whiner!"


----------



## Eosin the Red (Dec 24, 2005)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> My one complaint is that the best line in the movie is in the deleted scenes.
> 
> Mal and the Operative's chat is longer and as Mal goes back into the ship;
> 
> "What a Whiner!"




LMAO on that one.


----------



## Hijinks (Dec 24, 2005)

> Any idiot can shoot a gun and with luck hit a target






> the notion that any idiot can be good with guns and that they're a "thug" weapon is downright absurd.




Hmm.  I never said "shoot a gun well," i.e. be "good" with a gun.  Oh well.  You took what you wanted from it.  *shrug*  I do believe guns are thug weapons compared to bows or knives.  That's my personal opinion.  Kindly respect it.



> I too was a little suprised that a former career soldier like Zoe would do such a stupid thing, but I just attributed it to a desire for vengeance (the reavers did just kill her husband, after all) overriding her good judgement.




I personally think she briefly was trying to commit suicide, then came to her senses.  Perhaps the shock of the wound jarred her back to reality and she gave up any notion of a noble throwing-oneself-on-one's-sword, which would also be a tie-in to the Operative.


----------



## zepherus (Dec 24, 2005)

*The bow was perfect for Inara...*



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Inara's choice of a using a bow to defend against a close-quarters human wave assault was more than just slightly-less-than-optimal.  It was completely devoid of common sense or any logic whatsoever.  Anybody who would endanger themselves and their comrades like that just to make a fashion statement dosen't earn much respect in my book.




So, let me guess...you think that ObiWan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, and Anakin Skywalker are less dangerous, or lesser fighters because they use lightsabers ( form of a sword ) over blasters? To quote "Old Ben"..."Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age." That's what Inara is...elegant and civilized.

What about the Operative? His weapon of choice was a katana...not a gun. 

Or Corporal Hicks in "Aliens"? Pulls a sawed off shotgun out of his harness and says "I like to keep this for close quarters.".

In a CQB, give me a 12-gauge loaded with 00-Buckshot over a semi-auto ( or auto ) weapon any day. I'd rather hit an enemy with the equivilent of 15 .32 caliber bullets at once then a couple of high velocity bullets any day. This is why you see more shotguns than rifles in police cruisers.


----------



## Joker (Dec 24, 2005)

You can't compare Jedi's to Inara.  Jedi's have an overdose of those thingies in their bloodstream which gives them the force.  If Inara had the force she wouldn't even need a bow.  She could have just gone all Chuck Norris on the Reavers and round-house kicked all of them.

He had a katana because he was cool.  And Katanas are freaking cool.  Bows aren't cool.  Bows with flashy lights aren't cool.  Legolas uses a bow.

I rest my case.


----------



## Meloncov (Dec 24, 2005)

It's worth noting that Inara's bow fires small explosive bolts, and is auto-reloded (well, after it was digitally edited.) It's as much like Chewie's bowcaster as a traditional bow.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 24, 2005)

zepherus said:
			
		

> In a CQB, give me a 12-gauge loaded with 00-Buckshot over a semi-auto ( or auto ) weapon any day. I'd rather hit an enemy with the equivilent of 15 .32 caliber bullets at once then a couple of high velocity bullets any day. This is why you see more shotguns than rifles in police cruisers.




1. Scatterguns being a primary backup weapon in law enforcement has far more to do with politics, training issues and the versatility of the weapon than any supposed advantage in CQB.

2. Over the past two decades quite a few departments have made the transition to 5.56 carbines. 

3. Take a look at what is carried by the folks who practice CQB for a living. You won't find more than one shotgun per squad/stick...and it is primarily there because it is such an effective tool for door breaching.



			
				Meloncov said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that Inara's bow fires small explosive bolts, and is auto-reloded (well, after it was digitally edited.) It's as much like Chewie's bowcaster as a traditional bow.




That was my impression as well. Now only if it wasn't so darn silly looking!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 24, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Hmm. I never said "shoot a gun well," i.e. be "good" with a gun. Oh well. You took what you wanted from it. *shrug* I do believe guns are thug weapons compared to bows or knives. That's my personal opinion. Kindly respect it.




But... I find it just so amusing when I see gamers romanticize ancient/medieval weapons while decrying guns. 



			
				zepherus said:
			
		

> So, let me guess...you think that ObiWan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, and Anakin Skywalker are less dangerous, or lesser fighters because they use lightsabers ( form of a sword ) over blasters? To quote "Old Ben"..."Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age." That's what Inara is...elegant and civilized.




So Inara is a Jedi knight now? 

The Star Wars movies (especially the prequels) have shown repeatedly that a trained force-user with a lightsaber is pretty much a superhero.



> What about the Operative? His weapon of choice was a katana...not a gun.




Maybe he's a japanophile?  I'll bet that as soon as the events in Serenity were over he went home and ate pocky while watching magical girl anime. 

In real life, the katana was hardly ever used as a battlefield weapon.  Samurai would instead use bows, polearms, or rifles.  Katanas were mainly used for ceremonial purposes, duels (which happened rarely, because contrary to common belief, very few samurai were skilled swordsmen), and executing enemies or commoners who didn't show proper respect.

In Serenity, the operative seems to prefer using his katana as a tool of execution.  His real weapon of choice seems to be martial arts (which was a good thing for Mal, because if the operative would have had the good sense to use a gun, the final battle may have had a different outcome).



> Or Corporal Hicks in "Aliens"? Pulls a sawed off shotgun out of his harness and says "I like to keep this for close quarters.".




If Inara would have picked a shotgun, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. 



> In a CQB, give me a 12-gauge loaded with 00-Buckshot over a semi-auto ( or auto ) weapon any day. I'd rather hit an enemy with the equivilent of 15 .32 caliber bullets at once then a couple of high velocity bullets any day. This is why you see more shotguns than rifles in police cruisers.




In CQB, I'd probably rather have a MP5 or M-4 Carbine, but a shotgun is still a damn fine CQB weapon.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 24, 2005)

zepherus said:
			
		

> So, let me guess...you think that ObiWan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, and Anakin Skywalker are less dangerous, or lesser fighters because they use lightsabers ( form of a sword ) over blasters? To quote "Old Ben"..."Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age." That's what Inara is...elegant and civilized.



To be fair, lightsabers have the advantage of being able to BLOCk nearly anything. I think that's more important than their offensive capabilities. Plus the whole "slice through anything" feature, that's always nice to have.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 24, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> In CQB, I'd probably rather have a MP5 or M-4 Carbine, but a shotgun is still a damn fine CQB weapon.



Or a 6933!






Now I just need a Masterkey.


----------



## cattoy (Dec 24, 2005)

Unmentioned so far is the fact that we know that she has at least some experience in pyrotechnics, as evidenced by the flash-bangs disguised as incense...

Such toys would have been extremely useful against foes that are being funnelled through a narrow passage, but it would also be a bit undramatic.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 24, 2005)

I think folks are bringing way too much personal baggage to this party.

Hopefully at some point someone will mention that the operative was not actually carrying a Katana in the film. A sword with a straight blade less than two shaku in length wouldn't be classified as a Katana under any reasonable typology.

Thus it's probably a bit unfair to use it as fodder for analogies. 

Let's call it a Ninja-To instead...that ought to put on the flames, as no one could possibly argue over that weapon's abilities! 



Besides since when have human beings ever been overly blessed with common sense? People have always made bad choices under stressfull situations..even ones that may cost them their lives. Someone making a stupid choice is hardly a deal breaker for me...heck if anything it should add to the suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Jeremy (Dec 25, 2005)

Ninja-to?  Bah.  Gimme a cutlass.  That's a REAL sword!  Yarrgh!


----------



## zepherus (Dec 25, 2005)

*Bow Response*

For clarification, all I was trying to say was that to believe Inara was any less an asset to the team because she chose to use something other than a gun seems a little short-sighted.

People tend to use whatever they are the most trained in, and feel the most comfortable with. If she had not trained with a gun and tried to use one, then she would be useless...or worse.

As far as the efficiency of "bow versus gun" goes, I believe in my "neck of the woods", more white-tailed deer are harvested during bow season than during gun season. Anyone can fire a gun, and with some degree of luck, can hit something. With Inara potentially firing into a group that includes her friends, her chances of hitting a comrade would have been as good as hitting the reavers. So, she chose to use something she was trained in, and felt comfortable with, while still being able to carry out her objective...killing the enemy.

In the right hands, almost anything can be used as a lethal weapon, if you know how to use it as such.

Later!

Zeph


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Dec 25, 2005)

Joker said:
			
		

> Legolas uses a bow.
> 
> I rest my case.



Ouch...Joker makes a compelling argument.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 25, 2005)

zepherus said:
			
		

> As far as the efficiency of "bow versus gun" goes, I believe in my "neck of the woods", more white-tailed deer are harvested during bow season than during gun season.



For the record, most of the states have a seperate season for bows than for rifles, sometimes different seasons for black powder or shotgun. Basically the rifle is too efficient, so they put further restrictions on it.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 25, 2005)

zepherus said:
			
		

> For clarification, all I was trying to say was that to believe Inara was any less an asset to the team because she chose to use something other than a gun seems a little short-sighted.




And I'm saying exactly that:  Inara was less an asset to the team because she chose a bow instead of a gun. 



> People tend to use whatever they are the most trained in, and feel the most comfortable with. If she had not trained with a gun and tried to use one, then she would be useless...or worse.
> 
> As far as the efficiency of "bow versus gun" goes, I believe in my "neck of the woods", more white-tailed deer are harvested during bow season than during gun season. Anyone can fire a gun, and with some degree of luck, can hit something. With Inara potentially firing into a group that includes her friends, her chances of hitting a comrade would have been as good as hitting the reavers. So, she chose to use something she was trained in, and felt comfortable with, while still being able to carry out her objective...killing the enemy.




You seem to be contradicting yourself there:  First you state that if Inara hadn't been trained to use a gun she'd be useless, but then you state that anybody can use a gun and hit something.



> In the right hands, almost anything can be used as a lethal weapon, if you know how to use it as such.




True.  But in a life or death firefight, I think I'll take a gun over a pair of nail clippers (or a bow).


----------



## Bill Muench (Dec 25, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Maybe he's a japanophile?  I'll bet that as soon as the events in Serenity were over he went home and ate pocky while watching magical girl anime.




Okay, that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time.


----------



## Lazybones (Dec 25, 2005)

I can't believe I just read a page of posts about Inara's use of the bow in _Serenity_. 

Gah, you gotta love ENWorld.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 25, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I never said "shoot a gun well," i.e. be "good" with a gun.  Oh well.  You took what you wanted from it.  *shrug*  I do believe guns are thug weapons compared to bows or knives.  That's my personal opinion.  Kindly respect it.





Guns are thug weapons but knives aren't?


----------



## Roudi (Dec 25, 2005)

"Find that kid who's taking a dirt nap with Baby Jesus, we need a hood ornament."

Best.  Outake.  *EVAR.*


----------



## Peterson (Dec 25, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> "Find that kid who's taking a dirt nap with Baby Jesus, we need a hood ornament."
> 
> Best.  Outake.  *EVAR.*




I don't know, Roudi.  Personally, my favorite was:

Inara: _Told ya to hold on._ 

Mal (from the floor): _I'm fine._ 

Oh.  You said Outtakes, not Deleted Scenes.  Okay then....

Same scene.  After Mal picks up the "grenade" he threw, he stumbles into the nearby tree - looking all manner of clumsy.  I thought that was just genius, even if it was on accident. 

You know what - never mind.  The whole movie (and special features) was just...._gorram shiny._

Peterson


----------



## Falkus (Dec 27, 2005)

> And I'm saying exactly that: Inara was less an asset to the team because she chose a bow instead of a gun.




Kindly explain why using a weapon you haven't been trained with would make you more of an asset than using one you have been trained with? Except in certain specific circumstances, it's the user, not the weapon, that determines efficiency in combat.


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 27, 2005)

Just as an aside on outtakes. It seems like anymore outtakes are just endless series of actors messing up lines and making goofy faces. woo hoo... But now these were outtakes. As others have pointed out, some of them are geniunely halarious themselves. I'm suprised nobody mentioned Fillion's adlib about 'Put the Sheppard up front, he's the guest of honor.' I about had Dr. Pepper come out of my nose on that one.


----------



## Dagger75 (Dec 27, 2005)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> Just as an aside on outtakes. It seems like anymore outtakes are just endless series of actors messing up lines and making goofy faces. woo hoo... But now these were outtakes. As others have pointed out, some of them are geniunely halarious themselves. I'm suprised nobody mentioned Fillion's adlib about 'Put the Sheppard up front, he's the guest of honor.' I about had Dr. Pepper come out of my nose on that one.





 Uhhh its been brought up a few times.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 27, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> You seem to be contradicting yourself there:  First you state that if Inara hadn't been trained to use a gun she'd be useless, but then you state that anybody can use a gun and hit something.




If you aren't trained to use a gun, but are trained to use a bow, then when you choose to fire a gun, you certainly could hit something...  That something being a wall, an ally, an occassional enemy


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 27, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> Uhhh its been brought up a few times.




Must have missed it. I saw the dirt nap reference back a few. My point really was more that it is nice to have a DVD with decent extras for a change.


----------



## Dagger75 (Dec 27, 2005)

The outtakes where nice, the deleted scenes where alright.  The commentary was BORING.  Its just Joss talking to himself.  I think you need 2 people to have a decent commentary.  I got tired of hearing about the lighting every 2 seconds.


----------



## John Cooper (Dec 28, 2005)

My favorite outtake was when Mal yelled "TRAP!" at the top of his lungs after discussing Inara's message.

The fake grenade was pretty funny, too, from the deleted scenes.


----------



## Lazybones (Dec 28, 2005)

Rats, my wife got me the Full Screen edition by mistake. Looks like my Serenity-watching goodness will have to wait a few days; luckily I have BSG2.0 to tide me over.


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 28, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> The outtakes where nice, the deleted scenes where alright.  The commentary was BORING.  Its just Joss talking to himself.  I think you need 2 people to have a decent commentary.  I got tired of hearing about the lighting every 2 seconds.




It would have been nice to have Joss and Nathan FIllion. Their Firefly commentaries were pretty halarious. Joss does get hung up on technical details when I think most people would rather have heard why he made some of the plot decisions he did, etc.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 28, 2005)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> It would have been nice to have Joss and Nathan FIllion. Their Firefly commentaries were pretty halarious. Joss does get hung up on technical details when I think most people would rather have heard why he made some of the plot decisions he did, etc.




Indeed. The whole reason I was looking forward to the commentary was to hear things about why he did what he did, what he had planned if the series has continued, what had to change from his original ideas, etc.

Now I'm not even sure I'm going to bother watching the commentary.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> And I'm saying exactly that:  Inara was less an asset to the team because she chose a bow instead of a gun.




Given that, in the final edit of the movie, she doesn't use a bow, I'm thinking your objections are less than relevant.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that, in the final edit of the movie, she doesn't use a bow, I'm thinking your objections are less than relevant.




Uh, actually, she does. It's a high-tech bow, self-loading with explosive arrows. But it's definitely a bow.

Unless they've changed it from the theatrical release to the DVD, and that sounds less like a Whedon thing and more like a Lucas thing.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 3, 2006)

Just watched this movie and it was damn good!

The reavers reminded me of Dark Heart of Space (d20 Future campaign model).


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 3, 2006)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> But... I find it just so amusing when I see gamers romanticize ancient/medieval weapons while decrying guns.




It's not only gamers.  The war museum in Canada has a quote on the wall from a soldier in the Boer War.....it talks about the advent of guns, and the guy says something like "the new guns allowed a new recruit with a 12 cent revolver to kill a seasoned swordsman with twenty years experience"....that was 100 years ago.

I'm sure getting whacked by a sword wouldn't be very pretty, but guns made it easier and cheaper to give soldiers the ability to kill each other.  Make that process easier, and maybe there's a risk of having people that are less disciplined than someone who's been practicing for years.  It's certainly made it easier for certain countries to develop armies of child soldiers..

Personally, I'm not sure I even noticed Inara with the bow when I was watching the movie.  I would suspect that she used it due to comfort level.  Maybe she was a crack shot with a bow, whereas the recoil of a gun would make it too difficult to use, for someone as small as her.  Having never actually fired a gun myself, friends I know who have, have consistently mentioned that it's actually not so easy, due to the kickback etc.

Banshee


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 3, 2006)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> edit: And what's up with the Chinese swears?  I'd figure that there'd be a few asians out there if everyone's speaking Chinese, but I don't remember a one.



Joss believed that in the future the two superpowers USA and China are going to merged in order to explore and colonize in space.

If you like _Serenity,_ you should watch from its humble beginning in them _Firefly_ TV series DVD set.

Granted, it may not be the best sci-fi film (nothing can top _Star Trek_ ... boo-yah!   ) but I would watch future _Serenity_ sequels if the production studio would give Joss more $$$.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 3, 2006)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> And I'm saying exactly that:  Inara was less an asset to the team because she chose a bow instead of a gun.



Why, because she wasn't injured but her gun-toting companions were?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 3, 2006)

From a roleplayer perspective: It's obvious that Inara (as a Charismatic Hero) has taken the Archaic Weapon Profiency and is thus proficient with bows and swords. But she lacks the Personal Firearms Profiency. Having an already meager attack bonus due to her chosen classses, she didn't want a -4 penalty to her attacks. 

Still, it is correct that she is not the greatest asset in a fight (just as Kaylee isn't, judging from the series), at least not when you only count her weapon fire. I don't know if she used her Charismatic Hero Inspiration talents (assuming she actually took these talents, since as a Companion, the Charm/Favor route was probably more useful to her)...

In the movie, her special talents weren't needed much, though she managed to surprise the Operative with her makeshift explosives. The whole scene gave Mal finally some kind of warning on what was really going on...


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 3, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Still, it is correct that she is not the greatest asset in a fight (just as Kaylee isn't, judging from the series),



Nor Simon Tam. He's not exactly the futuristic Doc Holliday.   

Personally, I like the fact that she is an anachronistic person to contrast the blunt mercenary soldiers of Jane and Zoe.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 3, 2006)

I wouldn't mind having Simon along in a gunfright. He doesn't seem to be trained, but his unflappable cool seems to stay with him, both in War Stories and the movie. 

Kaylee and Inara on the other hand, I'd rather have NOT with me.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 4, 2006)

Unless it's Kaylee in a "I'm gonna have sex!"-driven battle frenzy!


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 4, 2006)

Inara used a bow because it looked cool. No other reasoning is required.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 4, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind having Simon along in a gunfright. He doesn't seem to be trained, but his unflappable cool seems to stay with him, both in War Stories and the movie.
> 
> Kaylee and Inara on the other hand, I'd rather have NOT with me.



Meh. Sometimes you can't pick your team in a sudden gunfight, especially if you have your kid sister (brother, cousin, niece/nephew, etc.) with you.

As for Inara, at least she's making her arrow shots count. And she didn't get injured, unlike grief-stricken Zoe (why she moved out of position to confront the Reavers in melee is beyond me) and Jane's moment of distraction.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 4, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And she didn't get injured, unlike grief-stricken Zoe (why she moved out of position to confront the Reavers in melee is beyond me)




You've never allowed overwhelming emotion to cloud your judgment? Between the range and the grief she was feeling, I'm surprised she didn't lose it earlier, or for longer.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 4, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> As for Inara, at least she's making her arrow shots count. And she didn't get injured, unlike grief-stricken Zoe (why she moved out of position to confront the Reavers in melee is beyond me) and Jane's moment of distraction.




Uh, cause she was grief-stricken? 

To me her losing it was a big character moment, because I don't think I'd ever SEEN her lose her cool before, so a momentary loss of reason in a firefight spoke volumes more about her state of mind than a bunch of tears. 

About having a firefight with your cousin, I agree, you dont always get to pick your battles and I liked very much the ending of the movie. Just saying Id rather have Simon with me than Kaylee or Inara if I *got* to choose.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 4, 2006)

I thought the movie was grand.  And a bow with high-tech bells and whistles probably is good enough for a gun fight, depending on the high-tech bells and whistles.  Hey, Green Arrow does well enough.  

I had a friend that thought the Operative should have committed seppuku at the end of the movie (in Serenity's engine blasts, no less!).  Personally, I think he should go the "Book" route and become a Shepherd.

But I really wish the movie sequels (if there be such) get the bowler hatted Cockney-accented scumbag and "Mrs. Mal" and Niska.  They were cool Firefly nasties!


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 4, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Uh, actually, she does. It's a high-tech bow, self-loading with explosive arrows. But it's definitely a bow.




Nope, it wasn't. It was digitally altered to be a "bolt-thrower", eliminating the upper portion of the bow.


----------



## Roudi (Aug 4, 2006)

My only problem with the movie was Book's death.  Not how he died, or any clichés therein, but just the fact that he died with so much character detail left unresolved.  The series had spent a lot of time hinting at the mysterious true nature of the enigmatic Shepherd.  And now those hints come to no fruition!

Still, Serenity was a great movie.  Great outtakes, too.


----------



## Richards (Aug 4, 2006)

As far as Book's death, though, I believe that was at the request of Ron Glass (who plays Book), who isn't in very good health and didn't think he'd be able to make any future movies.  Given that set of circumstances, better to have Book killed off on screen rather than try to explain away his absence while trying to fill in his backstory.

Johnathan


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 5, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Uh, cause she was grief-stricken?
> 
> To me her losing it was a big character moment, because I don't think I'd ever SEEN her lose her cool before, so a momentary loss of reason in a firefight spoke volumes more about her state of mind than a bunch of tears.



Don't get me wrong. I understood why she wanted to wade into the Reavers. I'd have done the same thing too if the only love of my life is taken from me. I would have consoled that if I want to die to follow my love, I'll take as many Reavers with me.


----------



## Meloncov (Aug 5, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> As far as Book's death, though, I believe that was at the request of Ron Glass (who plays Book), who isn't in very good health and didn't think he'd be able to make any future movies.  Given that set of circumstances, better to have Book killed off on screen rather than try to explain away his absence while trying to fill in his backstory.
> 
> Johnathan




That's a rumor that went around awhile, but I think it was denighed.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 5, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> That's a rumor that went around awhile, but I think it was denighed.



So, is Ron Glass upset that his character was killed?

Now, I truly want to know if Alan Tudyk didn't want his character, Wash, to die, too.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2006)

Roudi said:
			
		

> My only problem with the movie was Book's death.  Not how he died, or any clichés therein, but just the fact that he died with so much character detail left unresolved.  The series had spent a lot of time hinting at the mysterious true nature of the enigmatic Shepherd.  And now those hints come to no fruition!
> 
> Still, Serenity was a great movie.  Great outtakes, too.




I appreciated Joss killing him without the "big reveal". Whatever we learned of his past, it would not have been as cool as what's in your head. Anytime other oh-so-mysterious characters have had their pasts revealed (Snake Eyes, Wolverine) the results have been lame.


----------



## Meloncov (Aug 5, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, is Ron Glass upset that his character was killed?
> 
> Now, I truly want to know if Alan Tudyk didn't want his character, Wash, to die, too.




Both were rather accepting. I haven't read much about Glass, but I know that Tudyk expected the charecter to die early from the begining of the show.


----------



## Roudi (Aug 5, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I appreciated Joss killing him without the "big reveal". Whatever we learned of his past, it would not have been as cool as what's in your head. Anytime other oh-so-mysterious characters have had their pasts revealed (Snake Eyes, Wolverine) the results have been lame.



Yer, you might have a good point there.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 5, 2006)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> Yup.  People have their limits.  What Joss did to Zoe far exceeded hers.  And she had quite a high threshold.  Ask Niska.



Niska only tortured Mal and Wash. If you're referring to scene where Niska allowed Zoe to choose one prisoner to set free, obviously she was going to choose her husband. She didn't mull over it.


----------



## librarius_arcana (Aug 6, 2006)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I liked the movie just fine, but the Operator bored me to tears.
> 
> "A suave, literate, philosopher-assassin. With a katana. See, he's like a sci-fi samurai, get it? Get it?"
> 
> ...




Far from it, I saw him as a complex character, (try working out how he thinks)


----------



## Allura (Aug 12, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, is Ron Glass upset that his character was killed?




Ron Glass spoke at a Q&A at ICON this year. As an actor, it was his first death scene. As someone who really loved his character, he was NOT happy. 

OTOH, he says that Joss has told him if there's another movie, he WILL be in it. I believe Alan is "optioned" as well. So make of that what you will....


----------



## Richards (Aug 12, 2006)

That makes sense, as _Serenity_ was basically the third movie in a trilogy, that Joss opted to make first in case he didn't get green-lighted to make the other two.  If there _is_ a "next" movie, I expect it will be set between the end of _Firefly_ and well before the beginning of _Serenity_.

Johnathan


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 12, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> That makes sense, as _Serenity_ was basically the third movie in a trilogy, that Joss opted to make first in case he didn't get green-lighted to make the other two.  If there _is_ a "next" movie, I expect it will be set between the end of _Firefly_ and well before the beginning of _Serenity_.
> 
> Johnathan



*raises eyebrows*

Why is everyone in Hollywood so anxious to do prequels? I'm starting to blame George Lucas for popularizing the trend.  :\


----------



## Richards (Aug 13, 2006)

Actually, it wasn't a matter of Joss wanting to do a prequel - it was more concern on his part that if he made "movie 1 of 3" first and it didn't generate enough sales to greenlight movies 2 and 3, he'd be leaving his _Firefly_ fan base stranded.  However, by making _Serenity_ as movie 3 of 3, if worst came to worst, at least there'd be some closure.  And if it turned out that sales were strong enough to make additional movies, then he could always go back and make movies 1 of 3 and 2 of 3.

Johnathan


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *raises eyebrows*
> 
> Why is everyone in Hollywood so anxious to do prequels? I'm starting to blame George Lucas for popularizing the trend.  :\




Well, whatever people on the internet say about the SW prequels, the last one made like 800 million dollars worldwide.

I think the studios are paying more attention to what the majority DOES rather than what the minority of internet fanboys SAY.

[comic book guy]Rest assured that I was on the internet within moments expressing my disgust[/comic book guy]

Chuck


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, whatever people on the internet say about the SW prequels, the last one made like 800 million dollars worldwide.



Meh. It's one of those things that makes you say, "Hmm?" along with the popularity of David Hasselhoff in Germany, the popularity of pay-2-play MMORPGs, and iPods.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 13, 2006)

> along with the _supposed_ popularity of David Hasselhoff in Germany, the popularity of pay-2-play MMORPGs, and iPods.



Fixed that for you. 
The only time he was somewhat popular was when he starred in Knight Rider and Baywatch, I think. He had a concert (at least he sung) during the events of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is certainly remembered (especially since there exist pictures and videos of that events). Somehow it made _him_ convinced that he is a great star here, but I know no people who actually care for him these days. 
(Though I admit, at that time and age, I was a great fan of Knight Rider - I still am, in the nostalgic fanboy way - and then I enjoyed his song "Looking for Freedom", but mostly because of the connection to KITT, err Knight Rider.)

Oh, and for the record: I never wore and probably never will wear _Lederhosen_ and I don't really like _Sauerkraut_, either.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. It's one of those things that makes you say, "Hmm?" along with the popularity of David Hasselhoff in Germany, the popularity of pay-2-play MMORPGs, and iPods.




Heh. It doesn't make me say "hmm" at all. It makes me say "taste is not universal". 

You might dislike all those things. But plenty of people obviously DO, since they all have been really successful. 

But when you say "why would movie companies consider prequels/reimaginings" when we have Batman Begins (very successful) and the SW prequels (all very successful), well, the question sort of answers itself.

People have shown their willingness to support these kinds of movies.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.
> (Though I admit, at that time and age, I was a great fan of Knight Rider - I still am, in the nostalgic fanboy way - and then I enjoyed his song "Looking for Freedom", but mostly because of the connection to KITT, err Knight Rider.)



Oh, I'm a fan of _Knight Rider_ and David as the star of that show, but never a fan of his singing.

But of the 800 millions that went to see _RoTS_ how many of them actually enjoyed it? Or are almost all of them simply _Star Wars_ label fans. George Lucas could have finished the film in low budget with low-tech special effects and fans would still come to see it.

Anyhoo... my gripe is about the prequels trend in Hollywood. If _Serenity_ means to be Episode 3, can't Joss just aim for Episode 4?


----------



## ender_wiggin (Aug 14, 2006)

Taking this from a different angle, I found myself wondering what the target age of the movie was halfway through it. The jokes seemed awfully pubescent. A little low for me? But I see people than me enjoying this movie. Or am I born of a generation jaded by these things (I'm in the 18-24 category)? Or is it the elusive age category that _I'm_ in?

I've seen a few episodes of _Buffy_ previously, and noted its typically lacking television dialogue. What disappointed me was that the construction of _Serenity's_ dialogue did not much improve over what I've previously seen of Whedon's work. But this I can forgive -- the movie is obviously meant to be taken as light. Dialogue that sounds hopeless unrealistic doesn't matter.

Two things really bothered me though -- both typical of Whedon, imho. The first was the presence of a female do-it-all. She's attractive, she's innocent, and she kicks much more ass than a girl of 100 pounds can viably kick. It's a little cliche. I was hoping could do something more original of his own work.

The second, which bothered me even more, was the presence of a completely unnecessary romance. It's 2006. Thus, unless your target audience is 12-15, you _do not need a romantic side plot_. Imho, if you are to include such a plot, you have to give it more weight. Does it sell the movie? Sure. Is it sh*tty? Definately. But writing things into the plot to make more money does not earn my respect.

Now, on to things that were good. Whatever budget this movie recieved was probably enough to buy some serious digital editing capabilities. Some of the space shots were amazing. I guess I'm a sucker for well done CGI.

And of course, the transitioning was good. Take the first scene -- I was truly impressed with the pacing. Keep the audience in one mindset long enough to do what you need to do (first the setting was introduced, then 2 major characters), but before we're comfortable, we're thrust out, onto something new. Clever as hell.

All in all, I give it a 70, which, in my scale, is a heavily flawed, predictable, but enjoyable flick.


----------



## Dagger75 (Aug 14, 2006)

ender_wiggin said:
			
		

> The second, which bothered me even more, was the presence of a completely unnecessary romance. It's 2006. Thus, unless your target audience is 12-15, you _do not need a romantic side plot_. Imho, if you are to include such a plot, you have to give it more weight. Does it sell the movie? Sure. Is it sh*tty? Definately. But writing things into the plot to make more money does not earn my respect.




 Have you even seen the show before the movie?? The Mal and Inara sub plot was in the show, the same with the Simon and Kaylee.  Both were resolved at the end of the movie.  Joss gave us closure on those plot threads.


----------



## Roudi (Aug 14, 2006)

Where did you see closure between Mal and Inara?  One of the things I like about the series is that Joss never seems to let that one go anywhere.  It's constant, consistent tension and intrigue!


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 14, 2006)

ender_wiggin said:
			
		

> Two things really bothered me though -- both typical of Whedon, imho. The first was the presence of a female do-it-all. She's attractive, she's innocent, and she kicks much more ass than a girl of 100 pounds can viably kick. It's a little cliche. I was hoping could do something more original of his own work.



You're not suggesting a male know-it-all. That has been overdone in Hollywood. The sheer number dwarfs the number of leading female heroes of the similar caliber ... counting River, Buffy, and Xena.




			
				ender_wiggin said:
			
		

> The second, which bothered me even more, was the presence of a completely unnecessary romance. It's 2006. Thus, unless your target audience is 12-15, you _do not need a romantic side plot_. Imho, if you are to include such a plot, you have to give it more weight. Does it sell the movie? Sure. Is it sh*tty? Definately. But writing things into the plot to make more money does not earn my respect.



If you're referring to the Mal-Inara dynamics, I don't know where that relationship is going. But it's more interesting when they keep fighting that I do not want to see them ending up together soon.


----------



## Welverin (Aug 14, 2006)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> Have you even seen the show before the movie??




Do you really need to ask?



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But of the 800 millions that went to see _RoTS_ how many of them actually enjoyed it? Or are almost all of them simply _Star Wars_ label fans. George Lucas could have finished the film in low budget with low-tech special effects and fans would still come to see it.




You have a lot of trouble acknowledging that your opions are the god given truth and accepting not everyone shares you're opions don't you?


----------



## heirodule (Aug 14, 2006)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> HAny idiot can shoot a gun and with luck hit a target, but a bow requires much practice and innate skill to use well.  Inara is not a thug.  She is not going to use a brute force weapon.  She's going to use a weapon that suits her, rather than a weapon that necessarily might work better.




There should have been a sceene where Zoe reams her out for trying to roleplay instead of being effective 

It reminds me of an old 1e RPGA classic mod, where the pregen wizard roleplay notes said he was afraid of fire and wouldn't use fire spells. OK. fine. Then we open the door to the room filled with 20 wights who won't come out of the room. We shut the door, and I said, my PC conquers his fear as of now, and memorized fireball.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 14, 2006)

Welverin said:
			
		

> You have a lot of trouble acknowledging that your opions are the god given truth and accepting not everyone shares you're opions don't you?



Admittedly, yeah. It's the same with the _D&D_ films. I mean to actually find someone that actually likes either one or both just confuzzles my mind.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 14, 2006)

(deleted a moronic comment of mine)


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 15, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Niska only tortured Mal and Wash. If you're referring to scene where Niska allowed Zoe to choose one prisoner to set free, obviously she was going to choose her husband. She didn't mull over it.




Niska kidnapped, could have very possibly killed, and ruthlessly tortured Wash whom Zoe is rather attached to.  But her calm remain undamaged.  She organized, showed up, and managed to not break the line and cram her shottie down Niska's throat long enough to get Wash back.  That's a helluva lot of personal strength.  That's what I was referring to.  

Personally observing Wash's violent, sudden, pointless death?  That was too much for even Zoe to take thus the vengeance charge that nearly led to her death.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 15, 2006)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> Personally observing Wash's violent, sudden, pointless death?



I wouldn't call it exactly _pointless_.


----------

