DVDFile posts a review of Serenity DVD... finally!
Normally I'd think we'd probably had enough of these reviews, but this is a great one from a reviewer completely unfamiliar with Firefly.
January 17 2006
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
Lioness | January 17, 04:07 CET
Wha?
Grounded | January 17, 04:10 CET
Another few misconceptions(understandable of course), was that the Browncoats resisted Alliance control, in part due to the destruction of Earth-that-was(it has become a myth when we joined the crew), and the notion that the crew of Serenity helped rescue River out of the Academy.
[ edited by kurya on 2006-01-17 02:22 ]
kurya | January 17, 04:22 CET
Even though the teacher says "Earth-That-Was could no longer sustain our numbers we were so many," and we assume the flashes were the ships taking off.
Hey, maybe it's commentary. We can see how history has already been manipulated by the Alliance. They left Earth because we were wiping ourselves out, but the history books say, "No, no. No nuclear holocaust. Not us. Nuh-uh. Overpopulation. Yeah, that's it." ;-)
The First Weevil | January 17, 04:25 CET
Still, 100% terrific, mostly accurate review that's spot-on on a number of points. I get the feeling the reviewer will watch the Firefly DVD set.
And so it begins... (whoops, wrong show)
jclemens | January 17, 04:39 CET
kurya | January 17, 04:42 CET
While some of the stuff seems to be pulled out of nowhere, there's a lot of understanding that wouldn't have necessarily just been pulled from seeing the film itself. The pillow geisha description of companions wasn't really that clear in the final cut and now I see myself longing for Memoirs of a Companion...
orangewaxlion | January 17, 05:11 CET
leafinthewind | January 17, 05:16 CET
eddy | January 17, 05:17 CET
So ... is he saying they should been able to figure out a way to get through the Reaver zone to Mr. Universe's world by going above the zone? Below it? Or what?
It's good to see objective reviews from non-fans. I'm so used to talking with other Whedonites who loved Serenity, if they've seen it at all, that a positive opinion from someone without vested interest feels especially validating.
Wiseblood | January 17, 08:54 CET
Or even, for that matter, to get TO Miranda, they could have flown above/below/around the Reavers (unless the Reavers were actually surrounding the planet, which they weren't).
Septimus | January 17, 09:22 CET
Being that there is no actual "up" or "down" in space (although I guess any ships out there must navigate based on some kind of x/y/z axis-grid, or something), but many directions from which they might have made their planetary approach, I actually do remember wondering why they had to go through the Reaver zone, now that I think about it, though it was just a quickly passing thought.
Being the broke-ass travelers they are, it's easy enough to fanwank that they were likely low on fuel and chose to go the route that would get them from point A through pointy-stuff B to point C as expediently as possible -- or that they were saving said fuel for extra thrust against Miranda's gravitational field in case an atmo-burn getaway became necessary.
Wiseblood | January 17, 09:45 CET
Oh and also the reason the reviewer probably thinks Serenity crew helped River escape is because that ship that pulled Simon and River up looks awfully lot like one of Serenity's shuttles.
[ edited by delirium_haze on 2006-01-17 07:57 ]
[ edited by delirium_haze on 2006-01-17 07:57 ]
delirium_haze | January 17, 09:48 CET
LOUiE | January 17, 13:15 CET
To me it seemed fairly clear that Mal dislocated the Operative's shoulders (non-lethal but very hard to fight with not to mention, y'know, sore ;).
Otherwise a pretty good review. It's always most interesting to me to hear the opinions of people new to the 'verse on 'Serenity'.
Saje | January 17, 14:27 CET
I think one of the reasons you don't get a clear view of the actual ship that picks them up is to give new audience members the impression that it IS Serenity. It's a great shortcut narration-wise, and those who know the show will assume that the ship belongs to the people Simon mentioned in one of the earlier episodes (which it of course is).
pjalne | January 17, 14:37 CET
Which... of course... was pioneered in Firefly first.
AnotherFireflyfan | January 17, 16:08 CET
Minor changes in course can be done with just the engines, but really big changes are usually done with a gravity assist from a planet.
Yeah, I know that on other space movies and series, the ships change course whenever they want. They also go "whoosh" when they do it.
MissKittysMom | January 17, 17:04 CET
As I say, Firefly/Serenity not so big on the science e.g. in 'Out of Gas' the ship seems to stop dead in space because the engine stops but as you imply above, she'd have a whole load of inertia and continue for a long time before that happened (leaving aside Wash making the signal 'go farther') but it's still my favourite episode just cos it's so well written, beautifully scored and amazingly acted that the nit-picks pale into insignificance (it can still be fun to 'fan-wank' as I saw it called above tho').
Maybe not great science but it sure is great fiction ;).
Saje | January 17, 17:34 CET
Hmm... I may need to rewatch, but did they state with certainty that the ship has stopped moving? The whole pun in the title is that the gas they are out of is oxygen... the life support failed. "engine don't turn, we don't breath". Even if their intertia kept them moving, they wouldn't make it anywhere in time to survive. At least that's my take.
AnotherFireflyfan | January 17, 17:47 CET
Any excuse to rewatch 'Out of Gas' is a good one tho' as far as i'm concerned ;).
Saje | January 17, 18:14 CET
Perhaps the stars are so far distant that Serenity doesn't appear to be moving relative to them, but actually is moving. If you're driving and looking at, say, mountains that are far away, they'll appear to be in the same place for a long time. There are no landmarks (spacemarks?) near Serenity, so we have the illusion of no movement.
Speaking of which, when moving at sub-light speeds is it fudged science when we see stars move past a ship?
AnotherFireflyfan | January 17, 19:58 CET
I think i'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt on the star thing cos as you say (possibly apart from a slight parallax effect if the camera was moving) I think the stars would appear stationary over those kinds of distances.
If you mean in the sense of the ship actually passing stars at any noticable rate then, yeah, I think that's fudged. My decidedly not-a-rocket-scientist reasoning being: say you were going at 9/10 the speed of light and stars are about 4.3 light years apart (our nearest neighbour, Alpha Centauri, is about 4.3 away) then it would take us around 3.9 years to see one different star go past. It follows, therefore, that to see stars zipping by you'd need to be going much, much faster than 0.9 c (it's complicated by the fact that you'd experience less than 3.9 years due to relatavistic time dilation but you'd still have to go a lot quicker - and here we're teetering on the edge of the dark, boundless abyss that is my ignorance ;).
Saje | January 17, 23:27 CET