‘We just watched Tim Burton’s remake, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory".
Don’t get me wrong: it’s a fun movie, and I do like Johnny Depp. But.
Gene Wilder is a god.
That’s all I’ll say about that.
In other news, after months of hounding by friends and BA readers, I finally picked up the DVDs for the science fiction show "Firefly".
Golram! It rocks! That was one of the best series in any genre I have ever seen. When the pilot for a show blows you away, you know you’re onto something: the pilots usually stink. The cast, the writing, the direction… it was all gold. We’re anxiously waiting to get the movie "Serenity" from Netflix.’
January 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Gene “Fronkensteen” Wilder rules!
I’m awaiting the DVD release of “The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.” It should happen here in 2006.
January 1st, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“Brisco County” is something I’d like to see again — I missed some of the later episodes. I’d love to get the set of “Parker Lewis Can’t Lose” though. When will THAT be out? I’ve been getting caught up with Penn & Teller’s “Bulls**t” from Netflix. That was countered the past week with Larry King giving psychics more airtime; but the next day, South Park had the John Edwards episode.
“Serenity” was one of the best movies of the year. My copy is coming from Amazon.com right now. For god’s sake, don’t spoil the surprises for Phil by talking about them.
January 1st, 2006 at 2:58 pm
BA…it’s “gorram.”
Not “golram.”
But yes, Firefly rocked…Serenity rocked. I hope they make more, but the movie wraps things off so nicely that I don’t think they need to make more.
January 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I am glad someone else remembers and liked Brisco County Jr.
I was afraid I was the only one.
January 1st, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Oh YES, “Firefly” is one of the best series ever produced. I was hooked by the time Wash was playing with his dinosaurs, and that was helped loads by what they got so very very right… NO SOUND IN SPACE. Thank you, Joss Whedon, my new master of SF deliciousness. It is all so very shiny.
“Serenity” is also very excellent, of course. How many TV shows get cancelled mid-season and then become a major motion picture?
January 1st, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Yes, Joss Whedon is a genius. How many movies get made into TV shows, which then have a newly-discovered planet named after them?
What the heck is a planet anyhow? Has the IAU decided yet?
January 1st, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Serenity is cool. I liked Firefly much more though. They kinda seem to fudge on the sound in space aspect in Serenity in the space battle scene. But, I loved it.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Am I the only person on the planet who didn’t care for Firefly?
Also, why are people calling it SF? Is it just because of the props? Because by that criterion, ID is science.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:46 pm
No, because of that criterion, ID is science *fiction*.
As we have always known…
Seriously, I yet to to see Firefly or Serenity. Maybe when I get the money and the time.
Anyway, the plot of both (space cowboys, IIRC) sound a lot like Cowboy Bebop, a Japanese anime. Is it? CB rocked!
January 1st, 2006 at 11:50 pm
FINALLY!!!! SHINY!! Thanks Phil. I’m so glad you liked it. I knew you would as I know you are a man of great taste and intellect.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 am
Yes, Firefly/Serenity is very much in the Cowboy Bebop groove. I love both of them.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:09 am
agree, Gene Wilder –(while not quite god status) is a far cry from Johnny Depp, although his Pirates of the Caribbean is not bad
Young Frankenstein is one of his best works
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:02 am
I never missed Firefly and really liked the movie Serenity as well however my husband could sit through either so you are not alone “arbnsb”.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 am
I’m from the UK and haven’t heard of Firefly. What’s it about?
Didn’t particularly like the first Willy Wonka, but fromwhat I’ve seen of the new one it just adds special effects and not much else.
By the way in your opinion/s, which remade film is better than the original?
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:35 am
Evil Dead 2 gets my vote, though not strictly a remake of Evil Dead.
Almost every foreign film remade in Hollywood looses it’s zip and feel “dumbed” down. Just look at the list on the link below.
http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.4195
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:48 am
Johnny Depp’s greatest achievement is “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.”
I freakin’ love that movie!
J. D.
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:43 am
For fans of “Firefly” (and basically all Joss Whedon shows), artist Scott Kurtz of PVPonline (http://www.pvponline.com/) has given us a shirt to show our loyalty.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/pvp/77da/
And you’re right, Phil.
Wilder is a god.
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:44 am
Anything that involves Ben Edlund must be good.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
I was not very impressed by what I’ve seen of Firefly. Certainly not enough to see Serenity. I’d be willing to give it another try, though, if it’s rerun on TV again.
CJSF
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:22 am
Hi!
Just thought ya might want to know.
The Gene Wilder movie was “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”.
The Johnny Depp movie was “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”.
The book by Dahl was “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”.
And “Firefly”? Rocks. Absolutely.
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:59 am
TallGrrl, they changed the name when they made the Gene Wilder movie because, at the time, “Charlie” was a politically-sensitive nickname used in a racial context. Well, it was in the States, not here in the UK.
Memoryman, you either need to get Sky TV or read SFX. “Firefly” was what Joss Whedon did after Buffy TVS. I’ve seen neither the TV series nor the film, but have read good things about both. And I shall eventually get them on DVD.
I’ve not seen either of the Chocolate Factory movies, but I prefer Johnny Depp over Gene Wilder (Gene Wilder – “Young Frankenstein” was a very high high point, “Stir Crazy” a very low low point. Johnny Depp – “Benny and Joon”, “Edward Scissorhands”, ’nuff said).
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Well, we watched the movie “Serenity” last night, and in truth I am disappointed. It was a shadow of the TV show. While it was better than most movies I have seen recently, the TV show set the bar pretty high, and the movie limboed under it. I might do a longer review as a blog entry at some point. The bottom line is that the movie felt like something Whedon wanted to take a whole season to say, but was forced to do in 2 hours.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Phil, you’ve hit the mark closer than you realize. Serenity takes the story to about where Joss had intended finishing season 2. Worse, because the movie necessarily had to be self-contained (for the first-time viewer), there was a fair bit of exposition. All that necessarily made the movie’s pacing a whole lot less relaxed than the series, to the point of being almost rushed.
January 2nd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Yeah, the movie was an entire season crammed into 2 hours, plus a whole new pilot for those who hadn’t seen the show. Trust me when I say the movie has a much, much, much bigger impact when you see it before having seen the series. I left the theatre shaking. Twice.
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Phil, I’m so glad you finally found time to watch Firefly and Serenity. Now maybe you have some idea of why the BAUT threads on the topic are going strong, and why we obsessed fans are so… well, obsessed (in my case, to the point of attending a fan convention — a first for me).
I’d like to suggest that you give Serenity another viewing. It holds up well to repeated exposure, and you’ll probably notice a lot of things you missed on the first go. While I agree that it’s not the TV series, I truly love the movie on its own terms.
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:45 am
All I know is no sound in space on a sci-fi show makes me happy ^_^
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:50 am
Yay! Glad to hear that BA has joined the Browncoats!
I’ll second what Donnie B. said above and add that Serenity has an even bigger impact if you’ve watched the series through a couple of times or more.
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 am
Firefly was a great series. I liked Serenity quite a bit, too, but Firefly is much more effective in the episodic format of TV, which allows for more leisurely character studies and plot developments. I hope that Whedon can somehow get Firefly picked up by television again. Maybe the SciFi Channel?
Gene Wilder was very funny in his heyday. Young Frankstein probably was his pinnacle, but he was great in a number of movies.
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Make that Young Frankenstein.
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:12 am
I’ve watched the first four episodes of Firefly, and I love it so far!
I agree that Gene Wilder was a much better Wonka than Johnny Depp. But I liked 2005’s version of the movie much better. I read the book many times, and it was great to finally have a version of the movie that followed the book. If you could just transport Wilder’s Wonka into the new movie, it would be perfect! My favorite parts were the Oompa Loompa productions. LOL funny!
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 am
Pro Libertate, It’s pronounced: “Fronkensteen”
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Is Roald Dahl perhaps not nearly as well known in America as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? It’s the only explanation I can think of.
Some info on why, if Gene Wilder is a god, Roald Dahl must be Richard Dawkins can be found here.
Well, okay, it’s the writer, producers and director who are to blame, but Wilder collaborated, even if ignorantly. And Dahl was supposedly appalled at the casting – he wanted Spike Milligan to be Willy Wonka.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
I agree with Phil that Serenity was a semi-pale shadow of Firefly. I think I liked every episode of the TV series better than the movie. Joss Whedon seems like much more of a TV series director than a movie director. His stories have so much character development and interaction that a movie is a poor showplace for his talents. Too little time and too much that needed to be said. I’ve watched my DVD set of Firefly 4-5 times all the way through, but have yet to see the movie a second time.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
arensb Said:
>Am I the only person on the planet who didn’t care for Firefly?
No, but you have no taste.
>Also, why are people calling it SF? Is it just because of the props?
Science Fiction, or SF, covers a broad range of subjects. The most loosely based definition places SF and Fantasy into a category described as Speculative Fiction – stories that play “what if?” Alternative History fits in this category, though it can be argued if Alernative History is a separate subcategory or a style that can be either subcategory.
What sets of SF as a major subdivision of Spec Fic from Fantasy is the predominant relationship of future/space/technology as key elements of the story. Here’s the rub – SF has numerous subcategories that span a broad swath. Each subcategory has it’s own little label that only some people know, and the subdivisions sometimes get characterized by their detractors rather than their admirers. Thus, for instace, you have the “space opera”, and all the attendant disdain by one crowd for a romping adventure that another crowd finds enthralling.
Other subcategories include “hard SF” (i.e. solid grounding in contemporary science with some projection into the future), military SF (i.e. Weber’s Honor Harrington series – space warfare where space “technology” is predominant, sort of Tom Clancy in space), space romance (yeah, they do that, too), and probably a myriad of other types I’m neglecting. For some people, as long as the setting is in some indefinite future in space, that is SF.
Firefly is at least as much SF as Star Wars, Star Trek, and Babylon 5.
memoryman Said:
>I’m from the UK and haven’t heard of Firefly. What’s it about?
Briefly, Firefly is a “space western”, an adventure story set in the future where Earth was used up and destroyed, so humanity colonized a new star system with numerous habitable/terraformed planets and moons. The central worlds colonized first developed their economic base and boomed, while the outer planets are wilder, and at a much lower economic base with the subsequent mix of high and low tech. Thus the mix of SF elements of space ships with western elements of six-shooters and horses. The story centers on a dodgy small independent freighter captain and his crew of misfits, doing whatever odd (and often illegal) activities they can to earn a living and stay free of Big Brother (okay, Joss doesn’t call it Big Brother, you get the reference). The crew has a tough chick fighter; a funny ace pilot; a backwater hick engineer with a knack for machines; a somewhat dense gunslinger who isn’t quite trustworthy; a formerly rich trauma surgeon on the run from the law because of his sister; the said teen-aged sister who was brilliant and then used by the government for experiments in mind control and manipulation until rescued by her brother; and an itenerant priest/reverend/shepherd that has a mysterious past.
One might describe the show as the best of the original Star Wars psyched up with the social commentary from the best of Star Trek, with the witty dialog and fun situations drawn from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (it is, after all, from Joss Whedon). One might describe Malcom Reynolds (the captain) as the Han Solo that shot first, and didn’t bother negotiating with Greedo first. One might suggest that Serenity is the beat-up bucket-of-bolts freighter that looks like a beat-up bucket-of-bolts that the Millennium Falcon was supposed to be. Just look at Serenity’s engine – a whirling pile of junk, held together by baling wire and duct tape (and some might say love).
Firefly was an exciting and fun space romp, with Joss Whedon’s flair for witty dialog and strange fortunes. The show wasn’t given the best treatment by Fox, and admittedly was odd enough to need care it wasn’t given to establish an audience. Heck, the biggest thing Fox did to kill the show was not even show the premiere movie, and started with the third episode. Then they managed to skip a few episodes along the way, even though Firefly is much like Buffy in that there was an overarching storyline that the episodes contributed to. Skipping episodes skipped pieces in that overarching story. Not quite as bad as Babylon 5, but more than your average Star Trek. Of course another thing that Fox did to ensure the audience could never develop was move the show around or randomly skip weeks so no audience could consistently find the show.
The Bad Astronomer Said:
>Well, we watched the movie “Serenity†last night, and in truth I am disappointed. It was a shadow of the TV show. While it was better than most movies I have seen recently, the TV show set the bar pretty high, and the movie limboed under it. I might do a longer review as a blog entry at some point. The bottom line is that the movie felt like something Whedon wanted to take a whole season to say, but was forced to do in 2 hours.
That is a fair criticism. The movie suffered from compressing a long story into a short time and then having to provide enough of the backstory that newcomers could catch up. Another criticism is that the ending was a little bit “hasn’t he already done that?” He also made some choices that he might not have done with the show in order to make the movie more dramatic. However, it’s Joss Whedon, so that’s not certain. I still really enjoyed it and felt it was a very good movie. And I second what Donnie B. said about repeated viewing. Many elements of foreshadowing and filmwork are more poignant on second viewing. (”Da** you, Joss Whedon!”)
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
i read something years ago about the “definition” of SF, curse my faulty memory, but it went something along the lines of: Science Fiction is a story that incorporates an element not necessarily “futuristic”, but some kind of technology, location, device, etc. When this element is removed, the story/plot absolutely will not work. Meaning: SF is not just any story that plugs in robots or laser guns or throws the characters on the Moon to make it a little different. wish i could remember who wrote it.
(just ordered the “Firefly” series on Netflix, looking forward to seeing it)
January 4th, 2006 at 5:24 am
A snippet of dialog from one of the Firefly episodes might clarify the show’s take on the definition of science fiction.
Wash: “Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.”
Zoë: “We live in a space ship, dear.”
Wash: “… So?”
January 4th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Donnie B.
In my opion the Zoë character stepped out the story when the “We live in a space ship, dear.â€-line was used.
If you live in a spaceship, you would never connect that way of living with science fiction.
It sounds like a bad joke to me.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Nonsense. The idea of space travel being science fiction is commonly known – space travel being part of the foundation of SF. It is not outrageous for someone to recognize that their current existence was once considered science fiction. She wasn’t saying that space travel is currently considered fiction, but rather that it was considered SF when SF originated. She is showing that what was once considered fiction is now fact for them. That is, in fact, the heart of her point. Wash is thinking psychic powers seem SF, so she is pointing out that their very lifestyle was once also considered SF.
And that is typical of Whedon dialogue.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
nancy Said:
>i read something years ago about the “definition†of SF, curse my faulty memory, but it went something along the lines of: Science Fiction is a story that incorporates an element not necessarily “futuristicâ€, but some kind of technology, location, device, etc. When this element is removed, the story/plot absolutely will not work. Meaning: SF is not just any story that plugs in robots or laser guns or throws the characters on the Moon to make it a little different. wish i could remember who wrote it.
(just ordered the “Firefly†series on Netflix, looking forward to seeing it)
I have heard this comment, too. To some extent this is true, to some extent less so. For instance, Star Wars can be boiled down to a story that does not require space, space ships, blasters, and light sabers at all. If the droids are converted into fairies or elves or such and the rest of the aliens are recast as fantasy beings, and the context shifted to a fantasy medieval world, the story could be played out in that setting just fine. However, it wouldn’t b Star Wars.
The quote was trying to differentiate “science fiction” from “space fantasy”. It’s really a semantical argument over subsets of what is loosely termed Science Fiction.
Star Wars would be “space fantasy”. Sure the story is spacey, but the space isn’t essential to the story, only to the framing of the story. Whereas an example of “science fiction” might be Larry Niven’s works like The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton or the Ringworld series. The ARM stories are a collection of SF mysteries involving a detective who handles a particular type of crime involving technology and, in particular, organ theft. When Niven created the story, he proposed the idea that the need for organ donations would outpace the supply, so a black market would arise (along with some very vicious legal means). The ARM stories all rely heavily on some thing or concept that is SF, such as the organ donation plot, or one that involves a strange machine that slows time. Those stories would not be possible without the SF element. Same with Ringworld – the stories are about the setting.
One can arbitrarily assign value to “science fiction” over “space fantasy” if one feels the need. To me they’re a related genre with different purposes and different means and different styles. Enjoy them or not.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Louis Wu: That ring is like something out of a Science Fiction story!
Nesus: Dude, you are 200 hundred years old and are traveling faster than light in the company of two aliens!
Larry Niven rules too.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
I have to agree that Serenity deserves a few viewings. When I first saw it, I was very disappointed. I had watched the series, you see. But then I got the DVD and watched it a few times. And, dang it, it got better each time. I still don’t think it’s at the same level as the show, but it’s dang close.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for helping spend some money this week.
I rented “Serenity” based on your raves. Everyone in the family thought it was shiny, and two of us watched it twice in the same day!
Then I went to Amazon and ordered the “Firefly” DVD set as well as the “Serenity” DVD.
Looking forward to the UPS man’s arrival…
September 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Pacian, Stephen King HATED Stanley Kubrick’s version of “The Shining”… And that’s considered one of the greatest movies of all time. Just because the original author doesn’t like the finished product doesn’t make it bad. Gene Wilder WAS a god in that role. No other actor could have played the part with the right amount of charisma and lovability that Gene Wilder did.