Oh, okay. I though you were trying to use it as a defense.
You and those Hooters-haters have something in common and that’s ignorance about the subject–and you know what we do to ignorance here. 
There exists a point at which a human being has enough information to make a decision about a subject. Different people have different threshholds regarding “enough information” but I think it’s disingenuous to refer to someone with a somewhat lower threshhold as making judgments out of ignorance. It’s not as if any of you are 100% informed of every detail of the picture, even after seeing it. The only person who might be is Whedon himself, and then only if he micromanaged the process entirely. Less-informed? Certainly. But a lower threshhold can be an advantage when gathering additional information comes at a price.
There are things which I will not accept in works that I read or watch for entertainment. Simply finding out that one of those things is present in a work is sufficient information to cause me to refrain from investing the time and money to see or read the work.
spectrum, I hope that you are still reading this thread.
I tried to send you an email, but the email address under which you are registered came back. So, first, our rules require you to maintain a valid email address. (As long as I’m saying that, anyone else reading this, please be sure that your email address is up-to-date in our registration!)
And second, I now find that this is the third or fourth time in the last month or two that you have been reprimanded for personal insults outside the Pit. If you persist on this path, there is only one outcome. I highly recommend you take heed.
I’m sorry to make this public, but the absence of an email address doesn’t leave me much choice.
Gamera, the question is not whether such a scene, in retrospect, has been used by other writers before, or whether there were other ways to create that narrative effect, the only question is whether or not, in the specific context of the film, it worked.
I say it did. The others in this thread who have seen the film agree. Now, obviously, that’s a subjective opinion about a work of art, and you’re free to differ. But here’s the thing: in order to say whether or not it worked, you have to actually see it! You know what happened (kinda, you’re wrong on some details), but having not actually experienced it, you’re still arguing from a position of ignorance.
In fact, although it may seem a bit of a cop-out, now that you’re spoiled, I’d say that you can never fully appreciate the necessity of that scene. You know who lives and who dies, so the entire dramatic point of the scene, the sudden revoking of character immunity, is lost on you.
You’ve managed to tread on some of my hot buttons, I admit. I hate the Internet convention of finding out every small detail of a product before its released, and then preemptively declaring it garbage before they actually have a chance to see it! Some things that sound bad when described secondhand work in the actual context they’re put in. Give it a chance. Or don’t, but don’t presume that it’s awful merely from incomplete spoilers.
The second point is that you’ve gone against the Browncoats. I want to see a sequel. I want to see this film do well because I want excellence in filmmaking, especially science-fiction filmmaking, to be rewarded. In his introductory video before the screening Joss Whedon charged the audience to spread the good word and help make the film a success, as fan’s enthusiasm helped the DVD sales and helped this film get greenlit in teh first place. You want this film to fail. You have no means of making that happen, of course, but how can I let unfounded criticism stand unchallanged?
Sorry you got spoiled Knorf. That’s the third point, I guess. Some things just should not be spoiled, and I feel a bit… unclean talking about this. Going in ignorant really is important to get 100% satisfaction from this movie, I think, but I think the spoiled will still enjoy it. I know i’ll be seeing it again.
Big Sam.
“Hoss, make tracks!”
One of my many favorite lines.
Making a decision to not see the movie is one thing. Basing the decision on one(?) scene without the context is something else entirely.
For me, such a scene cannot work, irrespective of the context outside of what I have already been given. So I need not see the context to know this. It doesn’t matter what else is in the five-course meal, if one of the courses is a pile of moose dung, I will not enjoy the meal. And I don’t even know what moose dung tastes like, but there it is.
And you say this as if the sudden revocation of character immunity is a GOOD thing. I can tolerate it, and don’t necessarily think that “revocation of character immunity” is a BAD thing, but it is not something I actively seek out in motion pictures, and certainly not at the price given.
I’m sure it has brilliant dialogue, the special effects look nice, and even the plot description is a good one - but no amount of garnish is going to cover up the steaming pile of fecal matter in the middle of the plate. I’m not saying it’s a bad movie, I’m saying there exists no movie that could entertain me that contains a similar character moment.
I’m not advocating that anyone else not go see it. You’ll notice my lack of recruitment posters. If that kind of random suckerpunch is your thing, more power to you.
If they tell me tomorrow : “We’re releasing the new Superman movie. It has the best special effects ever, a brilliant cast, a great plot, and Superman rapes Lois.”
I’m going to say : “Well, that’s fantasti… what? He what?”
(Assuming the source is credible) I know at that point that I won’t enjoy the movie. It might be justified in the context of the film. It might be a brilliant and poignant scene. But it’s not what I want from a Superman film.
You know, your unrefined, anti-artistic tastes are your own cross to bear. I don’t care that you stupidly sought out spoilers and then starting throwing a temper tantrum upond finding them. What I do care about is you wishing the LACK of a sequel on the rest of us. That’s where I take umbrage to your position. “I don’t like it – so I hope NO ONE ever gets to see another one.”
That’s flat out bullshit. Amazingly selfish. That’s the problem.
Be as ignorant as you like (and you are STAGGERINGLY ignorant regarding this movie). But don’t stoop to wanting to deny others the enjoyment of a sequel because of your own failings.
I admit, half my problem here is that I have a hard time imagining condemning a film over any one plot point. As long as its true to the spirit and reality of the story, it works. This feels true.
But that’s entirely different. That’s a betrayal of Superman’s core values, and a drastic departure from the four-color sense of wonder stories that he generally operates in.
[spoiler] A character death, however, isn’t a betrayal to the values or reality of Firefly. It’s always been a gritty and dangerous place, peopled with raging madmen (“they’ll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sow our skin into our clothes. And if we’re really lucky, they’ll do it in that order”), torture-happy crimelords (“now it’s time to meet the real you”), and terrifying sociopaths (“have you ever been raped?”). Seeing someone actually get killed is the fulfillment of my expectations for the setting, not a betrayal of them.
You asked why I liked the “revocation of character immunity”. It’s because, in the scenes that followed, for the first time in I don’t know how long, I had no idea if the other characters would live or die. And because I had built up such a relationship with them over the course of the series and film, I really cared. It was intense. It was like a roller-coaster ride. That never happens in an adventure film! [/spoiler]
Haven’t you heard? Superman is a dick!
It’s not at all different for me. Unpalatable plot point #1, unpalatable plot point #2 … no difference. The reason each is unpalatable is different, but that’s immaterial.
It’s like telling me there’s a Superman movie with Gilbert Gottfried as Superman. It’s not what I want from a Superman movie. It’s like telling me there’s a Superman movie where Kryptonite is brought to Earth by magic fairies. It’s not what I want in a Superman movie. It’s like telling me there’s a Superman movie where Jimmy Olsen dies as a bystander in a bank robbery. Do I need to repeat the line?
Let’s see…the people who have seen the film (including me) are saying that scene works.
The one guy who hasn’t seen the film says it’s tacked on melodrama and brings up a completely unrelated TV show as his supporting evidence for such.
Stupidest thread since…oh, at least yesterday.
So, wait. Terrible things happening to funny characters you like isn’t what you want from a Joss Whedon movie? Isn’t that like saying “Brooding, pale-skinned, pseudo-Goth protagonists aren’t what I want from a Tim Burton movie?” How the hell did you ever become a Whedon fan in the first place?
Hee. You know, I really don’t know sometimes, with crap Buffy episodes like ‘The Body’. I think I must’ve hit a good string of the ones written by other folks on the team, long enough to build the addiction. The Wish, Doppelgangland, The Zeppo… the Third Season is excellent.
Though funnily enough, Whedon is responsible for some of those. Must’ve taken his meds those days.
I’d watch a movie where Jimmy dies, even a “pointless” death, because it could exist organically in the Superman story (unlike your other examples), and it could be a catalyst to greater drama on the part of the surviving characters.
As the events in Serenity were.
Or it could suck. But I wouldn’t know that until I watched it.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
I don’t think we will ever be friends, Gam. 
Sorry to hear that. I honestly think it’s one of the worst 44 minutes of television I’ve ever seen.
Menocchio : Well, you’re you, and you’ll see Serenity. I’m me, and I won’t. Can we stop going in circles now?
Naw, let’s not blame this on Josh. Let’s blame this on TV in specific amd Hollywood in general.
They have hated & despised long term married couples and “hallily ever after” relationships for a good solid decade or so. ER is the best example, but there are others.
You can have drama and still have a happy couple. It *can *occur. But not in Hollywood. :mad: