# Firefly, Solaris and Star Wars AotC **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 9, 2004, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242 "2004-02-09T07:22:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/21 "2004-02-10T13:24:22Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > You either like the kind of slow story that both movie versions of _Solaris_ (as well as the book) are or you don’t. If you don’t, there’s nothing I can do to convince you of its merits. I agree that _Attack of the Clones_ wasn’t nearly as bad as some have claimed. I don’t understand why its detractors are unable to acknowledge its visual interest, even if they are right about how bad the script is. It’s the opposite of how I feel about the Peter Jackson films of _The Lord of the Rings_. I don’t understand how the fans of those films are unable to acknowledge what a mess the script was, even if they are right about its visual interest. Peter Jackson can’t adapt a novel to save his life. I have read with great pleasure novels which some would consider difficult and “slow” such as Crowley’s “Little, Big” but movies that are slow don’t engage me sufficiently to be worth watching. Watch all of them you like, life’s too short, if you ask me. David Edelstein once said he thought La Grand Jetee was one of the greatest SF films ever made. My opinion – you understand movies, maybe, Mr. Edelstein, but you don’t have a clue about SF. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/22 "2004-02-10T13:53:04Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > The OP seems to be blaming _Firefly_ for not being a different kind of story, rather than assessing its success as the kind of story it actually is. Not much point in that. No. I watched Firefly with every expectation of liking it and was quite disappointed when I found that I did not. I’m talking a visceral response to the show – “no like” – not a rationale for not liking it. That came later. But I concede I haven’t set forth my reason for not liking Firefly with sufficient clarity, so let me give it another shot. It’s kinda like the problem with all the films and stories inspired by William Gibson’s Neuromancer stories. They all seemed to catch on to the appeal of cyberspace with corporate types and outlaw cowboys, but they missed the key point – the hum of biz, the lure of gold, the sense that cyberspace was a Gold Rush territory. Gibson has a great scene in one of his novels where he lays it out, as his protagonist enters a cafe frequented by cyberspace cowboys and corporate honchos doing biz, and he talks about the way the place fairly hums and crackles with the excitement of the deals going down. What was driving these protagonists of Gibson’s stories was the sense that all you needed was a deck and some knowledge and some balls and you could be the cyberspace equivalent of the discovered of the Comstock Lode – rich, legendary, the works. That’s what really made Neuromancer and Count Zero fun reads, not the rest. Firefly is kinda like those Gibson retreads. It’s got the small spaceship cruising on the lawless frontiers, but it doesn’t have that sense of possibility that would have made it exciting and interesting. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/23 "2004-02-10T14:22:10Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Firefly is kinda like those Gibson retreads. It’s got the small spaceship cruising on the lawless frontiers, but it doesn’t have that sense of possibility that would have made it exciting and interesting. Don’t you think it was intentional? The main appeal of _Firefly_ is that it deals with harsh realities of life, which makes for a more compelling and tangible story than a cheerful “Land of Opportunity” adventure. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/24 "2004-02-10T14:40:04Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > It’s the opposite of how I feel about the Peter Jackson films of _The Lord of the Rings_. I don’t understand how the fans of those films are unable to acknowledge what a mess the script was That would be a misstatement. Fans of the films aren’t unable, they are unwilling because they understand that the script was NOT a mess. The error is yours, not theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/25 "2004-02-10T14:58:55Z")
**Evil Captor** , I can respect your viscera, but you gotta respect mine. _Firefly_ made me gasp in delight more than once; even its special effects often impressed me more than AOTC’s – they were more creative, more unusual, more integrated into the story. Have you ever before seen anything like the horizontal flaming whirlwind in “Out of Gas”? I watched AOTC when drunk, but not when drunk enough. The only time I laughed in the movie was when Anakin whined, “I don’t like sand. Sand is sharp and gritty. You’re not like sand.” He was hitting on a girl with the line **you’re not like sand**. How insanely stupid can you get? In order for me to care about his descent into darkness, I’d have to care about him. He started off as a whiny spoiled little brat whose mentor offered him no discipline, continued being a whiny spoiled little brat through the movie. He massacred a tribe of people, and a statesman’s response to it was essentially, “Huh. You want some coffee?” I didn’t so much dread his descent into darkness as I dreaded his continuing screen presence. The special effects? Bah. They were glossy and complicated, but they weren’t pretty, they weren’t aesthetically pleasing. Jon Stewart said it best: AOTC was better than Phantom Menace, an honor shared with such movies as _Pootie Tang_. Firefly, on the other hand, is probably my favorite television ever. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Moo\_the\_Magic\_Cow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@Moo\_the\_Magic\_Cow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moo_the_Magic_Cow)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/26 "2004-02-10T21:15:11Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > As noted before, AotC looked like a video game. there was a racing sequence, a space chase/fight sequence, and even a jumping puzzle where the hero had to dodge dangerous machinery with split-second timing. What boggled my mind was that Amidala could actually work her way through the factory puzzle without losing at least one life. I usually go through those levels 3 or 4 times before I get it. Oh, and the story was awfully disjointed. I _still_ don’t understand how the ending, where Yoda flies in with the army, connects with anything. In the beginning, there are vestiges of a plot (help! the senator has a price on her head! are you a bad enough dude to rescue the senator?) which just become more and more convoluted until bam, it’s the end. People say the third will clear things up (EVERYTHING, some say), but I’m fairly certain it will just confuse me further. ---
**Author:** ![Jenny\_Haniver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Jenny\_Haniver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenny_Haniver)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/27 "2004-02-10T21:58:59Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I know Lucas doesn’t write the most natural dialogue in the world, but his stories trundle right along and his characters are likable. _Likable_?! Note to self: stay far, far away from the guy who found creepy, slimy, stalker-wannabe Anakin likable. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/28 "2004-02-10T22:10:31Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Hyperbolize much? I’ve seen much worse SF films – to name a few, Terminal Virus, Warlords … oh, toss in virtually everything Roger Corman has ever done there. Nope, not a trace of hyperbole in my post. The worst movie I’ve ever seen _in a theater_. I’ve seen plenty of worse movies on _Mystery Science Theater 3000_. The problem is, I’ve also seen _better_ movies on MST3K. I’d sooner sit through the non-MSTie version of _Attack of the Killer Shrews_ than watch _Attack of the Clones_ again. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. It would have bored me. It had a plot that trundled right along. It maintained your interest as you got deeper and deeper into the plot. Sorry, you seem to mixing up your pro-nouns. It maintained _your_ interest, not mine. I found the whole thing to be tedious in the extreme. The only scenes that were remotely interesting were the fights between Obi-Wan and Jango, and between Yoda and Dooku. And the later was only enjoyable if you studiously ignore the exsistence of the _Empire_ Yoda. As for the pacing, I found the plot to move with the speed and smoothness of a toboggan ride in August. > [@](#): > > I’m sure that a certain amount of it had been set up by the previous Star Wars movies – I was very interested in how the Dark Side would take over Annakin’s psyche. So was I. Too bad they completely bolloxed it. > [@](#): > > I had expected him to have gone over completely to the Dark Side when his mother died, figuring there must have been an enormous amount of guilt associated with leaving her in slavery. I think they coulda managed something a little more heartrending there, but that’s a quibble. That’s not a quibble, that’s the central flaw of the entire movie. This should have been the pivotal scene of the entire trilogy, and instead, everyone in the theater was _laughing_, it was so poorly executed. And I mean _everyone_. I can’t remember the last comedy I saw that got that much laughter out of an audience. And again: I do not hyperbolize. > [@](#): > > Well, it’s Anakin’s conversion to the dark side that I consider interesting. I agree, in principle, but the movie gave me nothing in the character of Anakin to be interested _in_, so I didn’t much care that he was turning evil. > [@](#): > > Having the good guys simply be good is kinda, well, dull. I agree completly. This is why _Firefly_ was so good. > [@](#): > > But how does Anakin convert? I figured that the abandonment of his mother to slavery – though hardly Anakin’s choice – would have created great guilt, etc. In short, there’s a REASON for the chip on Anakin’s shoulder, and a good one. Justified or not, it still doesn’t make him a sympathetic character. Maybe in the hands of someone who could actually act, I might have bought it, but Hayden Christianson simply couldn’t sell the character. I didn’t buy his conversion because Anakin’s emotions seemed entirely false. > [@](#): > > The Premiere or whatever who’s actually the Sith lord sees this and works it hard, also working Anakin’s sense that he’s better than the other jedi and should be given more power, responsibility, etc. very hard. In short, he’s a tool. This is one of the many reasons the character was so unlikable. > [@](#): > > In short, I deny your bad characterization charge. In terms of SF, the characters are really rather well thought out. I concede that the romance between Padme and Anakin could have worked out a lot better – she has been sexually and socially isolated because of her position in society, as has Anakin. Yet they are full of hormones. Instant storybook romance. Frankly I would have preferred something a little more John Norman, but there you go. Clearly, we have very different standards for what we consider “good” characterization. I didn’t find anyone in the second film to be believable, sympathetic, or interesting, Obi-Wan excepted. Too bad he was only a supporting character: the leads were dull as butterknives. > [@](#): > > This is what I mean by not looking at the film with your eyes. Silly me: I was watching it with my tongue. And let me tell you, whatever it is they coat movie screens with tastes _nasty_. > [@](#): > > The background effects were spectacular. True. The thing is, what determines wether a movie is good or bad happens in the foreground. > [@](#): > > Every scene on the Imperial capitol – let’s call it Trantor, because that’s what it was – was an amazing spectacle. But it was an _empty_ spectacle, because none of the actors in those scenes were worth caring about. > [@](#): > > Many of the shots looked like paintings. Paintings usually have a better sense of composition. > [@](#): > > Let’s not even get into the amazing battle scenes. The scenes in the diner where Obi Wan is tracing the slug were amazing in how well every detail was rendered. Yeah, but it was fucking stupid in terms of _what_ was being rendered. Every compliment you’ve offered in this paragraph can be boiled down to, “Boy, George Lucas sure has a lot of money!” No doubt about it, George has all the best toys, but he seems to have lost the talent to do anything interesting with them. You take the resources and the money that Lucas had at his disposal for AotC, and you give that to _anyone_, and they’ll make a movie that’s just as pretty, and just as unwatchable. > [@](#): > > Really, you CAN’T have watched the film with your eyes open and not seen this stuff. I saw it all. I was unimpressed. Special effects aren’t enough to carry a movie. I didn’t miss this stuff because I wasn’t “watching with my eyes,” I just didn’t care about it because I was _also_ “watching with my brain.” ---
**Author:** ![burundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burundi)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/29 "2004-02-10T22:41:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **Evil Captor** > _In terms of SF, the characters are really rather well thought out._ There is no “in terms of SF.” You either write interesting, compelling characters or you don’t. I refuse to lower the bar just because someone is working in a particular genre. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/30 "2004-02-11T14:43:34Z")
> [@Jenny Haniver](#): > > _Likable_?! Note to self: stay far, far away from the guy who found creepy, slimy, stalker-wannabe Anakin likable. I seen Anakin as a tragically flawed hero who is going to be destroyed by his flaws, much like the guy who put his eyes out for accidentally killing his father and marrying his mother … Oedipus. I know he’s got great potential for evil, but I have a certain sympathy for him. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/31 "2004-02-11T14:48:01Z")
> [@burundi](#): > > There is no “in terms of SF.” You either write interesting, compelling characters or you don’t. I refuse to lower the bar just because someone is working in a particular genre. Oh, please. One is allowed to consider the nature and history of genre in assessing works in that genre. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/32 "2004-02-11T15:01:43Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Nope, not a trace of hyperbole in my post. The worst movie I’ve ever seen _in a theater_. I’ve seen plenty of worse movies on _Mystery Science Theater 3000_. The problem is, I’ve also seen _better_ movies on MST3K. I’d sooner sit through the non-MSTie version of _Attack of the Killer Shrews_ than watch _Attack of the Clones_ again. Well, with that in the theater proviso, I take your point, though I suspect if you named the films you’ve seen in theaters, I’d probably spot quite a few I considered worse than AotC. But given that I lack that info and your tastes, I concede your point. > [@](#): > > Sorry, you seem to mixing up your pro-nouns. It maintained _your_ interest, not mine. I found the whole thing to be tedious in the extreme. The only scenes that were remotely interesting were the fights between Obi-Wan and Jango, and between Yoda and Dooku. And the later was only enjoyable if you studiously ignore the exsistence of the _Empire_ Yoda. As for the pacing, I found the plot to move with the speed and smoothness of a toboggan ride in August. I most enjoyed the Trantor scenes, especially the assassination attempt, the scenes on the cloner’s world and the battle scnees. The individual swordfights were OK but not that gripping compare to the rest. [quote] So was I. Too bad they completely bolloxed it.[/qoute] I expect there’ll be more tragedy for Anakin in episode 3. Hang in there. Then again, maybe not in your case. > [@](#): > > That’s not a quibble, that’s the central flaw of the entire movie. This should have been the pivotal scene of the entire trilogy, and instead, everyone in the theater was _laughing_, it was so poorly executed. And I mean _everyone_. I can’t remember the last comedy I saw that got that much laughter out of an audience. And again: I do not hyperbolize. Well, we musta gone to different theaters. > [@](#): > > I agree, in principle, but the movie gave me nothing in the character of Anakin to be interested _in_, so I didn’t much care that he was turning evil. A fair comment, but I don’t know how much characterization you can expect from an action/adventure movie. There’s not a lot to Indiana Jones either, when you think about it. > [@](#): > > Justified or not, it still doesn’t make him a sympathetic character. Maybe in the hands of someone who could actually act, I might have bought it, but Hayden Christianson simply couldn’t sell the character. I didn’t buy his conversion because Anakin’s emotions seemed entirely false. I think Hayden did a fair job of playing up the petulant, self-involved nature of Anakin, and also his bravery and determination. > [@](#): > > In short, he’s a tool. This is one of the many reasons the character was so unlikable. He’s SPOZED to be unlikable. Dark side, remember? > [@](#): > > Yeah, but it was fucking stupid in terms of _what_ was being rendered. Every compliment you’ve offered in this paragraph can be boiled down to, “Boy, George Lucas sure has a lot of money!” I could give a flip how much money Lucas has. The film looked great. Furthermore, every comment you’ve made about the film is so unreasonably angry that I wonder at the expectations you brought to it. Movies generally aren’t as smart or as involving as a good book. It’s unreasonable to expect them to be. I will never expect to see a movie as good as Banks’ “Use of Weapons” or Vinge’s “Light Upon the Deep” and that’s OK – I dont know if I could STAND to see a movie that good. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/33 "2004-02-11T15:08:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by burundi > There is no “in terms of SF.” You either write interesting, compelling characters or you don’t. I refuse to lower the bar just because someone is working in a particular genre. > Oh, please. One is allowed to consider the nature and history of genre in assessing works in that genre. Well, the history of the genre shows a gradual evolution of literary standards. If you’re talking about something written after, say, 1948, there’s no excuse for cardboard characters. I’d like to speak up for Hayden Christiansen, though (Anakin in _AotC_). The kid may actually be a fine actor; don’t judge him by this movie. Remember how Cecil B. DeMille movies used to have wooden, stagey performances, even if they starred good actors? That’s because DeMille directed spectacles, not people. Lucas seems to be doing the same thing (hard to believe he’s the same director who made _American Graffiti_, a character-driven low-budget sleeper hit that’s still very enjoyable). Not to mention the actors having to spend most of their time in front of a green screen. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/34 "2004-02-11T15:21:08Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > Well, the history of the genre shows a gradual evolution of literary standards. If you’re talking about something written after, say, 1948, there’s no excuse for cardboard characters. I absolutely agree, and for this reason, I hate a lot of SF out there. Of course, I hate a lot of mimetic fiction out there for the same reason: characters need to be both plausible and compelling, and yet another Southern woman who is reconnecting with the older Southern women in her family just doesn’t do it for me. But I’m not willing to cut stories in SF any slack just because many of the genre’s classics had absurdly poorly-drawn characters. Anakin might be a better character than any that appeared in _Foundation_, but he’s still an absymally awful character, boring and obnoxious and unbelievable. I don’t blame the actor. I blame the scriptwriter and the director. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/35 "2004-02-11T15:37:24Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > I’d like to speak up for Hayden Christiansen, though (Anakin in _AotC_). The kid may actually be a fine actor; don’t judge him by this movie. He is actually (or can be) a pretty good actor. Check out _Life as a House_ for a far better example of his capabilities. While we’re at it, I’ll also stick up for Natalie Portman, who’s a far better actress than she appears to be in the _Star Wars_ movies. Her performance in SW is wooden and unfeeling… hard to believe she’s the same girl who blew me away in _Leon_, and was utterly charming in _Anywhere but Here_. ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/36 "2004-02-11T18:39:11Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > A fair comment, but I don’t know how much characterization you can expect from an action/adventure movie. I’m kinda surprised at this comment considering that you didn’t like Firefly, since Firefly was all about characterization rather than look-at-me spectacle. ---
**Author:** ![kasuo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8c91f0/32.png) [@kasuo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kasuo)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/37 "2004-02-11T19:51:05Z")
Come on **Evil Captor**. _Come on_. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/38 "2004-02-11T20:06:30Z")
"Solaris isn’t really SF. It’s just a story about a man longing for his dead wife. Solaris is just a big magic bean. Piece of crap, too. Did any of the people who didn’t like AotC actually look at it? You know, with their EYES? It’s been on cable lately and DAMN! It is so fucking good to look at it. It’s not just eye candy, for someone who lives SF, it’s soul candy." Solaris not science fiction?! Why, because it doesn’t have a swordfight in it? I’m not sure whether Lem was right about sf being a hopeless case, but it’s pretty clear self-described sf fans are. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/39 "2004-02-11T21:28:59Z")
> [@Wumpus](#): > > I’m not sure whether Lem was right about sf being a hopeless case, but it’s pretty clear self-described sf fans are. Aw, c’mon. I’m a sefl-described sf fan; do I seem hopeless, from my comments in this thread? Not all of us are mesmerized by expensive images. Some of us judge a work by its beauty, not by its glitz. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242/40 "2004-02-11T21:39:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Any MSTies out there remember Sidehackers? Did the love scenes between these two cardboard cutouts remind you of the love scene from Sidehackers? I can’t be the only one. These scenes are agony to sit through Hee! When I saw _Sidehackers_ for the first time, my first thought when the two characters were _running through the field_ was, “Ahhhh, George Lucus must have been extremely moved by this scene…” > [@](#): > > The awkward unbelievable romance – check. Still, the place where the romance occurred was beautifully realized. This is just…I mean…just…wow. I guess one person’s vomit and agony is another person’s “beautifully realized” romance. Watching those scenes, I didn’t know who I wanted to kill–the characters, Lucus, or myself. Whatever would end the pain quicker…the pain…god the pain…_shudder_ It was so bad that I forced it out of my memory until I opened this thread…“There wasn’t a romance in AToC was there? No…oh god…it’s coming back to me now.” And George Lucus admitted he doesn’t give a fig about the characters or the dialogue. I heard it with my own two ears on A&E’s special two hour biography. They even had some of the actors (Harrison Ford I remember specifically) comment on the fact that he never really directs them. So he writes horrid scripts full of putrid dialogue and then doesn’t bother directing the actors…maybe you can get away with that with good actors (Liam Neeson and Ewan…) but not with the talent he cast for AoTC. I’ll admit, I’m at a loss as to why anybody likes any of the Star Wars movies, but I can admit that 25 years ago, “episodes 4-6” were pretty spectacular, but I don’t think he can be forgiven for TPM or AoTC and I don’t think anything can justify how awful those movies are. And anyway, **Firefly** is the greatest show ever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefly-solaris-and-star-wars-aotc/228242.md?page=3)