Firefly

Part 1. "P.C."???When I criticize a story/movie/tv show for being "P.C.", it's usually because it:a) ends up demonizing White Guys or whatever ruling elite you like instead of simply humanizing the oppressed (Dances with Wolves is a good example - sure, the Natives are people, but the whites are almost uniformly stupid and sadistic; although to be fair the rival tribe is also badly caricatured as well...you know, that movie actually kind of sucks...)
b) is hamfisted about it - devoting a plot line to hitting you over the head with an obvious "Racism is stupid, m'kay?" message, or whatever. (the Star Trek episode with the race of aliens who are black on one side and white on the other, and folks who are black on the right side are seen as inferior than the folks who are black on the left side, is my prototype for this).On the other hand, simply holding a moral viewpoint that is typical of a college educated liberal in the U.S.A. can't be held against it. That's just a viewpoint, and calling it "P.C." is just name calling in my book. While I can see that Firefly holds to certain educated-liberal moral viewpoints, it also challenges some others. And, I can't think of a single episode storyline off the top of my head whose point was to hammer home a P.C. mantra. Rather, the stories progressed because certain characters are in certain situations, not to make a Big Moral Statement.Part 2. "Speculative fiction." Now this is kind of interesting...Of course, science fiction as a genre has many flavors. Sometimes it's simply an adventure story, set in space 'cuz then you get cool weapons and monsters and stuff. (e.g., Star Wars).Other times it's playing out ideas or logical puzzles or whatever, but isn't really concerned with re-thinking basic assumptions about society. Isaac Asimov is a good example. Certainly "I, Robot" (the book, not the movie) is all about ideas and technology, but people are pretty much like they are now. I still remember an Asimov line, I think from the Foundation series, that referred to "housewives across the galaxy", which is the perfect example of this. It's been a long time, so maybe this is more figment than real, but it's a good example even if I made it up.Other times, today's issues are played out in an environment that hopefully changes perspective, allowing a certain objectivity, not unlike the way Gary Larson in The Far Side used animals carrying out human actions in a way that makes us laugh at the human behavior itself. I'd place Firefly in this category (and also partly in the first - adventure/drama with cool stuff and cool setting... although like most other Wheedon stuff it's also a sly parody of genre).Speculative fiction that actually rethinks societal assumptions is extremely rare. Nearly non-existant, if you get right down to it. Off the top of my head, "The Matter of Seggri" (Ursala LeGuin)is maybe the most successful story of this sort I've read. It's about a planet where men are extraordinarily rare, and are treated as a special class to be protected because of this. A story with the premise could have been hamfisted, but instead really tries to work out the complex and subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences that would result from this. It's a beauty of a story. There's another story whose author and title escapes me, but I'm sure I have it in a compilation around here somewhere, in which "plastic surgery" is so advanced that people can change appearance, gender, race, whatever quite casually and tend to do so often. It's quite a different world, and I remember the author doing a good job of seeing that this would fundmentally change how people interact.But basically, even these stories only have the effect and power they have because we see these issues from our viewpoint. LeGuin does a great job envisioning new gender roles and relationships, but ultimately we're interested because we relate it to our own ideas of gender.Firefly is far less ambitious in fundamentally rethinking society, to be sure. Mostly it's a story that uses sci-fi and western settings to add flavor and to provide conventions that can be "tweaked" and twisted. (Wheedon says he loves doing "genre" because it provides built-in story-conventions to be subverted). Certainly the societal role of the lofty Companion Inara vs. the role of the backwater whores provides some interesting food for thought, and the pervasive power of the Blue Sun corporation (only subtly handled as a background element for the most part before the series was cancelled) has obvious relevance. Sure, this is playing out current issues in a new setting, but I think it's done well, with respect for the characters and the intelligence of the audience.Of course, if that's not your cup of tea, so be it.This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-31-2004 10:00 AM

I'm calling things PC that happen to have the common generic lowest (or broadest) common denominator moral outlook.Calling such a thing educated-liberal moral is to be inaccurate. I am an educated liberal (particularly with respect to social morals) and share very few PC opinions.Indeed I think PC is actually based in overeducation on a very limited worldview, not seekingt outside education (traditional liberal), and banking off of an accepted conservative moral bent.If that differs from your definition, that does not matter as I brought up the term and was not talking to you.I should make clear that I was not trying to say that the show was a PC machine. I am saying that all of the characters within it share one moral reference frame, and that is the PC one.I view the show as more of a relationship show. Not a moralizing one, or one investigating human diversity.While Star Trek did moralize, the first series especially investigated the nature of moral diversity. They did not all act from the same moral frame. I think this says everything I have been trying to say all along. Yes, this is not my cup of tea and I never said anyone should agree with me. I think its great that schraf likes Firefly.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

If it is important, I was not saying that they did not have fun with sex. My point was that it was not just for fun.

---

And my example of Kaylee when we first meet her was that she was having sex, purely for fun in the engine room with the hot but dumb mechanic.

quote:

---

Specifically with the main character. Her passion is humourless. Yes she can have fun when she has sex, but that it is not what it is all about. I believe she delivers a lecture on that very point.

---

Well, that is part of what makes her character more interesting and somewhat mysterious. In Heart of Gold we hear a tiny reference to Inara's past at the companion school, and that she might have left under unusual circumstances. There may be a history there that we never had a chance to learn about and would explain some things.Anyway, you are still insisting that the demeanor of a companion and this particular character narrowly conform to your views on how she should have sex. Besides, she does have fun sex, with the female client.

quote:

---

She is the only character I liked on the show. But she was still an emotional wreck.

---

What? I count Kaylee as one of the more emotionally healthy people on the ship.

quote:

---

I asked you to tell me how many examples you wanted before crying uncle. While it is true that they may do the right thing in the end, that is not synonymous with having done the right thing all along, and more importantly it has NOTHING to do with being PC.

---

See, I think you are using your own personal definition of PC that doesn't reflect how most people use the term.Here's a definition I found: Gee, the first Star Trek series surely fits in nicely here.Especially that "black and white" episode. And ST:TNG, there was that episode where the people they encountered were supposed to be androgynous and anyone showing signs of leaning male or female were "fixed", and the other episode where Troy's mother fell in love with a man and wanted to marry him except that on his planet all people were killed when they reached the age of 50 or something.And anyway, I'd love to hear how Jayne's morality is anything like Kaylee's.

quote:

---

These are all acceptable PC bads, emotional and relational doublcrosses. These people do not have any unsavory aspect, any really unsavory aspect. They are all acting (even while being "bad") from the same moral center.

---

Perhaps you can give a couple of examples of the unsavory aspects and diverse moral landscape of the wharacters on the first Star Trek series, just so I can understand what you mean when you say that that show was not PC at all.

Holmes, just so you know, it's no big deal to me if you don't feel like replying. Things are slow on the board and although I pretty much know that we will not likely come to agreement on this particular subject it is fun to spar.I just don't want to come across as angry or pissed of, because I'm not.

Maybe I should stop using the term PC. Intriguingly enough I thought I was essentially using your husband/friend/alterego's definition, only that I did not consider it to be educated-liberal.If it is about change then yes ST was definitely PC, and the rest were less so. No, no I am not. Honestly I was just pointing out that they didn't depart from a singular moral outlook on one of the characters they really could have played with.Here is a counterexample of your claim... I happen to like JAG. Not a one of the people espouse my philosophy on life at all, and I would guess they are all prudes.Prostitutes with hearts of gold, or are in it for something greater than sexual fun, are something I can deal with. And I was glad to see a show with a prostitute (maybe we should say escort with real GFE) as a lead.As a viewer I found the lack of depth in all the characters (based on what I look for) not entertaining.Kaylee was an emotional wreck to me. Sorry. No you are missing my position, and that is why you may not be able to understand my saying an unPC character can still be PC.There are many different moral systems in the world. It really is a diverse place. Just because someone is bad and someone is good, does not mean they are coming from diverse moral systems. In the end they may all be playing from essentially an identical moral outlook and reinforcing it by their actions.ST is almost exclusively devoted to looking at diverse life and actual moral systems. Those in Firefly are all players within one single moral system, even if they fill different niches of that system. Actually you already quoted one very interesting example (even if it was not one of the very main characters). The one where Troy's mom went to marry the guy that then had to die because he reached a certain age was showing how savory to one is unsavory to another and what actual acceptance of diversity means, and how different moral viewpoints talk past each other.I really don't want to go into a list of all the unsavory characteristics or diverse moral outlooks but here are a few: Riker is an unabashed womanizer (he would be fired from any office today as a harasser), McCoy was basically a bigot and remained one (despite overlooking it to work), Spock was also a bigot and he exhibited a completely different moral outlook (which was then repeated to some lesser degree in Data), Wesley actually got a person killed and had to pay a price for it (everything was NOT fine in the end). Worf (sic) was shown to have very different moral practices which were unacceptable to some of the crew, and they did interfere with his work.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh, you thought that everybody speaking English and Chinese was expected, or that it wasn't odd to be galloping on horseback to catch your spaceship wasn't unexpected, or that in the future a trained prostitute is considered an important, reputable fine lady?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What’s that extraordinary about people in SciFi speaking Earth languages? Do you mean that specific combination?Star Trek had its far share of transplanted Earth Cultures. Stargate seems to do that about every other weekend.As a side note, in my experience, Sci Fi playing with sexual and social norms isn’t that unusual. Fiction written in the 60’s and 70’s is full of these sort of characters (Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Darkover novels come to mind). So the well-thought-of-prostitute-in-a-western never struck me as cutting-edge character. Can you say Kitty from Gunsmoke?My first thought on thinking of that character was, Oh, the old Cassiopeia storyline from Battlestar Galatica. I wonder how long before the writers redeem her?None of those points I mention above has much to do with if the show is enjoyable or not, I just don’t think they really make your case.P.S. A friend of mine mentioned earlier today that Serendipity has a release date at the end of September. As a side note, this is the time of the year studios dump movices they don't expect to do well.

You really didn't pay much attention when watching this show, did you? They say name of the ship (Serenity) about 50 kajillion times per episode. True. Sorta like how when a TV studio expects a show to fail, such as a low-budget show based on a movie that bombed, they dump it in as a mid-season replacement.Sometimes these things surprise the studios. Sometimes not.

***Quote***********************
You really didn't pay much attention when watching this show, did you? They say name of the ship (Serenity) about 50 kajillion times per episode.
**************************Put the fanboy back in the box. I never said I watched the show. In that section, I did say I was repeating something I had been told. I may have repeated the name incorrectly or misremembered it, etc. I have no problem being ignorant about the name of ship on a TV series. Thank you for posting the correct name, since it wasn’t my attempt to confuse others.

I want to, but I can't.

quote:

---

I want to, but I can't.

---

Awww, me too. I've got it just as bad.

quote:

---

P.S. A friend of mine mentioned earlier today that Serendipity has a release date at the end of September. As a side note, this is the time of the year studios dump movices they don't expect to do well.

---

I think it has a LOT more to do with the fact that the final Star Wars movie is being released in May, and they didn't want Serenity to be overlooked during the hype of what will almost certainly be a much higher grossing yet completely inferior movie.That is, if the other two movies are to be any measure of the third. The prase, "downward spiral" comes to mind.

quote:

---

My first thought on thinking of that character was, Oh, the old Cassiopeia storyline from Battlestar Galatica. I wonder how long before the writers redeem her?

---

"Redeem her?"Why would they do that? She hasn't done anything that needs redemption.

Incidentally, Schraf... have you seen Wonderfalls? I picked up the DVD yesterday, and it's fantastic. (I mention it because Tim Minear is one of the producers.)

I don't know how to reply to your post.I assume you know that some people would find what she does morally wrong.I assume you know that TV Networks often apply presure to alter TV shows.So the answer might be anything from networks thinking they know better to networks just blowing it. Or perhaps you meant a different question?

quote:

---

I don't know how to reply to your post.

​

I assume you know that some people would find what she does morally wrong.

---

In our real world, yes, but not in the world in which her character resides.

quote:

---

I assume you know that TV Networks often apply presure to alter TV shows.

---

Of course, but you spoke of her "creators" (Whedon, Minear, etc.) redeeming her, not the networks, so that's the context I responded in.

quote:

---

So the answer might be anything from networks thinking they know better to networks just blowing it. Or perhaps you meant a different question?

---

I was wondering why you thought Whedon would want to redeem her, since in her world, the world they created, she is a member of the elite society and important; hardly in need of any redemptopn. ...at least, not for her profession. We hardly know anything about her past.