Isn't there near female/female kissing in a deleted scene? Damn, the outrage was a near miss.

---

Isn't there near female/female kissing in a deleted scene?

Yes, at the Companion training center.

---

It's the NYTimes calling it wholesome fluff, not the Christian reviewers. I've actually seen some good, Christian reviews on Serenity, and plenty of non-religious flicks.

---

Make sentence. Verb object. Ok, I think I can post a write. Um. Let's try that again. Serenity? Wholesome fluff? Wholesome fluff? I guess it'd take an expert fluffer to know wholesome fluff.

---

I'm thinking Inara's profession wasn't featured enough in the movie to ping the ultracon's paranoia about sex.

Oh, *sigh*

The reviewer for Christianity Today not only gave Serenity rave reviews, but is a Whedon fan (from Buffy and Angel days), watched most of Firefly when it was originally broadcast, and then bought the TV series DVDs, and got together with friends weekly, to geek out over it.

Excerpt of review by Todd Hertz [link]

Now, Firefly finally has the triumphant finale fans longed for: the excitingly tense, often surprising and even more frequently comical Serenity. Fans will rejoice. There are moments of laughing out loud, of tearing up, of spine-tingles, and of outright shock. Whedon built a reputation for himself on Buffy and Angel of crafting poignant, dramatic, jaw-dropping season finales that usually shared three qualities:

•Lots and lots of story to wrap up the show to a point where it could end cleanly if cancelled (Whedon never trusted networks).

•A dark tone as characters hit rock bottom and have to climb out.

•Often shocking twists and story developments that leave fans with their mouths wide-open.

Capt. Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and Jayne (Adam Baldwin) are ready for some action

The fast-paced and ambitious Serenity has all three.

The film, with only minor tone shifts from the show, is a perfect continuation of Firefly. The film doesn't have much of a Western feel and is more straight sci-fi—feeling more like Star Trek than the show did. And Serenity is often darker and scarier than many episodes (at times feeling like an Alien film) thanks mainly to the presence of Reavers, barbarian men who've become savages on the edges of space.

/excerpt

Excerpt from Christian critic Peter Suderman at Relevant magazine [link]

With Serenity, the big-screen follow-up to the short-lived TV show Firefly, series creator Joss Whedon seems to have learned Star Trek’s lessons without necessitating a failed trial run. This may be due in part to the fact that Serenity arrives in theaters only a few short years after its initial televised run, as well as to Whedon’s dominating obsession with the genre, which keeps his work grounded firmly in dramatically pointed, violent B-movie tropes. Whatever the reason, Serenity is a dazzling, nimble science-fiction tale that both elevates and deconstructs its genre origins, but always remembers to use those origins to bolster compelling characters and story.

/excerpt

Catholic News Service: [link]

Reveal: [link]

Ethics Daily: [link]

Hollywood Jesus: [link]

There's not a it's-a-wholesome-fluffy-bunny-of-a-movie in the bunch. I've read more Christian bloggers who are Firefly/Serenity fanatics (and thank you very much, but are not too stupid to understand that Inara is a prostitute), as well as big Buffy and Angel fans.

Some Christians can read. Some can even chew gum and walk at the same time. Really. Open up your world view a little.

And write to the NYT about that "wholesome fluff" comment.

---

Are those ultraconservative publications? Cool.

---

No, but the NYT piece aurelia brought to the thread didn't mention ultra-cons, either. Apparently some people read "Christian" or "Conservative Christian" and decide "Ultra-con."

---

I also didn't mention ultra-cons, or any other variation of Christians. I was merely bemused at the "wholesome fluff" descriptor, so imagine my surprise at being lectured about my small world view.

The article itself was largely about Brokeback Mountain.

---

I also didn't mention ultra-cons, or any other variation of Christians. I was merely bemused at the "wholesome fluff" descriptor, so imagine my surprise at being lectured about my small world view.

I thought I was pretty clear by quoting back, who that was in response to. I'm sorry you thought it was you. You're right you didn't, so I can't help but wonder why would you think you were being lectured for something you didn't do?

My earlier response to your post wasn't in direct response to anything you said, either. It was in response to the other people who read your post and assumed it was the Christian reviewers, rather than the NYT writer, who called the film "wholesome fluff."

Are those ultraconservative publications? Cool.

To revisit this, at least two of the reviews of Serenity I linked, are by Christian sites/reviewers named in the NYT piece. Probably more, but I only skimmed. The entire text of the Times piece can be found here: [link]

---

The article itself was largely about Brokeback Mountain.

Which Christianity Today gave three stars.

---