Fred ,'Life of the Party'
Discussion of the Mutant Enemy series, Firefly, the ensuing movie Serenity, and other projects in that universe. Like the other show threads, anything broadcast in the US is fine; spoilers are verboten and will be deleted if found.
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.
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?
It reads like a lecture to the board at large.
The easter egg on the DVD is the most awesomest thing evah.
But then that might be because I'm somewhat obsessed with Fruity Oaty Bars
(Spoiler-fonting what the easter egg is about just in case.)
The DVD easter egg gets the jingle running through my head for DAYS.
Not that this is, y'know, a completely bad thing.
Serenity was voted film of the year on Film 2005, the BBC's flagship film show. Yay!
It reads like a lecture to the board at large.
How so, when it begins with this quoted back:
I'm thinking Inara's profession wasn't featured enough in the movie to ping the ultracon's paranoia about sex.
And ends with me saying:
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.
I'm asking this sincerely. How so? I keep re-reading it, and between the opening quote-back and the statement in parens, it reads to me as a pretty focused response.
Granted, in between, all there was was quotes of reviewers, to back up my earlier assertion (in a prior post) that the "fluff" comment was the NYT writer editorializing about Serenity, rather than quoting any reviewer. Was that what caused the confusion?
I'm thinking Inara's profession wasn't featured enough in the movie to ping the ultracon's paranoia about sex.
It was a throwaway line, not a serious political condemnation.
It was a throwaway line
That doesn't remove the potential for offensiveness, though.
I think Cindy's been reacting to a couple of different occasions of conflation of "conservative Christians" with "wingnuts" and that may be why the correction read more like a lecture than a simple response.