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.

oy. I lost my response. Take two.

I'm asking this sincerely. How so?

Since Daniel wasn't the only one who seemed to attribute the "wholesome fluff" comment to some Christian and/or conservative label your response seemed to be addressed more broadly despite the quote at the start of your post.

And ita's assessment is not wrong. It was the lecture quality (in the middle of a mostly silly conversation) that pinged me. I probably shouldn't have said "imagine my surprise at being lectured about my small world view" because I never felt that the post was pointed at me in particular. Poor phrasing on my part.

the "fluff" comment was the NYT writer

True. I really had no intention of bringing a discussion of religious views or labels into the thread. I just thought the context of the article made the "wholesome fluff" comment funnier.

The article itself is very interesting, but not relevant to this thread.

Spent my Best Buy gift card to finally pick up Serenity last night. (That will teach me about putting things I really want on my Christmas list.) It truly is the ugliest DVD case ever. The pictures just don't convey the hideousness of the reflective foil effect they used on the front image.

I've got the Firefly and Serenity soundtracks in rotation with BSG (series, not mini), and I have to say Firefly kicks Serenity's ass. Purely subjective, of course. The Serenity soundtrack is good, but there's more of the plaintive, the resonant (or maybe just familiar triggers) with Firefly. I'm about to exchange Serenity for music from Angel.

For what it's worth, Cindy, I'm sorry if I offended you with my flippancy.

If I should have learned one thing from my work kerfluffle last week, it's that one can offend without intent.

Luckily, at least here I get a chance to apologize.

Crooksandliars.com, which references "Buffy" and "Angel" quotes on its blog, has a nice comment about "Serenity":

I just watched the movie "Serenity" on DVD and it's much better than I originally thought. When you look at all the money poured into "The Fantastic Four" and "Star Wars III"-Joss Whedon gets major props for making a low budget, Sc-Fi movie that is significantly better than any of the other major releases.

So, the Browncoats are closing up shop. Did we know this before today?