The bile is not necessary. I understand it and sympathize a very little bit with it but, it is too over the top.

It is a good (not great) movie that is still better than most of the drivel put out this year.

Yes, I have seen it 9 times and have obviously indulged in the kool-aid. I just want sequels and more story of the 'verse. So sue me.

Well said, D.

I agree that the article was well written, and funny, but for me, the fact that so much of it was an attack on Joss, rather than his film, overshadowed the valid points of the article. I realize that I am opening myself up to being called a Yes-woman for Joss, but I would feel the same way if this were written about anyone. The personal comments seemed to be just that, too personal, and not so much about the film.

But, but, I was there before there was bile! Ask Matt! He sometimes hated me! Which is fine, truly, and that's part of why I like Matt, and why it means so much to me when he would very occasionally agree with me.

Hmm, weird. I actually remember agreeing with you about a great deal of what you wrote in your Angel recaps, though I have more affection than you for Joss and the Wesley character (well, the latter post-torture by Faith anyway). I know we have the same pick for best episode of the show, and rolled our eyes at the same Joss-written episodes. And both really wished Fred would opt for silent contemplation for a year or three. I guess I should have spoken up more when we were in agreement.

It may be a case of the same situation as the above review of the movie that's stirring up reactions, though... I can go through and agree point by point, and still come out with a diametrically opposed emotional reaction to the film despite seeing the same flaws.

When bile is funny, I often appreciate it. Like now. Thank you, Penelope von Whistleblower, wherever you are.

I agree that the article was well written, and funny, but for me, the fact that so much of it was an attack on Joss, rather than his film, overshadowed the valid points of the article. I realize that I am opening myself up to being called a Yes-woman for Joss, but I would feel the same way if this were written about anyone. The personal comments seemed to be just that, too personal, and not so much about the film.

I originally felt a similar way in reaction to some of the bile inspired by BtVS season six. Somewhere along the line [probably during my extreme over-reaction to (against) Angel Season 5's The Girl in Question] I had an epiphany that, for me at least, it's all, always personal.

When I love a story, it gives me the warm fuzzies towards the talent (the cerebral talent as well as the on-screen pretties). When I feel like a story has done injustice to characters which that same talent has already made matter to me, it makes me angry at them.

I think, for me, the truth lies here: None of it is rational, fandom, that is. Joss isn't a great guy because of those-Buffy-eps-I-love and he's not an asshat because of those episodes-I-hate. He's a writer, and sometimes a writer's stuff works, and sometimes it doesn't. But when the writer is using previously established and well-beloved characters, characters who are--in a very real and irrational sense--characters-he-*made*-me-love, it gets personal when the stuff doesn't work. I'd say it shouldn't get personal, but I think it's probably all part of the fandom dance. And you only end up in fandom in the first place, because of the love.

I'm actually more interested to see it myself now, and see where it works and if/where/when it doesn't.

Whedon has become the first filmmaker in history to require an audience to watch a 13 hour DVD set prequel in order to understand what the fuck is going on in his film.

There were two people in our group Tuesday night who'd never seen the series. They both understood and enjoyed the film.

I think that trying to come at the movie from the perspective of a person who's never seen the show is difficult, at best. It's like the man says "You watched it! You can't UNWATCH it!" Maybe judging the movie on its own merits is easier when you come at it with no backstory whatsoever. Of course, maybe it's not and I'm talking out of my ass.

ETA: Ok, just to be sure: is that you, Allyson?

Nope.

I sat next to two young girls in my screening. They asked me about the film and I gave my Joss fangurl pat answer. But they got up halfway through the film and left. I didn't feel the need to chase them down and ask them why they didn't like the movie.

I just assumed it didn't do anything for them. I was ok with that.

When I got home, DH asked me how it was--I told him I liked it but I had a few nits to pick. He said, "Ah, you'd have loved it even if it was a steaming pile of shit." But he said it in a nice way--which is good because he expects to sleep with me.

He doesn't share my Joss love but he appreciates his talent when it works for him. I can live with that.

There's precedent. Consider the Chelsea fan navigating the Underground to get to the soccer game. Add futuristic drugs, and lo! Reaver.

Oh. My. God. (Iced) coffee on my monitor.

When I got home, DH asked me how it was--I told him I liked it but I had a few nits to pick. He said, "Ah, you'd have loved it even if it was a steaming pile of shit." But he said it in a nice way--which is good because he expects to sleep with me.

Hee.

Scott did not have the same level of Firefly interest I had. He enjoyed Buffy and Angel nearly as much as I did, and looked forward to Ff. But it failed to grab him. He was finally grabbed by the last aired episode--the pilot. He was probably grabbed here and there along the way. He has the same level of respect for ME folks--that is to say, if he knows Tim, Joss, etc., are part of a show's creative team, he's inclined to give it a shot. Our devotion is unequal though, and I think that--in part--is because of fandom. He's on the fringe of it. He is a fan, and is married to someone who is in fandom, but his primary fandom and fannish interaction is with me.