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.

Hec, was that little snark aimed at me? Because I prefer to be addressed by name if someone's trying to snark me.

I should state up front that I want the film to succeed for purely work-related reasons. I do a lot of thinking at my job about new media distribution patterns and methods, and if this film is a huge hit, it's a hell of a Powerpoint slide for us. And I will probably buy a ticket this weekend, though I'm still not sure I'm going to actually see it again.

I'm also a Firefly fan, and I spent the week before the screening rewatching it, going "wow, I'd forgotten how good this got," and reveling in the universe. Which made my sense that the movie wasn't up to its predecessor's' standards all the more acute, and made the Kool-Aid drinking in the crowd all the more disjunctive. (I went to the film with a co-worker who'd loaned half the office her DVDs. She was embarrassed by the people in costume.)

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

Nope.

Oops. I'm very sorry for directing my rant towards you, then. More evidence that making assumptions is a really bad idea, and I should be more careful about it.

My only excuse is that I was just a little bit drunk. But that's a very stupid excuse that should be ignored.

Oh, there was a plot. The plot is that while crated up in the evil government lab, River, who we learn is both psychic and psychotic, heard the thoughts of some Parliamentary official who was on a tour of the lab. We never learn who he was, so from here on in, we'll call him Dick Cheney (or Hillary, for our Swift Boat readers). Apparently, Hillary Cheney was thinking about a Lame Secret Conspiracy in a moment of quiet reflection on the Secret Government Laboratory tour bus.

You know, I knew the plot revolved around River being hunted, and I knew that the movie told us *why* (and I saw the movie), but as soon as I left the theatre, I couldn't remember the *why.* It wasn't a strong enough point to create a plot around.

And I agree with all the points in the review about the characterization within the movie not being strong enough. Too many of the significant plot points -- Wash's death, Book's death, Simon & Kaylee's gratuitous sex, who the hell is Inara? -- require a pre-existing knowledge of the characters from the TV show for those plot points to really have any impact.

Serenity proved that Whedon is for now best suited for television, needing at least five or six hours of screentime to develop characters, a plot... basically anything that would make watching the movie more interesting than sending text messages to my friends two rows over.

I agree with this, too. And there's nothing *wrong* with Joss being more suited to arc-y, episodic stories. The stories he writes, the worlds he creates, need more time than you get in a feature-length film. And that's cool. We need good arc-y, episodic teevee.

My only excuse is that I was just a little bit drunk.

FWIW, I thought Allyson wrote it too. She posted asking if we wanted to read her eye-rolling thoughts on the film, and then later posted a link to a reviewer whose eyes are permanently stuck looking at the inside of her (his?) forehead. Seemed like a reasonable assumption, but we all know what happens when you assume...

Well, I agree with all of it. The platform, with the server, it was hilarious. A friend pointed out to me that Mal is the guy who kicked a random guy into an engine on a whim. But he leaves the trained assasin strapped to a railing by his belt which, you know, take off your pants and take Mal's head off, operative dude.

But if he sees the truth, he'll have a change of heart! Okey dokey.

I've seen movies. I know that it's possible to create characters with some measure of depth, even in a large ensemble cast.

And the Kool Aid thing? PLEASE! I was reading the comments at Whedonesque after the Popgurls review was posted.

It was a positive review overall, that pointed out some flaws but said it was enjoyable.

She was skewered at Whedonesque "No offense, but she seems like a high maintenance kind of gal."

Huzzuh? In fact, even positive reviews, if they point out any flaw, are greeted with disdain, and insult the reviewer. OTOH, reviews written by 12-year-olds on LJ that just gush, those are like, Pulitzer material.

Now, this is not my experience so much at Buffistas. It happens sometimes, but there's a general sort acceptance that some of us are not going to agree. We can have the debate, at least.

And I've found that few fans have made a peep about the retcon with Simon, the ridiculously stupid plot, lack of theme, and crap character development.

If the pleasure at seeing the characters onscreen overshadows those things, that's reasonable, I think. If you love cheesey scifi, then it's probably reasonable to love this.

I just wanted a really good story, and I got poo.

Well, I agree with all of it. The platform, with the server, it was hilarious. A friend pointed out to me that Mal is the guy who kicked a random guy into an engine on a whim. But he leaves the trained assasin strapped to a railing by his belt which, you know, take off your pants and take Mal's head off, operative dude.

When Mal left him there, he was pretty fucked up. I don't think he was going anywhere, regardless. To me, Mal was more strapping him down to make sure he watched the thing than to prevent him from following or attacking again.

And I've found that few fans have made a peep about the retcon with Simon, the ridiculously stupid plot, lack of theme, and crap character development.

I've griped several times about the Simon retcon. (Joss explained it an interview that he originally stayed true to the series, but it wasn't very engaging to have a bunch of people rescue River and then we never see them again, so he changed it. I'm still not happy with it, but it makes sense and I understand some concessions had to be made to open the film up to a first-time audience.)

I have no issues with the plot and I thought the theme of the importance of believing in something was pretty clearly stated, especially since I picked up on it and I suck at identifying themes.

As for character development, I can't judge that because I can't separate my knowledge of the characters from the show from those in the movie.