Firefly

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 8 months ago to Entertainment
59 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

This is an example of Romantic fiction as elucidated by Ayn Rand in her book, The Romantic Manifesto. These characters act on the basis of their values. While they each know their self-interest, for each that is different, based on their personal life experiences. Thus, the show is about morality: beliefs becoming actions. Those different goals bring tensions and conflicts.

The hero is Malcolm Reynolds. He owns a spaceship, Serenity, that hauls cargo and passengers. Serenity is a "firefly" class ship, called so because the tail lights up when power is engaged. These are sublight ships. The story is set in the early 26th century. FTL does not exist. Terraforming does. China and America have united to dominate Earth; and Earth dominates the Alliance of human worlds. (There are no other sentient species.) Reynolds had been a "browncoat," a fighter in a sessionist faction whose revolt failed. Now, he seeks the frontiers, not quite far enough away from the Alliance. His crew of three consists of a former combat comrade and her husband who is the pilot, and also an engineer. Also along for the ride are a hired gun, a non-denominational Christian "Shepherd," a professional Companion (prostitute), and two refugees, a doctor and his sister.

Each of them has a defined self-interest. Usually, those coincide, thus the crew can function. Often, however, their values are in conflict as their different goals require independent choices in each situation.

The ship's hired gun, Jayne Cobb, was bought out from the men who hired him to kill Malcolm Reynolds. Cobb says, and Reynolds understands, that if the deal is ever good enough, he will turn Reynolds over to the Alliance. Yet, Jayne Cobb is there, at the ready, when he is needed because it is in his self-interest to do so.

"... value is objective (not intrinsic or subjective); value is based on and derives from the facts of reality ... Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man’s life (it is good): or it threatens man’s life (it is bad or an evil). ... since every fact bears on the choice to live, every truth necessarily entails a value-judgment, and every value-judgment necessarily presupposes a truth. "Fact and Value" by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. here.

Malcolm Reynolds is a smuggler. He achieves that by not getting caught and having the right-looking papers. He and his crew do not need the attention that comes from having the doctor and his sister on board. They are fleeing the Alliance because Simon Tam broke River out of a government lab that was deconstructing her super-genius mind. But Captain Reynolds knows himself and his values. Doctor Tam and River are his passengers, even as they endanger his mission.

The show was touted on Atlasphere (http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040...).

You can watch the show on Hulu, http://TV.com, and Xfinity.Comcast. If you watch it on DVD, you can enjoy the backstory and commentary about the struggle to create and maintain the integrity of the work. A movie, Serenity, was released in 2005. Much more about Firefly will be revealed by your web browser.

This was originally brought to my attention by "Ba'al Chatzoff" a non-Objectivist on the discussion board "Objectivist Living."

Read the IMDB blub, cast and crew credits here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/

The Wikipedia article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV...)


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Hiraghm 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Maybe not on your planet, but on the 3rd one out from Sol, culturally and philosophically, Christianity dominates the United States. To ignore this fact is simple blind bigotry.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Frank Lloyd Wright was best only mistaken and perhaps a just blithering idiot when it came to social policy. You only have to buy the home, not the man who designed it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The show was not successful. A few years later, the movie "Serenity" tied up some of the loose ends.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lmarrott 11 years, 8 months ago
    I'll admit I haven't given Firefly a chance because I don't much like statements from Joss Whedon in the last few years. Also it doesn't help my brother raves about Firefly which makes me not want to give it a try. I have seen Serenity a long time ago, but I mostly have forgotten it by now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I just found the DVD at the library, so I'll take your suggestion and watch it!

    It seems like the entire series is on one disc...can that be right?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bep_w 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's most certainly worth watching. The writing is exquisite; Joss Whedon likes to have dramatic moments offset by a funny line and comedic moments offset by drama. It feels more real than straight soap opera or sitcom. The world of the show also feel plausible. Whedon and his writers didn't just pick a random scenario and run with it, they really sat down and thought through what this world might evolve into in the future. So in that respect, it's not like Star Trek. It feels organic where Star Trek feels like a TV show. Finally and similarly, it's easy to lose track of the fact that the show is sci-fi because it feels like you're watching a Western!

    I highly recommend watching it and watching the movie again! It's surprisingly relevant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Scatcatpdx 11 years, 8 months ago
    Whedon rant aside, I was not impressed by the show. It does not live up to the fan boy hype. and had to many plot holes. Firefly is a case where Whedon tried to build a show up on pure buzz rather than solid writing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lmarrott 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I guess my problem with a guy like Whedon is that while he is talented he uses his notoriety gained from that talent to distribute information and ideas that I fundamentally disagree with. So while I agree that I can appreciate the work done by someone like Joss, do I want to financially support him and help him be more successful where he can spread more bad ideas and viewpoints I disagree with?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaulOhio 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My favorite lines from the whole series and movie, in fact my favorite movie line ever:

    Alliance agent: "Are you willing to die for that belief?"

    Malcolm Reynolds: "I am." Draws his gun and fires several shots at the Allaiance agent. "Cause that ain't Plan A".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Cogent points, Saul. Just to note in 3. that this also appears in Asimov's "Spacer" and "Robot" series as the Settler worlds prove more resilient than the hyper-individualist Spacers. At the end of one, detective Lije Bailey watches his son lead a wagon train into space.

    The idea is common enough in science fiction. An ST:NG show "Up the Long Ladder" brings together a high-tech society that is collapsing from genetic "replicative fading" and a "back to the nature" colony (also failed) from the old European Union.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaulOhio 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are a number of hole in your criticism.

    1: By the end of the first episode, we know where Simon and River Tam are going. They are simply on the run.
    2. They are brother and sister, which is clearly explained and repeated a number of times thorughout the series. How can you miss such an obvious fact? "She's my sister" This is repeated in different words practically every episode.
    3: There is no time travel needed. The premise is Robert Heinlein's that as new worlds are colonized, they will have the very simplest of technologies because that is all that can be sustained with a low population, so different worlds go through different stages of social development, and can resemble different eras of Earth's history.
    4: What do you mean we aren't told why the companion is there, and where she gets off. (In the lurid sense, we are told precisely where she gets off.) It is explained in the early scene where Inara is introduced to Sheppard book.

    I particularly like many of the pro-freedom, even almost Objectivist themes of the book. "Thats what governments are for--Get in a man's way"--Malcolm Reynolds.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Scatcatpdx 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    lI really do have much time for this so I am going to refer to a post I made in 2009
    This brings me to another Fox dumped SF-FI fanatic supported show: Firefly. Thanks to Hulu.com I survived the first five episodes before saying no mas. Like Virtuality the show fails because it tries to mix Science Fiction with the old western movie shtick. The plot holes are huge. First the show jumps unbelievably from 26th century space opera to 19th century Western and in one episode 18th century aristocracy, no time travel was involved. Second a plot line is left aimlessly hanging. On the first episode the crew of Serenity picks up pastor, a man and his daughter and companion without telling the viewer where they are heading and to get off. It like the writer forgot about the plot and arbitrarily made the passengers part of the crew.

    Both shows fails because the produce fell for a common mistake thinking a show success is based on few single elements taken out of context from previous successful franchises. Virtuality fails by taking elements of Star Trek and reality TV and Firefly attempts to mix Space Opera with elements of old west show like Bonanza and throw in rabid fans and astroturfing buzz.
    http://www.lionspeak.asinglelion.com/?p=...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ DriveTrain 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Khalling - LOL 8^[]

    Scatcatsnortland, you issue three pronouncements with nothing in the way of supporting examples.

    - You were not impressed with the show - that's groovy - to each his own;

    - "It had many plot holes" ...How many? What were they? Were they significant enough to detract from the value of the particular episode(s) of which they were a part? We'll never know, but I've had the DVD set since its release and have seen most of the episodes multiple times (they have that kind of replay value,) and I'm drawing a blank on "plot holes" of any Earth-shaking, pan-worthy significance;

    - "pure buzz rather than solid writing" - This is simply false - Firefly's (and most of Whedon's other work,) most solid aspect is precisely its writing. But first... "buzz." When Firefly came out I, a sci-fi fan virtually from birth, didn't even know it was there. Quite awhile later I caught word of it - some mention that caught my eye because I'd been a fan of his "Buffy" series (the first three seasons, anyway,) and the commentary I remember ranged from shoulder-shrugs to "meh" from people clearly uninterested in sci-fi as a whole.

    As for Whedon's writing, the endless, continual wit of his dialog is matchless and sidesplitting, and his concepts and execution of them are - as Mr. Marotta's piece above accurately states - driven largely by moral choices rather than chance and whim. I shouldn't need to mention that choices-driven drama in contemporary American culture is virtually extinct (you generally have to go to Japanese television, where it's literally everywhere.)

    So...some specifics and explanation please.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by monkeyppl 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Considering these two points on this reply thread- I'd like to present the idea that good fiction, especially fiction of the future (whether qualifying as sci-fi or not) is best done if there are so many life-like perspectives coming through that it would only be limiting to let the authors' philosophy shine through in dominance of others. Sometimes we see one character as an embodiment; sometimes it takes the entire set of main characters to collectively exhibit this philosophy, mixed in with other aspects- to be more 'realistic'...yay or nay?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Read Ayn Rand's essays in "The Romantic Manifesto" to understand why you are not responsible for the political opinions of an artist whose work reflects your own highest ideals.

    Speaking of Edmund Rostand's _Cyrano de Bergerac_, she said, "The truth or falsehood of an author's philosophy is not an esthetic matter. You can take it up with the author in a philosophical discussion. ... But for the purposes of a play, you must accept the author's theme as the criterion and judge how well or how badly he carries out his theme." (_Objectively Speaking_ page 119.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "we Christians share the blame for this current gay marriage mess by intrusting power to regulated marriage to a secular state on a false assumption America at any time was a Christian nation; that such nationalism cannot be found in Scripture.

    Perhaps we need to lean we are not, and never was and never could be a Christian nation and need to get pack proclaiming the Gospel." --

    From the blog of Scatcatpdx.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you are a Producer here, you can read Ayn Rand's margin notes in Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative." Even though she excoriated him privately, publicly, she endorsed his candidacy. That sort of lays bare the lie of "Atlas Shrugged" if we are to completely withhold our sanctions from our destroyers. Read my review here under Philosophy of Leonard Peikoff's understanding Objectivism. He says, rhetorically, "... the fact is, since you're in a very small intellectual minority, if you're an Objectivist, you're going to quickly conclude that people in general are rotten and that life is miserable." (page 351)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iroseland 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think Whedon has ever actually made anything that actually follows his own philosophy. I don't think he actually believes the stuff he says. I only say this because actions are louder than words, and well... In the meantime Firefly was an amazing show, and well worth taking a look at.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo