Another post on Serenity...
Sep. 26th, 2005 08:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
This time, I'm asking for people to post links to other entries (or articles, whatever) on Serenity, just stick a warning on if it's spoileriffic.
I'm reading the synopsis again.
Joss Whedon, the Oscar® - and Emmy - nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE, ANGEL and FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.
I've already discussed some of my problems with this synopsis before. However, just to take a break from that, can anybody point out the glaring error that I somehow missed the first 40 times I read this? Go ahead. See if you can find it. I'll wait.
*hums a little*
Anybody? Anybody?
Yes, that's right! Buffy is indeed not a vampire! No doubt she'd make a really cool vampire, but at the moment, she's just a vampire slayer (and sometimes lover, but we don't talk about that).
I have a bit of a question here. Why do all movie synopses sound alike? I mean, there's some change, but really, they fall into a few categories: This is a romance, this is a drama, this is a comedy, and this is an action film; and a lot of times it takes some effort to even distinguish between those categories. Do they not want their movies to stand out? I stand by Joss' synopsis (hee!), which I posted earlier:
[I]f I was going to pitch "Serenity," I'd say it's a space adventure that involves the lowliest of people in the most mundane of circumstances getting caught up in something giant and epic -- without lasers, aliens, or force-fields to protect them.
That sounds like a movie! The other sounds like a string of words.
Or, compare these session films...
...with the actual trailers.
Now, the spots taken directly from the movie, with (one assumes) a minumum of editing are great. I want to see the movie. The trailers... well, they're made up of scenes from the movie, sure... but in such a way that they managed to turn a movie based on a show that will even say quite long things in Chinese, that is fairly non-conventional, into... trailers that look like every other action movie on the planet. The session tapes are vague and creepifying. The trailers are predictable. Shots of the ship, pictures of everyone with a somewhat inspiring quote, ACTIONINSPACE!, 'badass' end to the quote, Universal logo, planet, OMGJOSSWHEDON!, cool music that sounds like the music in every other actiony movie in the world, guns - quotes - backstory, implied conflict, bad guy, more bad guy and DEATH, fight scene, critic's quotes which are recycled by the dozen, semi-funny quote, scenes flashing faster, serenity logo, you can't stop the signal.
Except for the last line, it could be any movie, anywhere. Fortunately, I have more faith in this movie than I do in those trailers. And I know, a lot of people were oohing and ahhing over those trailers. Well, they're certainly cool - but movie trailers generally are. They're supposed to be. They're also generic. They're supposed to be.
If you've watched Firefly, you probably already plan on seeing the movie, and don't need any more encouragement.
If you haven't - well, I'm told that Serenity is very newbie-friendly. Don't let your lack of having seen Firefly stop you, and don't let the genericness of the trailers stop you either. Hell, don't even be stopped by the fact that the people in charge of the screening passes I'm hopefully getting didn't even trust us to advertise the movie in our own way, like most of us had been off-and-on doing for months, but instead insisted on a certain format: This sucky synopsis and the official site, and here's some pictures, by the way (will show some pictures in a cut). That's not just evilly corporate, it's insulting. They want people to advertise in their journals and blogs? Fine, that's a fair trade to see a movie for free, since we want to see it, it's not that big a deal. But we have to follow their rules, when even their synopsis sucks? *dramatic eyeroll*
I'm taking a new tack. This entry is getting emailed to them. Oh, along with the other ones, but I'm just in a bad mood, and that's no time to be a hypocrite, wanting to see a movie about people who break the law, and yet still try to do the right thing against a monolithic entity, while still conforming to what The Man wants me to do in my own journal!
Lucky I still have some of the money my Bonne-maman sent me, huh?
Now, time for those pictures!
LEGO Serenity! He's even got crew members! It's so cool... I mean, shiny, it's really shiny.
Youse guys have all already seen movie posters and whatnot, so I won't bore you :)
I'm reading the synopsis again.
Joss Whedon, the Oscar® - and Emmy - nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE, ANGEL and FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.
I've already discussed some of my problems with this synopsis before. However, just to take a break from that, can anybody point out the glaring error that I somehow missed the first 40 times I read this? Go ahead. See if you can find it. I'll wait.
*hums a little*
Anybody? Anybody?
Yes, that's right! Buffy is indeed not a vampire! No doubt she'd make a really cool vampire, but at the moment, she's just a vampire slayer (and sometimes lover, but we don't talk about that).
I have a bit of a question here. Why do all movie synopses sound alike? I mean, there's some change, but really, they fall into a few categories: This is a romance, this is a drama, this is a comedy, and this is an action film; and a lot of times it takes some effort to even distinguish between those categories. Do they not want their movies to stand out? I stand by Joss' synopsis (hee!), which I posted earlier:
[I]f I was going to pitch "Serenity," I'd say it's a space adventure that involves the lowliest of people in the most mundane of circumstances getting caught up in something giant and epic -- without lasers, aliens, or force-fields to protect them.
That sounds like a movie! The other sounds like a string of words.
Or, compare these session films...
...with the actual trailers.
Now, the spots taken directly from the movie, with (one assumes) a minumum of editing are great. I want to see the movie. The trailers... well, they're made up of scenes from the movie, sure... but in such a way that they managed to turn a movie based on a show that will even say quite long things in Chinese, that is fairly non-conventional, into... trailers that look like every other action movie on the planet. The session tapes are vague and creepifying. The trailers are predictable. Shots of the ship, pictures of everyone with a somewhat inspiring quote, ACTIONINSPACE!, 'badass' end to the quote, Universal logo, planet, OMGJOSSWHEDON!, cool music that sounds like the music in every other actiony movie in the world, guns - quotes - backstory, implied conflict, bad guy, more bad guy and DEATH, fight scene, critic's quotes which are recycled by the dozen, semi-funny quote, scenes flashing faster, serenity logo, you can't stop the signal.
Except for the last line, it could be any movie, anywhere. Fortunately, I have more faith in this movie than I do in those trailers. And I know, a lot of people were oohing and ahhing over those trailers. Well, they're certainly cool - but movie trailers generally are. They're supposed to be. They're also generic. They're supposed to be.
If you've watched Firefly, you probably already plan on seeing the movie, and don't need any more encouragement.
If you haven't - well, I'm told that Serenity is very newbie-friendly. Don't let your lack of having seen Firefly stop you, and don't let the genericness of the trailers stop you either. Hell, don't even be stopped by the fact that the people in charge of the screening passes I'm hopefully getting didn't even trust us to advertise the movie in our own way, like most of us had been off-and-on doing for months, but instead insisted on a certain format: This sucky synopsis and the official site, and here's some pictures, by the way (will show some pictures in a cut). That's not just evilly corporate, it's insulting. They want people to advertise in their journals and blogs? Fine, that's a fair trade to see a movie for free, since we want to see it, it's not that big a deal. But we have to follow their rules, when even their synopsis sucks? *dramatic eyeroll*
I'm taking a new tack. This entry is getting emailed to them. Oh, along with the other ones, but I'm just in a bad mood, and that's no time to be a hypocrite, wanting to see a movie about people who break the law, and yet still try to do the right thing against a monolithic entity, while still conforming to what The Man wants me to do in my own journal!
Lucky I still have some of the money my Bonne-maman sent me, huh?
Now, time for those pictures!
LEGO Serenity! He's even got crew members! It's so cool... I mean, shiny, it's really shiny.
Youse guys have all already seen movie posters and whatnot, so I won't bore you :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:20 am (UTC)Sometimes I read a synopses and wonder if the writer bothered to either read the book, watch the movie, or the TV show.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:22 am (UTC)And I hear you on that. It's irritating.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:34 am (UTC)I find it amusing, especially with the number of people who must be posting the official synopsis everywhere (three on my flist and one sort-of to another comm so far, that I've seen), that the people who wrote and are USING the thing in a serious context haven't caught that slip-up yet. 'Buffy the Vampire' would have been a very different show indeed. XD
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 02:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-02 08:17 am (UTC)And 100% agreement about the trailers. They're confusing, predictable, and make the whole thing look like a B-grade summer blockbuster wannabe. If I hadn't watched the series this summer, there's no way I'd want to see the movie.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:20 am (UTC)Sometimes I read a synopses and wonder if the writer bothered to either read the book, watch the movie, or the TV show.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:22 am (UTC)And I hear you on that. It's irritating.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:34 am (UTC)I find it amusing, especially with the number of people who must be posting the official synopsis everywhere (three on my flist and one sort-of to another comm so far, that I've seen), that the people who wrote and are USING the thing in a serious context haven't caught that slip-up yet. 'Buffy the Vampire' would have been a very different show indeed. XD
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 02:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-02 08:17 am (UTC)And 100% agreement about the trailers. They're confusing, predictable, and make the whole thing look like a B-grade summer blockbuster wannabe. If I hadn't watched the series this summer, there's no way I'd want to see the movie.