I read that quote as well, but include the rest of paragraph:
He explained how he removed the racial aspect of the Apache metaphor by using the Reavers. “I used that example by saying that anyone who goes out into space and goes mad can become a monster.” He also commented on the use of a strict western and horror vernacular to create his story.
So while real world people and events and past media were inspiration for a space western - they aren’t supposed to be direct analogues. The Browncoats are not Confederates. The Firefly crew are not Cowboys, the Reavers aren’t Indians, and The Alliance aren’t the Nazis. Even though you can say they were all inspired by those things to an extent.
One’s understanding of real world people and events might color how you view Firefly, I don’t see how watching Firefly is going to change or effect your understanding of real world people and events like older media where what is on screen is presented as reality. This is far enough removed to be fantasy, even if it is derivative.
as i mentioned above, native peoples were attacked by both sides freely. ( at least when one side or the other wasn’t trying to use them as a weapon against the other… )
I like you, so I’m just gonna walk away from this topic for a while, with the repeat adjoinder, it’s rude to shit on things you don’t understand, that are cherished by others.
I’m not going to pretend I know the particulars here, so I should probably keep quiet. But I think there is a real difference between saying “what if the Confederates were good” and saying “what if there is a situation kind of like the American Civil War, but one where the rebels were in the right”.
I agree, to a point. Yes, there were problematic elements in the show that… weren’t addressed well, to say the least. Mal’s attitude toward Inara was awful, the sexism in “Heart of Gold” was deplorable, the use of Chinese culture without on-screen representation of that culture was flat-out wrong.
But part and parcel of storytelling within a specific genre is the utilization of that genre’s tropes to advance the narrative-- and Westerns do have very particular common tropes. When used lazily, uncritically, yes, such tropes can cause harm. But when used with care, consideration, and imagination, the same concepts can be reworked to give us new insights and understandings. Is that what Firefly did? I’d have to say, no, it was primarily entertainment. (And given Whedon was the showrunner, I’m not sure it ever would have given us anything too deep… although some of the writers he employed were far more talented, and potentially could have accomplished it.)
Do we stop telling Western stories because their original versions were horribly stereotypical? Or do we keep reworking them to make them say something meaningful for today’s more demanding audiences?
im totally okay with pure entertainment from time to time.
and i think for those – be it old he-man cartoons and consumerism or whatever – it’s important to call things out especially when we like them.
if all we get is uncritical hagiography – we’re just going to keep “american dreaming” ourselves into the same situations we’ve seen again and again throughout our history.
… a corollary that’s maybe(?) less controversial …
i’m still going to enjoy harry potter, i’m also going to say – when it comes up – that rowling is anti-trans, and that there are things in the books that are homophobic. ( i’m not nearly a big a harry potter fan as a firefly fan, tho. )
if this were a fan firefly site, i wouldn’t sea lion my way in – but this was about a remake. and it’d be great if they could right some wrongs.
I suppose that is similar to my discomfort with Toy Story 4. I mean the Toys “family” being broken up and sold off is just a little close to being sold down the river. The toys loving their owners can be seen as an echo of slaves with Stockholm syndrome and the “but the owners and the slaves were loyal to each other,” shit that you hear from defenders of slavery. I don’t think that sort of whitewashing is intended in either case, but it is difficult to NOT see it once you have noticed it.
more expansive quote, where he really puts his foot in his mouth.
He explained how he removed the racial aspect of the Apache metaphor by using the Reavers. “I used that example by saying that anyone who goes out into space and goes mad can become a monster.” He also commented on the use of a strict western and horror vernacular to create his story.
Now, there are science fiction stories where the villainy is shown to lie essentially within the minds of the “good guys”, who are then shown to be using that misapprehension to justify their own evil. (The Hegemony of Man versus the Ousters comes to mind).
Had Whedon planned on telling that sort of story, it would have taken more than two years. But I doubt that this sort of thiing was on his mind.
)
