The review I wrote of Serenity was based on the free press screening that Universal invited bloggers to attend. I think this was the first time a major movie studio let bloggers into a screening, and I think it’s a great idea and (hopefully) the start of a trend. I love going to free movies before they’re released.

Since this was the first, there were definitely some kinks. This Blogcritics post outlines all of the issues that bloggers had with the event. Most of the problem was with the ambiguous wording of the email the PR firm sent to invited bloggers (well, most invited bloggers. I didn’t get the email, more on that later).

Congratulations! You are one of the lucky bloggers to be chosen and confirmed for the screening of SERENITY for the time, date and the number of guests that you have requested. Please note, this confirmation DOES NOT guarantee you a seat at the screening.

To significantly increase your chances of getting into the screening, you MUST do the following:

· You MUST include the film’s synopsis on your blog (synopsis below) and you MUST link your blog to the SERENITY website (which has the trailer and production notes) http://www.serenitymovie.com and featured artwork. After you have screened the film, please discuss it on your blog. Please provide us the links to all of your blog posts on SERENITY at serenity@gracehillmedia.com
· Print out and bring a copy of this confirmation.
· Arrive at the theater AT LEAST 45 minutes before the show begins.
· Upon arrival at the theater, please find a UNIVERSAL PICTURES representative and inform him or her that you are part of the SERENITY BLOGGER BONANZA. The Universal rep will then instruct you as to what to do next.
· DO NOT bring in a camera or a cellular phone that takes pictures. They WILL be confiscated, and you will NOT be allowed into the screening.
· Have a great time!

Like I said, I didn’t get this email. Perhaps my spam filters trashed it, it certainly reads like bad spam. If I’d known there was going to be an email, I would have looked for it in the junk folder, but the webpage I was sent to after signing up said, basically, you’re on the list: Just show up with ID and without recording devices, skip to the front of the line, and enjoy the show.

Several parts of this email are obviously poorly worded. But is it by design, or just stupidity? Certainly the sentence, “This confirmation DOES NOT guarantee you a seat at the screening,” makes no sense at all, but it could be intended to be nonsensical. Perhaps they were just poorly organized and didn’t know how many seats would be available, so they figured they’d use the word “confirmation” to get people to show and then add a bit of weasel language at the end. That way they’d have an excuse when everyone who didn’t get in got angry. It also makes no sense that they would confiscate your camera phone and kick you out of the screening. Doesn’t it seem like one or the other would be enough? I also seriously doubt that a private company is even allowed to confiscate my property.

It’s completely, totally ridiculous to expect a blogger to post their synopsis and artwork. Link to the website? Fine, I did that anyway, and you can follow that to read as much synopsis and look at as much artwork as you like. Plus, the synopsis was really lame and badly written. Check out a (slightly) edited version at dorkafork’s place. And when did they expect me to post the synopsis? I’d assume as part of my review after I’d seen the movie, but the email states that, “to significantly increase your chances of getting into the screening,” you must post the synopsis, artwork, and link. So did they want me to write about the movie before I saw it? I just don’t know.

Luckily, none of that mattered. It wouldn’t have anyway, I’m not principled enough to skip a free screening over little quibbles like this. I still wouldn’t have posted their synopsis, but I don’t think that changes anything. What are they going to do, not invite me to the sequel which might not even get made, anyway?

The “Blogger Bonanza” was a good idea, poorly executed (and poorly named. Bonanza?), but hopefully it helps word-of-mouth on the movie anyway. That way they’ll try again, and be less heavy-handed and better organized next time.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Serenity is a very, very satisfying movie, and that was a tough trick to pull. A movie based on a beloved (yet short lived) teevee series and written and directed by a man frequently called a genius has to be great to satisfy. I really don’t think that this movie would be any good if it was merely good. If that makes any sense at all.

(On the way to the theater I expressed this fear to my wife, and she said, “Of course it will be great! It’s Joss Whedon, he’s a genius!” I replied, “Ever seen Alien: Resurrection?”)

What really stood out was the writing, of course. The characters are mostly drawn from action film archetypes (there’s the amoral tough guy, the spunky woman [well, several spunky women], the conflicted leader) and they could have been cardboard flat. Instead they were all very human, reacting to situations and each other unpredictably but always in ways that make sense. There were also lots of classic Whedon bits: extremely funny lines in the middle of intense action, emotionally crushing blows, and lifting moments of victory. Sometimes all three in the same shot.

Afterwards Zombyboy (he’s got a review with links to other reviews posted here) mentioned that he saw a strong anarcho-libertarian thread running through the picture. He’s absolutely right. Mal, the captain of the Serenity, fought on the losing side of a rebellion against the autocratic Alliance. Now he thinks only of himself. Well, only of himself and his crew. Well, only of himself and his crew until the good of the entire universe gets in the way. That might seem like a contradiction, how can one be an anarcho-libertarian while trying to better the whole of humanity? In fact, at one point Mal says, “The Alliance is trying to make us better, and I don’t hold to that.” But Mal isn’t trying to make anyone better, he just wants the freedom for everyone to be better (assuming that’s what they choose). And he’s using the most powerful weapon he’s got to fight government control.

That weapon is information. One important character is a kind of hacker whose tagline is, “You can’t stop the signal.” It’s a great summary of the power of information disseminating technology, whether it’s the printing press, teevee, or blogging. (It’s also the title of Steve Green’s review, not-so-incidentally.) The idea that a small band of individuals working together, even though they have different and sometimes conflicting motives and goals, can manage to do more for the cause of freedom than an armed rebellion is very powerful, and is the real theme of Serenity.

That sounds really heavy (and boring) but trust me, the movie isn’t. It’s hilarious, moving, intense, and just plain wonderful. Please see it this weekend so they’ll make another.

Update: Here’s a funny review from dorkafork. Contains light spoilers. Also, I figure I should say just one negative thing about the movie: the great theme song from the teevee show was (almost) entirely missing.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Jokes that involve Ashton, Demi, CINDY!, and Jesse Jackson do that to me. I’m just childish that way.

(I think you should suggest new pickup lines for Jesse to use on CINDY! in Andy’s comments. Extra points for rhyming preacher cadence.)

Popularity: 2% [?]

That was one hell of a cliffhanger. Lemme make sure the DVR is gonna record next week… wait, next week is a repeat. Shit, so is the one on the seventh. Hang on, the we don’t get a new episode until January?!

Damn you, SciFi Channel! Damn you to Hell!

Popularity: 2% [?]

While I understand the impulse, I think I’ll wait for the season premiere of Alias before I jump on this bandwagon.

Popularity: 2% [?]

All this outrage over the use of the word “articulate” to describe a black man who is, in fact, articulate is ridiculous (but unsurprising) coming from a guy that used the phrase “the filthy Wolfowitz” to describe a Jew. At the time I was willing to assume that Oliver was just being stupid, but now I think maybe I should hold him to his own standard and call him a racist. Which is worse, describing a man who almost certainly showers daily “filthy,” or calling a man who articulates his ideas very well “articulate?”^†

Interestingly, the woman who started all this is a former co-worker of Oliver’s at Media Matters. According to Willis unethical and illegal opposition research by a Democrat is “dumb,” but Republican describing someone as articulate is, in some alternate (yet reality-based!) universe, “dumber.”

Also interesting: Willis’s archives only go back to April and the “filthy” brouhaha occured in March. Not only that, but Google doesn’t seem to have cached any of his related entries.

I was going to confine this to a comment on Oliver’s blog, but it seems to have never made it out of moderation (again… interesting). I don’t think it was inflammatory enough to warrant deletion, but it’s his blog, he can do what he wants. I’ll let you judge for yourself:

All this whining about a single, misinterpreted word from a guy that once used the word “filthy” to describe a Jew. Odd that your archives seem to stop right before that post, Oliver.

If you remember, I defended you back then, describing your use of that word as an inadvertent slip and not racism. Perhaps you should cut Ed some slack, or perhaps I should go back and describe your words as racist regardless of whether you “had any racial intent or not.”

In his entry Oliver admits that he doesn’t do much blogging about race because he’s not very good at it. For once, Willis and I find common ground.

(Links, and lots of ideas, via protein wisdom)

Popularity: 2% [?]

It’s been around since May, but I may have just found a new favorite blog. What can I say, I’m a sucker for Gawker Media, corporate whores of blogdom that they are.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Here’s the most succinct summary of the economics of “price gouging” I’ve ever read. An excerpt:

Suppose a hotel room rented for $79 a night prior to Hurricane Katrina’s devastation. Based on that price, an evacuating family of four might rent two adjoining rooms. When they arrive at the hotel, they find the rooms rent for $200; they decide to make do with one room. In my book, that’s wonderful. The family voluntarily opted to make a room available for another family who had to evacuate or whose home was destroyed. Demagogues will call this price-gouging, but I ask you, which is preferable: a room available at $200 or a room unavailable at $79? Rising prices get people to voluntarily economize on goods and services rendered scarcer by the disaster.

I’ve made a similar argument in the past, but it required a chart showing the relative tiredness of drivers and the assumption (a reasonable one, I think) that hotel rooms will get progressively cheaper as one gets farther from an evacuated area. This one is much simpler.

It seems cruel when a hotel raises its prices just when people in tragic circumstances need the rooms the most. Perversly, though, it’s actually the best thing for all involved. Rising prices help ensure that supply doesn’t run out entirely during the crunch, and high profit margins encourage new suppliers to enter the market as quickly as possible, helping to meet the new demand.

Meanwhile, Hawaii’s gas cap laws may soon start having (how surprising!) adverse effects on supply. Colorado, thank Jebus, has no laws against gouging, and it seems doubtful that any local politicians would seriously suggest capping the price of gas. It’s nice to live in a (somewhat) sane place.

(Links via Matt Welch at Hit and Run)

Popularity: 3% [?]

SHATNER!

Popularity: 2% [?]

Did you know that the Soup Dragons’ song “I’m Free” is a cover of the 1965 Rolling Stones’ track off December’s Children (And Everybody’s)? Me neither, even though both were on my iPod.

Hell, based on the cover version I never would have guessed it was written by Jagger and Richards, and I initially thought the Wikipedia had made a mistake (it wouldn’t be the first time). But after listening to both… yep, they’re the same song.

Popularity: 3% [?]