Did Joss paint himself into a corner with Serenity? by OPPYH

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Did Joss paint himself into a corner with Serenity?

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Monday, September 1, 2008 12:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 24737
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?

When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.

Quote:
Yeah, let's all watch Alan Tudyk in Dodge Ball, 'cause that's EXACTLY like watching Alan Tudyk in Firefly/Serenity

And you might have noted the happy face I put on the end of that line. I know the idea is ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous to take it so personally when a writer who created a character decides that character's fate. As if the viewer owns the character more than the writer. Uh-huh.

Guess the irony of my post was too nebulous for some to figure. (Yes, I'm condescending again. So shoot me. If you can aim high enough. My pedestal is quite towering.

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:11 AM

SLOWHAND

Wow. We're Browncoats arguing over Firefly/ Serenity. You'd think we were Trekies! LOL!

Anywho. If they make another Serenity without Book and Wash, I know I'd see it and I'm pretty sure everyone here would as well. I think there's just several schools of thought here.

One is the looking forward to what's gonna happen now.

Another is, "Wait a minute! We only got half a season of TV and a movie! Let's go back and take our time here!"

Still another is, "Let's move forward, but make sure EVERYONE is onboard."

I'm a member of the later.

Sure Joss is the creator of these characters and has a right to do with them as he pleases. (That's why I'm glad he mentioned bringing back Book and Wash in the Serenity visual companion.) And I know that, even though things may be different, they could still be great. They just can't be AS great as they were without Book and Wash.

To say that it could be better or even that it could be just as good would be like saying that Book and Wash were dead weight. And I know no one here would say that.

So sure. If they made more Firefly and Serenity, I'd see it. I'm just saying that, because it can't be the saem, I'm not as thrilled about it as others.

Firefly was very special and it's sad that it was cut short. As good as further stories could be without Book and Wash, I have to believe that they would be better with them.

Again, just the opinion of me and the other card-carrying members of the third school of thought. ;-p

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:27 PM

OPPYH

I want to state that while a new series or movie would be completely different, I' would still be very happy if it happened.

Of all the Joss shows, I think this is the one most deserving of a return.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:49 PM

SLOWHAND

Agreed!

Have some mudder's milk on me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 5:55 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by Slowhand:

Sure Joss is the creator of these characters and has a right to do with them as he pleases. (That's why I'm glad he mentioned bringing back Book and Wash in the Serenity visual companion.) And I know that, even though things may be different, they could still be great. They just can't be AS great as they were without Book and Wash.

It was my understanding that Joss has no intention of bringing Book or Wash back "alive", but that they would be seen in flashbacks.

I feel that works for Book, but not so much for Wash.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:43 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?

When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.

Well swish, if your latest demeaning comment was aimed at my original statement:

"But please keep in mind that I acknowledge that my bias runs to the fact that I like my entertainment to be FUN....etc.",

you obviously define condescending differently than the dictionary I have.

At no point did I presume to pass ultimate judgment on anything; only presented my views on why I feel about, or like/dislike, certain elements of Serenity.

I find the need to use condescension and sarcasm to answer my view (that Serenity betrayed the nature of its Firefly parent by frivolously killing a main character) undermines the legitimate points you have.

For the most part, I have found Browncoats to represent a HUGELY diverse number of interests and beliefs.
In my experience, that very diversity has always meant spirited discussion without denigrating anyone else's opinion.
(I guess that's why Browncoats are "Independents"!)
The insistence that uplifting and positive has to somehow carry some negative connotation when applied to entertainment, smacks of Alliance control, seems to me.

I don't know who has been on this board "long enough" or which opinions represent a minority or a majority.
I only know that each poster's answer to the original question, "Did Joss write himself into a corner with Serenity?" is legitimately right for themselves.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:47 PM

PEPPERG

amazing how wedded some folks are to happy endings, and how betrayed they feel if they don't get them. like someone else implied on this board, serenity isn't a disney movie. besides, (extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:06 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by pepperg:
(extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.

I think Firefly did a better job of not having the consequences outweigh the dramatic return.
i.e. the crew overcame peril at some cost, just not the cost of their lives.
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.

Actually, I viewed things not going "according the gorram plan" to be sort of the running gag of the show.
Shoot, even the Lassiter heist didn't pay off like they hoped.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:30 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.

Kaylee was shot by Dobson in the pilot episode.

I agree that the Firefly episodes we were blessed to see did generally end on an uplifting note, but if you are familiar with either Buffy or Angel then you would have to assume that was not going to remain the norm for very long. In this case we saw that type of event in the movie, but it would have happened in the series if it had gone another season or two.

Please don't misinterpret what I am saying either. Wash was the character I identified with the most, and I was devastated when he was killed. However, I think that event made the end of the film a better one than it would have been otherwise. And my comment about how long you have been a Browncoat was less about denigrating your opinion and more about saying it makes no sense for someone who did not see the film in the theater to make the judgment that Wash's death is the reason it failed at the box office. It failed because so very few movie-goers were even aware of it at the time, not because of the story line. It's the same way that there are so many people aware of Firefly now that when it was on the air. If those people watched it then it might still be on the air, and if a lot of them had seen Serenity in the theater it would not be considered a failure.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:57 AM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
At no point did I presume to pass ultimate judgment on anything; only presented my views on why I feel about, or like/dislike, certain elements of Serenity.

Oh criminy - I'm not going to quote you back to yourself for a third time. You did more just state your views - oh yes you did! (I'm in third grade all of the sudden LOL!) Plenty of people on this thread have stated that they didn't like part of the BDM, didn't find it as entertaining as the series, etc, which you may or may not have noticed that I agree with. The part I disagreed with the absolutes you spoke in, and the way you seemed to be setting down rules that bound Joss's choices. (Do I really need to quote you back to yourself here?)

As I told you before: there's a difference between saying "I wasn't entertained "and "that wasn't entertainment". You definitely said the latter

I note that now you are being clearer about stating your views as your own opinion, and that's cool. Yay! See, I knew you weren't a jerk. It's just the imperfection of the medium - your first few posts came off pretty strong. You know, like a soft French cheese.

Maybe stronger than you intended?

Quote:
The insistence that uplifting and positive has to somehow carry some negative connotation when applied to entertainment, smacks of Alliance control, seems to me.

Dude, the only one speaking of "had to"s here was you! The rest have opinions as to fluffy entertainment - opinions, not absolutes. For instance, I said I find it fake and hollow (that's just my taste), but I also said there's nothing *wrong* with that (hence removing judgement from others whose taste is different) and I go there from time to time (I do find it entertaining).

Quote:
I only know that each poster's answer to the original question, "Did Joss write himself into a corner with Serenity?" is legitimately right for themselves.

It's an excellent question and no one, certainly not me, is saying otherwise. It was your first few posts that I (and others) disagreed with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:14 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.

Kaylee was shot by Dobson in the pilot episode.

Holy Smokes!
How'd I forget that?!

So that leaves Inara.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:31 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:

As I told you before:

That would be the part you can leave off.
Answer the question, disagree with my opinion;
but come down off your self-proclaimed pedestal and don't deign to tell me.

Wash Lives!
Mike

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:20 AM

SMAUG

Quote:
extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.

And expecially life threatening danger (hey, petty theving and gun fights are down right life threadtening) that happens week after week after week, story after story.. and no one is ever in any real danger?

Eventually that gets old. As someone said.. yes.. it might be exciting to see "HOW" they are going to get out of danger. But how much is the intensity increased if you add "IF" they are going to get out of danger.

I loved STTNG when I was a teenager watching it, but since, as usual, no major character ever died (that you didn't later find out they didn't really die), there was never that intensity-edge-of-your-seat feeling. Throwing in an unknown red-shirt here and there to die does not add anything to the "danger" level of wondering if a main character could get killed. And now that I look back on STTNG.. it looks and feels so juvenile by comparison.

Give me Firefly and BSG any day of the week and 10 times on sunday.. even IF I am never certain that Mal or Adama are going to live to see the next episode.. or mainly because of it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:31 AM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
your self-proclaimed pedestal

Geez. Sense of humor much? My pedestal comment was irony. Joke.

Hmm... maybehaps you'd feel less demeaned if you grew a funny bone. Really, I've given you plenty of invites to loosen up and bond with some humor, and even to turn the talk to Firefly plot, but you seem to be doing your damnedest to take offense, paint yourself into a "poor demeaned me" corner, and generally focus on negatives. (No wonder you don't want them in your movies!) You must really want a fight, huh? Sorry, not interested. This thread can be put to much better use.

Apologies for the aside, all. I'm done now.

Joss ain't in no corner is my take.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:48 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
I'm done now.

Phew! Thank Goodness.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:48 AM

JOSSISAGOD

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
So that leaves Inara.

Negatory, 'nara got banged-up in that fight with the Reavers at the end of Serenity, not a mortal wound but still a wound

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:43 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Wash and Book didn't die because the entire movie was simply a bad dream that Mal had. Serenity is morbidly dark, and all the characters aren't quite themselves. So I think it was all a dream; a dream brought on by Mal's inner torments, fears, and hopes. It's really, for me, the only explanation of the movie. During the entire series Mal always looked out for the welfare and saftey of the crew, but in the movie he would have seen them all killed by Reavers just so he could discover a potential Allliance secret. Don't make no sense, and that's the way dreams work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:28 AM

SLOWHAND

It all just comes down to a matter of taste. It's no big deal. Someone mentioned that wondering HOW they're gonna get out of danger is entertaining. (Oh...that someone was me!) Heh. Someone else mentioned that wondering IF they are gonna get out of danger is more intense. I absolutly agree with that. But, because of my taste in entertainment, that's a level of intensity I don't want. I just don't like that. I wasn't all into the movie and on the edge of my seat during the final reaver fight, wondering who was next. I was pissed off thinking he was gonna kill everyone. So was the guy next to me! When the rest survived, it wasn't a buy back for me. I was still pissed off.

I like the movie more as time went by. I bought it and the collector's edition. But I wasn't real thrilled when I saw it in theaters.

I like to have characters entertain me. They can't entertain me if they're dead. Sure, you can kill off a main character to get a specific emotion. But then that character is done. If the character lives, you can keep getting emotions with that character over and over again.

Someone said that the deaths shouldn't have come as a suprise to Joss fans. Well, I probably couldn't be called a Joss fan. I actually am not interested in Buffy or Angel at all. I have never been a fan of those shows. It was Firefly that brought me in and made me aware of Joss. So, the deaths of main characters came as a huge shock to me.

Yeah, happy endings are a little cheesy maybe. But that's what entertainment is to me. I want to leave feeling good. There's too much unhappiness in the real world. I don't want to leave a movie feeling miserable, regaurdless of how "real" and "emotional" it was. Bad things must happen. Conflict is what makes drama. But I do believe there is a line that can be crossed that makes a film go from intense to depressing.

Again, just my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:31 AM

YELLOWJACKET

In addition to being shot at by reavers, Inara got repeatedly punched by the operative and thrown against a wall.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:35 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?
When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.

Quote:
Yeah, let's all watch Alan Tudyk in Dodge Ball, 'cause that's EXACTLY like watching Alan Tudyk in Firefly/Serenity
And you might have noted the happy face I put on the end of that line. I know the idea is ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous to take it so personally when a writer who created a character decides that character's fate. As if the viewer owns the character more than the writer. Uh-huh.

Guess the irony of my post was too nebulous for some to figure. (Yes, I'm condescending again. So shoot me. If you can aim high enough. My pedestal is quite towering. )

Ouch - that last part hurt...especially since I flatter myself as being a pretty ironic individual...on several levels. BUT, that's not why I tuned in - this is: I APOLOGIZE! Sincerely. My remarks and tone were both uncalled for - must've got confused and thought I was lurking in the RWED or something. I guess the remark about Alan in Dodge Ball struck me in much the same way as it did PENNAMIKEUSA (didn't have my irony filter on), though the entity designated PENNAUSAMIKE clearly doesn't need me to champion his/her causes. Sorry for gettin' all surly.

It was like an alive Wash was STILL better than a dead Wash when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:13 PM

HOBOFRED

My problem with the whole idea of Wash and Book being dead and all is that while no, we can definatly not count Joss Whedon painted into a corner, it paints Firefly into a corner if they are to remain dead. Firefly was never about the verse (though I believe Serenity was), nor was it ever about the characters on their own. Firefly was about the crew, how they dealt with each other. The crew was never 9 people (speaking in a truly metaphorical sense here) the crew was one big person, it had its different personalities in the different characters, and while yes, we can count on there being tragedy, The crew without 2 of the 9 personalities that create the crew, simply isn't the crew, and firefly isn't firefly without the crew, cos after all, thats what firefly was.

Feel free to tear apart my logic, im not expecting and sort of feedback, do your worste, just putting in my idea of how Joss should play this one out.

Oh hey guys, thanks for welcoming me to the community, just realised after that big rant that this is my first post here! haha! HELLO!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 8:38 AM

FIREFLY151

Does everyone realise that, if Firefly does return or another movie is made, some actors might not be in it. This means not only will we be without Wash and Book, but those characters too.

I've read posts quoting positive comments from some cast members, but can we truly expect the lot to return.

Perhaps Joss Whedon will make a TV show set in the firefly world, but with diff characters? Of course, I'd prefer Serenity back myself and our favourite space crew. So, anyhow, if it does return, there would have to be new characters..
Maybe I should start a new thread...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 1, 2008 9:16 AM

KIMURI42

When it comes to corners, Joss has a portal gun. And not a cheap, plastic portal gun, the real, metal, it-gets-it-right gun.

Also, Firefly's cake is REAL!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 1, 2008 10:03 AM

KATESFRIEND

I've enjoyed this thread very much, and there's some wonderful ideas here. I don't realy think Joss painted himself into a corner because he could easily run quite a show on the characters that are left. In the early development of the show, I think I read somewhere that he originally only planned on 5 characters. And think on the episodes where Book was conveniently left at an abbey somewhere because there wasn't much for his character to do in that episode. Or one of the characters had very few lines. And if I heard Nathan's comments right at Comicon, he said to Joss that since Joss had already gotten rid of the characters he didn't like to write for, Nathan was in for the sequel. I never underestimate creativity when it's backed into a corner. It has ways of coming up with amazing solutions - kind of like evolution in process. Maybe Joss has plans to bring in new characters already for the next project - in whatever form it takes. I'm in for the ride.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 1, 2008 11:25 AM

CHARLIEBZ

I agree with you, Katesfriend. Maybe some other writer would have trouble with the scenario he/she created but not Joss. It hurts seeing two wonderful characters disappear from this 'verse but I have the utmost confidence that if Firefly returns, in whatever format, Joss can move forward.

I also don't think Wash could ever return in any other form. Cloning, the Alliance saving him, at the last minute, whatever - that wouldn't be Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 1, 2008 12:10 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by CharlieBZ:

I also don't think Wash could ever return in any other form. Cloning, the Alliance saving him, at the last minute, whatever - that wouldn't be Firefly.

Mal was revived from "dead" in Niska's torture room.
But the ALL-TIME-WINNER?

Has to be Dobson,
He got shot in the head with a pistol that Mal used to
DROP A HORSE IN IT'S TRACKS!
And Joss brought him back in the comic book.

So it's not too un-Firefly/Whedonesque to bring
Wash back!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 1, 2008 12:55 PM

CHARLIEBZ

Massive stake or whatever that was through the chest? Plus, there's that funeral thing - I don't think Zoe would have gone through that without some remains. She would have noticed if his body came up missing.

I think it's different than the Dobson or Mal scenario. Mal's was more for dramatic effect. Let's all get together and rescue the captain. Next shot, yep he's dead. And Dobson, he was shot and then tossed out the ship - no emotional impact for me.

But Wash, it would feel really cheap if they miraculously brought him back. I guess I'm not as attached to Wash as others because I watched the movie in the middle of watching the series so I conditioned myself not to get too attached to him or Book.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE