Okay, we did this before, but let's do it again. by chrisisall

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Okay, we did this before, but let's do it again.

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Sunday, February 21, 2010 14:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6137
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:53 PM

When Mal shot the surrendering guy on Haven, was it justified? Did they have time to take & care for a prisoner?
Was the guy, even if he was just a tech dude on the ship that killed everyone on Haven, deserving of being waxed?
Was he (the surrendering fella) taking his chances? Did he know the score?
Was Mal a force of nature then?
Was Mal wrong?
Was he evil?

Thoughts?

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:05 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Was it "justified"? Maybe not. But that ship had just killed one of Mal's crew, even if he was no longer part of Mal's crew. So he acted out of vengeance and blind fury. And no jury in the 'verse would convict him, unless it were packed with Alliance scum. :)

So yes, Mal was a force of nature, quite possibly wrong, and not at all evil.

Dong ma?

We shiny now?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:09 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Dong ma?

Shi.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, February 19, 2010 6:14 PM

TRAVELER

Surrendering after killing women children can be rather stupid. I would say Mal was temporarily insane with the scene before him.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

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

Friday, February 19, 2010 6:39 PM

KATESFRIEND

I agree with the temporary insanity. In the pilot Serenity, Mal clearly tells Simon that if he were ever to shoot him, he would be awake, armed and facing Mal. To shoot an unarmed man was unethical at the time in Firefly, but in Serenity, Mal does it three times, maybe for Joss to show how desperate their situation had become. If that is so, you would have to know Mal's moral high ground in Firefly to know how far he had sunk in Serenity. And also to contribute to the moral conundrum that is Mal.

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

Friday, February 19, 2010 8:39 PM

BYTEMITE

I've always thought that the promise Mal makes to Simon is mostly because Mal has determined Simon is not a threat, and not a liability so long as no one waves at the Feds and says 'Hi! Fugitives here!"

I don't think, morally, it was right, no, but it was practical. Of course, at that point, practicality was the last thing on Mal's mind. But that doesn't really justify it either. And that's the point. Mal is over the line in that entire scene.

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

Friday, February 19, 2010 9:54 PM

PLAINJAYNE

I'd have splattered his ass, too. He stuck his head up out of a ship that just killed everybody in the settlement. No better than a Reaver. He was lucky he got dropped on the first shot.

Mal did the right thing, given the situation. No evil. No force of nature. Just a human being trying to survive in a brutal, nasty world.

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 12:28 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
When Mal shot the surrendering guy on Haven, was it justified?

He didn't exactly surrender though. He poked his head out and had his arms up but I heard nothing about ' I surrender'. It was justified as they weren't at war. I think one of the terms of war is that you take prisoners if they surrender but this wasn't war. So those rules don't apply...

Quote:
Did they have time to take & care for a prisoner?

I'm sure they could have locked him up somewhere aboard SERENITY - but chances are it would have slowed them up.

Quote:
Was the guy, even if he was just a tech dude on the ship that killed everyone on Haven, deserving of being waxed?

Yes. As to who had the right to wax him that's a different story.

Quote:
Was he (the surrendering fella) taking his chances? Did he know the score?

He knew the score and most likely bent them aswell. We'll never know but I'm pretty sure some of those dead folk would not have put up a fight when it came to them, so chances are the guy & co went on a massacre.

Quote:
Was Mal a force of nature then?

Yep.

Quote:
Was Mal wrong?

Yep - but sometimes being right aint all that. This is one of those times.

Quote:
Was he evil?

Nope.

Quote:
Thoughts?

I've had a few..... :D

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 1:53 AM

SIMONWHO

If you slaughter a bunch of unarmed men, women and children, you've lost any moral rights. Mal just finished what Book started and I doubt he'd lose a moment's peace about it.

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 5:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Book had just been murdered.

So had all of those civilians.

Having volunteered for the war, more than one tour, I'm guessing Mal had seen something like this before, from the Alliance.

He wasn't in the mood to 'talk'.

Also, it was a pretty good shot Mal got off w/ his pistol, huh?

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first.

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:11 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Simon loudly opposed Mal's plan to decorate Serenity with corpses. Mal knows Simon wants to care for the wounded. That's a weak excuse to not help rope together the dead. Mal's bullet took away that excuse. This is Mal's kind of fast and effective leadership.

It is very clear in the movie that murdering the enemy's wounded is nothing for Mal. If Mal heard anyone at fireflyfans.net talk about forgiveness and redemption and justified homicide, he'd tell you, "I don't need you nit-picking my past. Get off my boat before I shoot you, too." If you disapproved of this killing, he'd be less polite.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:25 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by PlainJayne:
I'd have splattered his ass, too. He stuck his head up out of a ship that just killed everybody in the settlement. No better than a Reaver. He was lucky he got dropped on the first shot.

That sums up my my feelings on the matter.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:46 AM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

I'll go against the grain here. The man was unarmed and surrendering. That's a d-bag move, doesn't matter how you choose to rationalize it.

Not saying I would or would not have done the same thing (seeing as how the guy in question had just bombed out a settlement...but then again who knows what info his superiors gave him about why he was attacking), I'm just saying.

Mal's NOT a nice guy. He has good qualities, obv., and inner goodness, but the movie was supposed to show us how dark and in some ways fundamentally broken he is as a man - and how he finds himself again. Mal's redemption doesn't come until later.

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:33 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by fearthebunnyman:
That's a d-bag move, doesn't matter how you choose to rationalize it.

No, it was an understandably human move, the d-bag move was burning down innocents at Haven.

Quote:

then again who knows what info his superiors gave him about why he was attacking

In that case he was in the game & anything could happen. Play & be played. Work for d-bags & one might be killed like one.
The cooks & electricians on the Death Star took similar chances.
Just sayin'.

ETA:

Quote:
the movie was supposed to show us how dark and in some ways fundamentally broken he is as a man

Yes, and were I Mal, that action would not be one I was proud of, nor anything I'd particularly even want to remember, but I'd easily forgive myself under the circumstances.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:44 AM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
No, it was an understandably human move

Yes, and sometimes humans are d-bags. Such as in this instance.

Quote:
In that case he was in the game & anything could happen. Play & be played. Work for d-bags & one might be killed like one.
The cooks & electricians on the Death Star took similar chances.

Ha! nice Clerks ref. But everyone thinks they're righteous (or at least neutral), or they wouldn't be there to begin with.

Quote:
Yes, and were I Mal, that action would not be one I was proud of, nor anything I'd particularly even want to remember, but I'd easily forgive myself under the circumstances.

Ditto here.

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:52 AM

TRAVELER

I remember the debate in "Saving Private Ryan" about a prisoner they could not afford to deal with. They let him go. In the end the German soldier shows up again and is dispatched when he foolishly calls out to them.

And in "The Victors" a squad of British soldiers did not except the surrender of some Germans. They shot at them and drove them back into their bunker, where they blew it up with all inside. Meanwhile a squad from the United States Army watched in disbelief.

I have spoken to veterans of WWII and Korea and the idea of high morals is lost very early. None were ashamed of what they had done. I have seen docimentaries that have combatants admit their deeds in front of a camera. Killing becomes a way of life.

Mal was a veteran and probably saw and done worse.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:06 AM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

It's a sad truth that that environment brings out the worst in people. Coming from a military family myself however (and the fact I'm surrounded by military folks everyday at my work) this isn't true of everyone. But Mal's been through some heavy shiat, and is going thru a pretty nutty time during the movie, so his better self is taking a beating. I find him a lot more compelling in the film than in the series, for that reason (although to be fair, I think Nathan's generally better with portraying the charm.)

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:28 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by fearthebunnyman:
I find him a lot more compelling in the film than in the series, for that reason

Me too. Cracked at the beginning, starting to shatter later on, yet able to pull the pieces together by the end.
There are sometimes tears.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:52 PM

OPPYH

Mal is a cocky bastard, and will do whatever he damn well pleases.
The Browncoats lost. The Alliance are evil. Mal knows this. There is no gray area on this one, either your a Browncoat(liberty, freedom) or Alliance(obey or die). Was Mal in the wrong? Absolutely frikkin no way in Hell was he even close to being wrong.

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010 4:58 PM

ANOTHERSKY

Mal usually has a "lighter shade of gray" in the shooting people department, so this scene definitely gets people's attention--it's the start of gearing up for the finale.

The two no-hesitation instances I can remember that are important plot points are Dobson (Fed agent in the pilot) and this one.

Dobson had crossed the episode's moral event horizon so far he was coming back again (battering an unconcious Shepard, threatening a laid-out Kaylee, and kidnapping River with a gun to her head--let alone seriously waving that gun at the ship's only doctor). It was justification for the audience. Mal don't take well to hitting people when they're down.

He does have a taste for revenge.

I thought that shooting the surrendering Fed in the movie was a kind of bookend to this thought, and a reminder of Serenity Valley--who is more "down" in the scenario in Mal's mind? Who has more "right" to live? Practically, they didn't have time or energy for prisoners.

Again, it becomes justification(sort of), but we're not happy either. Having all the crew there for reaction doubles it: "Want to see the real me now?"

Mostly what it said to me is that things have started to go very far south.

__

Going for a ride.

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

Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:47 PM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by Katesfriend:
Mal clearly tells Simon that if he were ever to shoot him, he would be awake, armed and facing Mal.

Well, the Alliance guy was awake, and facing Mal.

Two out of three ain't bad!

Plus, (a) Simon is on Mal's crew and (b) Mal has a fair amount of respect for Simon (so much that Simon has got away with punching him twice without being told to get out and walk mid flight).

Quote:

To shoot an unarmed man was unethical at the time in Firefly

Yep. Unarmed men got kicked into the engine intake instead.

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

Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:58 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:

Yep. Unarmed men got kicked into the engine intake instead.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE