Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

It's Joss - of course there would have been a high body count.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Hey Storymark.

Kaylee is the Willow type character and I thought about that, but Joss used Fred in a similar way in Angel and had her killed off. Plus while it was only a one off, he also killed off Felicia Day's character in Dr Horrible... So he's quite able to kill off a beloved character. Whether Kaylee is quite on the same standing as Willow in terms of a loved character or not I couldn't say.... Personally by season five of Buffy I'd have been quite unmoved had Willow been killed. In fact I may even have cheered.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

It's Joss - of course there would have been a high body count.

---

As is, the body count was high enough- more and I might have been too turned off to continue wanting to care.
Just sayin'.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
As is, the body count was high enough- more and I might have been too turned off to continue wanting to care.
Just sayin'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No one dies.

Everyone lives happily ever after

Big, friendly meals around the dinner table every night.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No one dies.

Everyone lives happily ever after

Big, friendly meals around the dinner table every night.

---

That's too far the other way. Me- I'm thinkin' a place in the middle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No one dies.

Everyone lives happily ever after

Big, friendly meals around the dinner table every night.

---

That's too far the other way. Me- I'm thinkin' a place in the middle.

---

Great. Now I'm wide awake, chained up in a box, at the bottom of the cold ocean.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Angel?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
The body count was already too high.
I'm rarely entertained by writers who have to kill beloved characters to make a point.
It is a cheap shot for the writer to tell his audience, "Look at me! I can kill 'em all!"

The better writer can carry his characters through troubles without seeming cliche or trite.

I don't care for Joss' prediliction for killing characters; totally ruined Dr. Horrible for me.
I wanted to see Dr. Horrible turn his "evil" against phony do-gooders, not see a light-hearted romp turned into a THUD! morality tale.

Killing off beloved characters in light-hearted action tales:
It's not clever,
it's not insightful or enlightening,
it's not commercial.
It satisfies a niche audience at the cost of greater acceptance.

Firefly appealed to a larger audience than the BDM Serenity, in part because its sensibilities were lighter at the behest of FOX.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
There's some who think that everything after Out of Gas might just be Mal's dying dream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by two:
Stop with the crazy theories inspired by Inception. They hurt my brain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LAUREN779:

SNIP
However, personally, one of the things I thought made Firefly great was the cast and the chemistry they all had.
SNIP

---

Quote:

---

I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.

---

Quote:

---

No one every dying makes things a bit too pat and unbelievable. Scorching the Earth is too harsh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LAUREN779:

SNIP
However, personally, one of the things I thought made Firefly great was the cast and the chemistry they all had.
SNIP

---

This point by LAUREN779 is the crux of the whole issue.
The interactions of the crew,
the contrasts of their personalities and motivations,
the clever back-and-forth of their dialog,
the chemistry of the actors playing their roles
are what made Firefly great.
At no point does killing the characters make that better,
unless you're trying to make "Terms of Endearment".

Another poster wrote:

Quote:

---

I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.

---

The story doesn't "warrant" anything.
The story is a blank slate until the writer writes it.
Maybe "Cheers" would have been better off if they had killed a character off now and then.
Or maybe "Gunsmoke" coulda killed off Marshal Dillion so we could have seen how Miss Kitty would have run things...
Naw, I call BS.
Those shows lasted FOREVER because viewers tuned in to see characters they loved,
not to see who the creators would "kill off".

Quote:

---

No one every dying makes things a bit too pat and unbelievable. Scorching the Earth is too harsh.

---

While I recognize there are people who find entertainment in stories ABOUT killing people
(like the SAW movies or suspense flicks)
that's not what drove Firefly.
Firefly was episodic TV.
There were elements of Firefly that were already unbelievable,
(like the fact that they weren't hauled in after the Ariel heist, where they were undoubtedly on every security camera in the place!)
but we bought into the Firefly 'verse out of love for the characters.

Killing those beloved characters doesn't make Firefly more real OR better,
only...less...

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by khambilo:
I hate to say it, but I agree on the point with Book possibly being the big bad of the show. But with the premature cancellation of Firefly, Joss got to play this storyline out in Dollhouse with Boyd. So if any more new material is ever released on the progression of Book, I doubt it would point to him being the secret evil any more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:


A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:


So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:


Another poster wrote:

Quote:

---

I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.

---

The story doesn't "warrant" anything.
The story is a blank slate until the writer writes it.

---

Quote:

---

Killing those beloved characters doesn't make Firefly more real OR better,
only...less...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:


A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.

---

Matter of opinion. Simon always bored me, and was the one character I was actually kinda hoping would die in Serenity.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

---

Quote:

---

A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off. The Wesley comparison is a valid one. Throughout the series, Mal makes the important decisions, but Simon often makes the hard ones. That dichotomy should buy Simon his survival. Further, if we look at the crew as a family with Mal as the father, Simon is often the rebel son. His arc, I think would have been to "grow up" and leave the ship at some point, possibly to become a captain in his own right or go on to do something great. If executed successfully, that would allow both River and Simon to grow significantly as characters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
SNIP
just sounds a bit simplistic
Asinine comparison
Yes, lets ignore
that's not even remotely true
Such a facile generalization.
Wait... Nevermind, fanatics don't take kindly to reason....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:


In "Crystals" (or is it "Shards"?), River tells Inara that she has two questions, and that the answer to one--and only one--of them is "yes." I believe Inara places a "face" on each question, one being hers, the other Mal's.

Although the questions are never asked, the context, to me at least, implies that they are along the lines of:

1) Will Inara have a relationship with Mal?
2) Will Inara live a long life/Survive her illness?

So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.

Although open to interpretation, this short story jibes with the idea that Inara is dying.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:


A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.

---

Matter of opinion. Simon always bored me, and was the one character I was actually kinda hoping would die in Serenity.

---

Yes, it's a matter of opinion. That's part of why I prefaced it with "I think..."

Your point is?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
SNIP
just sounds a bit simplistic
Asinine comparison
Yes, lets ignore
that's not even remotely true
Such a facile generalization.
Wait... Nevermind, fanatics don't take kindly to reason....

---

DUDE!
I'm just posting what I look for in escapist entertainment.
I appreciate that others don't feel the same way.

Your response to my post was like something out of the Real World Discussions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Aside from the "rebel son" thing, I don't see this at all.

Simon's main issue during the series is that he has split loyalty between the crew and his sister. And the decisions he makes, including the initial decision that's gotten him in hot water, is not so much hard or easy but rather "what benefits River?"

---

Quote:

---

Simon's secret wish to return to the life he left behind is his character flaw at the time of the series, and so if he were to have an arc I'd say it's letting go of those selfish desires he's buried deep down. This makes Simon a better caretaker to River, and also leads either to Simon eventually coming to accept the life he's found himself in, or might eventually lead Simon to become more generally heroic (not just to River).

---

Quote:

---

Simon isn't actually male lead material in his own right, this isn't a verse that's friendly to idealistic doctor healing types, it's a verse where you have to fight to keep from losing what little you have.

---

Quote:

---

A Wesley character is a scrappy character. Simon wasn't heading for Mary Sue territory.

---

Quote:

---

Your Book and Mal scenario would also suggest that for the rebellious son to rise up against the father, they would have to kill the father Despite Mal's ethically questionable decision to use River in a bank heist in the movie, and the fallout with Simon over it, I don't forsee Simon killing Mal to protect River, as Mal would have to kill Book to protect River/crew.

---

Quote:

---

None of Simon's decisions are hard? Simon gives up his cushy life for the HOPE that he can help his sister in some way. He choses to join the crew of a ship where he obviously doesn't fit in, again, because it is the only place that his sister might be able to get by.

---

Quote:

---

And when has Simon ever NOT been doing that?!?

Simon is CONSTANTLY fighting that fight... and I think that's the thing that makes him "more heroic" than someone like Mal or Jayne (and potentially "male lead material" in a philosophical sense).

---

Quote:

---

Consider "Objects in Space": When Mal confronts Jubal, he's got the upper hand and has ambushed him, thanks to a plan that someone else came up with. But when Simon confronts him, he's in a clearly inferior position and is very likely to lose--but he risks his life anyway because it's the right thing to do and it's what he NEEDS to do to protect his family (literally, River, but also the crew as a whole).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
From this we can infer that if Inara lives, she will get to be with Mal, as Inara dying makes her not being with Mal a foregone conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oops, wrong Wesley.

Quote:

---

None of Simon's decisions are hard? Simon gives up his cushy life for the HOPE that he can help his sister in some way. He choses to join the crew of a ship where he obviously doesn't fit in, again, because it is the only place that his sister might be able to get by.

---

You misunderstand. Simon's choices aren't defined by how hard they are, he makes both hard and easy choices. But what they ARE defined by is what benefits River.

Quote:

---

And when has Simon ever NOT been doing that?!?

Simon is CONSTANTLY fighting that fight... and I think that's the thing that makes him "more heroic" than someone like Mal or Jayne (and potentially "male lead material" in a philosophical sense).

---

He has, and this is something that consistently defines the struggles of ALL the members of the crew. But Simon has significant disadvantages if you're considering him for being in the male lead role.

Quote:

---

Consider "Objects in Space": When Mal confronts Jubal, he's got the upper hand and has ambushed him, thanks to a plan that someone else came up with. But when Simon confronts him, he's in a clearly inferior position and is very likely to lose--but he risks his life anyway because it's the right thing to do and it's what he NEEDS to do to protect his family (literally, River, but also the crew as a whole).

Which is, on the balance, the more heroic, and the harder choice?

---

Yet Simon simply is not the one who defeats the big bads, nor is he ever in the position to do so. Mal is the hero of the story. I understand you like and identify with Simon, but making Simon focus and hero of the story is a stretch and quite clearly not the point of the story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
You misunderstand. Simon's choices aren't defined by how hard they are, he makes both hard and easy choices. But what they ARE defined by is what benefits River.

---

Quote:

---

He has, and this is something that consistently defines the struggles of ALL the members of the crew. But Simon has significant disadvantages if you're considering him for being in the male lead role.

---

Quote:

---

Yet Simon simply is not the one who defeats the big bads, nor is he ever in the position to do so. Mal is the hero of the story.

---

Quote:

---

I understand you like and identify with Simon, but making Simon focus and hero of the story is a stretch and quite clearly not the point of the story.

---