Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
This should answer your question.

Select to view spoiler:

---

Dobson didn't die.

---

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
This should answer your question.

Select to view spoiler:

---

Dobson didn't die.

---

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

---

BUGGER! Really. When was that said? I missed it entirely

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
This should answer your question.

Select to view spoiler:

---

Dobson didn't die.

---

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

In the first comic series, "Those Left Behind."

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.

Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).

Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
My point.

And so was Dobson dead at the end of Serenity (pilot).

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.

Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).

Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.

---

I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.

I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.

Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).

Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.

---

I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.

I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.

---

I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by two:
I've heard Firefly called the Anti-Star Trek, but I believe Joss Whedon could learn storytelling tricks from Gene Roddenberry. There has to be reasons, which Joss Whedon can control, why Star Trek movies and TV were big commercial successes while Serenity and Firefly were not.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
I'd also note that I'm surprised ya'll are trying to hold a spoiler-free discussion about a franchise that is 5 to 8 years old.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I have a question.

During Firefly, was there ever mention of an investigation for finding Lawrence Dubson's body and or his killers after the initial episode - I can't quite remember? And when the crew are questioned during Bushwacked by the Alliance officer should there not have been mention that the last known where abouts of Agent Dobson was aboard a Firefly class ship....?

Even in the film when the Operative views Mal's files -should his name not have lit up all sorts of lights saying 'possible involvement in the death of a federal agent!' or sume such?

Just wondering....?

---

Quote:

---

ow does Serenity outrun The Alliance ship(s) after KayLee is shot? It's a slow ancient transport ship. They knew during the Salvage job for Badger, that they needed the decoys deployed in order fort he Alliance to choose to not chase them. Whenever they go up against the Alliance directly, they need the decoys or other tricks. Cry Baby, Pulse Beacon, multiple Nav Beacons, they know they cannot outrun Alliance ships in their 14-year-old medium cargo ship.
When Simon directs they rabbit after kayLee is shot, they have no props pre-set, so how do they evade the Alliance.
Anybody know?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.

Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).

Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.

---

I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.

I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.

---

I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?

---

Well, as you yourself mentioned, it ratcheted up the tension and the stakes, making the final act of the film much more intense than it would have been if they all got away.

Which is good storytelling - making the most out of the story at hand, bringing the greatest emotional punch. It's not just about giving everyone a happy ending so that no one goes away sad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.
Now that I find that investing audiences in his characters,
then randomly killing them is a Joss trademark,
I find myself increasingly less interested in Joss' work.

The fact that Joss would approve bringing back a NON-character like Dobson,
but kill a meaningful character like Wash;
is nonsensical to my storytelling sensibilities.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Well, that's great for you. But when I saw it, I did know the characters already, and his death did greatly increase the tension.

Maybe you would have thought they were in just as much danger had no one been hurt, but I don't. What you say is cheap and artificial, I saw as necessary.

---

Quote:

---

When I first saw the movie, having never seen Firefly, Wash's death didn't really register beyond, "what a waste".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

And your use of words like "betrayed" is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about with the hurt feelings comment. What you see as "random" I see as very deliberate and calculated - and feel that the writing on display reflects this.

---

Quote:

---

After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.

---

Quote:

---

...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.

I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.

While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".

I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pennausamike:
...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.

I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.

While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".

I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The poor box office need not ncessarily be down to this either (and I realise you mention it as a contributing factor and that may well be) but one of the highest grossing films of all time (TITANIC) didn't have a happy ending.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Therefore you have to produce the work in an honset way and from the heart. And I believe that's exactly what Joss does. Can you really ask for more from an artist?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel. Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.

---

Quote:

---

I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
And when the crew are questioned during Bushwacked by the Alliance officer should there not have been mention that the last known where abouts of Agent Dobson was aboard a Firefly class ship....?

---

Quote:

---

"is he really going to kill them all?".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

"is he really going to kill them all?".

---

There's no way he would have killed all the crew; the point of the movie was sending out a big damn hail mary.

If Firefly/Serenity were a dystopian drama, If Joss were the Orwellian type, maybe it would have ended that way, with the Operative crushing the recording file underfoot without ever looking at it. That's called a "Shoot the Shaggy Dog Story," where nothing is accomplished and the futility of the efforts of the main characters is emphasized. In Orwellian stories, this works, because the message is "these people are scary, don't let them take power."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootTheShaggyDog

Despite a penchant for killing off his characters, Joss is not this writer. Joss believes these people HAVE taken power, the endings he writes are "hey! wake up! It's still possible to win!" He finished Angel and Buffy by STOPPING The End Of The World As We Know It, not having it happen anyway. This is the series he loved that broke his heart, the story he would tell if he got a chance to. For an ending, he's not going to be going for the message "nothing in this story mattered."

I admit that Book's death would not be sufficient to raise concerns that everyone might die. Too much of a time gap between that and the end battle.

Although... Heh. You're right. One death is a cop-out. But maybe two is a cop-out too, if the purpose is to ratchet up tension. Desensitization of the audience and darkness induced apathy. There's a losing battle if I saw one. This is a trope that seriously needs to be deconstructed, and soon, for the sake of storytelling everywhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I can accept Book's death if only because within the context of the movie, it worked, and there was a story-related reason for it. He gives Mal the push to do what needs doing.

---

Quote:

---

Why isn't Joss that type of writer? He already "broke the rules" apparently by killing established characters and not providing a happy ending. I think Joss is very capable of giving us the emotional story that he decides to give us.

---

Quote:

---

We're just totally different people then. Book's death was annoying because he got to put in his last words. It was scripted garbage that stands out like a sore thumb. Wash just died. He didn't get to say goodbye. Zoe didn't get time to cry out in pain. It was shocking and more realistic.

Joss's works are interesting to me for just that reason. He doesn't follow the predictable plot lines we've seen over and over again. Even when I expect the story to be going a certain direction I'm often surprised by the twists and turns. That's entertaining to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The term you're looking for is "bittersweet victory," which is what Serenity ends up being, and is what Joss writes. (Which itself is not exactly "breaking the rules" but pretty much expected nowadays, really. Lucky for us, tropes are not bad)

He doesn't write downer endings where everyone dies. YET. >_>

<_<

Let's hope he doesn't read this thread and get IDEAS. XD

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

But yes, I also think Joss is more than capable of bringing the emotional pain, which is why I was disappointed by Wash's death. To me, the death fell flat. However, I still trust him because of his previous successes in the emotional arena, and I believe that he can and will do a good job with the rest of Firefly/Serenity. Plenty more tearjerkers and schadenfreude to come.

Quote:

---

We're just totally different people then. Book's death was annoying because he got to put in his last words. It was scripted garbage that stands out like a sore thumb. Wash just died. He didn't get to say goodbye. Zoe didn't get time to cry out in pain. It was shocking and more realistic.

Joss's works are interesting to me for just that reason. He doesn't follow the predictable plot lines we've seen over and over again. Even when I expect the story to be going a certain direction I'm often surprised by the twists and turns. That's entertaining to me.

---

No, you're still mischaracterizing me. I like unpredictable as well. When Saffron was first introduced in OMR, I was playing a game with someone online, and stopping to watch a few minutes, and pausing Firefly to go back to my game and exclaim in delight when each new twist happened. Saffron becoming the Red Sonja was BRILLIANCE and I loved it, never saw it coming. The morning after the wedding had me in tears I was laughing so hard.

Unfortunately, killing people for shock value, despite causing shock, is not new, edgy, or unpredictable in a storytelling sense.

What I don't like is flawed storytelling. Killing Wash was flawed storytelling, IMO.

---

Quote:

---

And how can something be shocking and predictable other than getting an actual electric shock that is planned?

---

Quote:

---

Why do people keep saying it was a "random" death when it happens as part of a huge extended chase/action scene. Seriously, whould they have put out a memo first?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Also that the battlelines are being drawn with the true Joss fans amassing to attack the evil heretic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
We are not discussing Joss Whedon's skill, he clearly has it, and I, at least, am not arguing that Joss Whedon should compromise his artistic vision and principles by being less angsty. I am discussing specifically whether Wash's death at this point was useful in terms of the storyline. Seeing as Joss Whedon has indirectly indicated he would like to keep writing stories where Wash is still around... *shrug* It doesn't seem like it to me.

---