I was a HUGE fan of Firefly until last night's episode... by FireflyClassAct

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

I was a HUGE fan of Firefly until last night's episode...

POSTED BY: FIREFLYCLASSACT
UPDATED: Thursday, December 12, 2002 17:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16030
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, December 7, 2002 5:59 AM

...and now I won't be watching the show again.

The scenes of torture and that guy taking a knife to the Captain's ear was really over the line.

I watch shows to be entertained. Watching helpless people being tortured and cut on is not entertainment to me.

Really a shame that Firefly had to get that far down in the gutter.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:15 AM

ALLRONIX

I've discussed this a lot on fanfic boards when the subject of torture-fic comes up. It was almost too much for me to stomach, too - but for a vastly different reason.

Being a writer, you sometimes have to look for aspects of human nature that are revolting. You have to find things in yourself that are revolting. And there is no luxury of running - not if you want to get the story out.

It seems as if the writer wanted to take these characters to the end of the line - the furthest they can go. Add a villian who is a sadistic creep...the only "in-character" option for that villian was to go full-out. VERY unpleasant, and I'm glad that these folks did not white-wash or gloss over the subject, both of which are too easy to do.

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:27 AM

YEAHITSME

Ah come on! First the 23423423 complains about the "lesbian scene" by people who think it was gratuitous porn on the fox.com board and now this? Come on people why do you have to be offended so easily this isn't a show about flower and little baby rabbit who learn to share with his friends dammit if you want to see that kind of programmation go watch the Disney channel. This is a show about life and those thing happens in real life so if you want to continue to live in your beautiful world with no violence and no sex don't watch tv cause most TV shows are inspired by THE REAL WORLD where everything isn't always beautiful and happy all the time!

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:28 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

While it was extreme, it wasn't gorey. The part where Mal's ear is cut off is out of focus. It's not as if the showed us a close up of them pulling out his intestines or anything. I personally thought the scene was tastefully done.

________________

Well, you were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:31 AM

XERIAR

Considering what torture typically entails,
'War Games' was pretty tame. If you thought that
was disturbing, mayhap you should check out some of
the marvelous innovations of the Inquisition.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:36 AM

ESME

If you can't take the intensity, then go watch Friends, or some other milky drivel.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:55 AM

FIREFLYCLASSACT

It was a real shocker for a show that started off as pleasant as "Star Trek: The Next Generation" to *linger* over torture.

It would have been one thing for the camera to show both men tied up and then cut away and hear them scream,,, but it's quite another for the camera to stay on them while they writhe in pain.

The show went from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" to "The Godfather" in 2 minutes.

Again, I don't want to watch that crap!

...and to the person who who suggested that the Inquisition was worse,, I'm sure that and many other events were. No debate. I don't want to watch that either in the guise of *entertainment*.

Sad. The show permanently lost my family.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:16 AM

SNOWSPINNER

The gritty torture sequence is pretty much a Joss Whedon trademark... he doesn't cut the camera away from almost anything, in favor of holding the camera (Or the plot) on something until it gets its full effect. It was a little unusual that we got to see the weird "Show me your true self" thing actually enter Mal's body, instead of the usual shot, where we see the character's face, and know that horrible torture is going on below the camera shot (c.f. this week's Buffy, and also the Holtz/Angelus torture sequences from Angel last year).

I'm not really sure how they could have done the plot without showing the Mal/Walsh torture sequence the way that they did. A crucial aspect of the story was what Mal did to keep Walsh from cracking, and the way that Mal did this. You couldn't have taken that scene down in any way without losing the entire story.

Was it grusome? Yes. But Firefly is a drama, not a comedy. Dramas show unpleasant and depressing things sometimes. Are you going to turn off Othello because of the drawn out smothering scene? Is Oedipus out because you have to watch him walk around with his eyes gouged out? Are you going to turn off the Godfather because of Sonny's murder scene?

Actually, wait, you seem to have answered that already - you would turn off the Godfather in favor of a light and fluffy sci-fi show.

Truth be told, you probably weren't gonna be the liking a Joss Whedon show much in the first place then.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:23 AM

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
I'm not really sure how they could have done the plot without showing the Mal/Walsh torture sequence the way that they did. A crucial aspect of the story was what Mal did to keep Walsh from cracking, and the way that Mal did this. You couldn't have taken that scene down in any way without losing the entire story.

That scene was not *crucial* to the plot of the show.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
Was it grusome? Yes. But Firefly is a drama, not a comedy. Dramas show unpleasant and depressing things sometimes.

...and I haven't complained one time about other unpleasant issues that were shown.

The issue here is not whether to show unpleasant things; but the **degree**.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
Truth be told, you probably weren't gonna be the liking a Joss Whedon show much in the first place then.

...and that's not true either.

We watched and loved every single episode and have been huge supporters.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:28 AM

YEAHITSME

The show was about how far you can push a man by torturing him that's why they kept refering to the book. So YES the torture scenes were crucial in the story and not just some gratuitous violence...

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:35 AM

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Quote:
Originally posted by YeAhItSme:
The show was about how far you can push a man by torturing him that's why they kept refering to the book. So YES the torture scenes were crucial in the story and not just some gratuitous violence...

...so you have to show every second and not just imply it?

...and if plot lines are sometimes going to be, "...how far you can push a man by torturing him...", then this show really isn't for me.

Surely there are other plots more worthy. lol.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:40 AM

SNOWSPINNER

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
I'm not really sure how they could have done the plot without showing the Mal/Walsh torture sequence the way that they did. A crucial aspect of the story was what Mal did to keep Walsh from cracking, and the way that Mal did this. You couldn't have taken that scene down in any way without losing the entire story.

That scene was not *crucial* to the plot of the show.

That scene was the whole point of the show! The episode was, ultimately, about how Mal and Walsh overcome their differences and jealousies, (Which they both clearly had - keep in mind that Mal explodes at Walsh telling him that he didn't want Zoe to marry him before they find themselves in any torture) and gain respect for one another. Walsh gains respect for Mal because Mal goes to such lengths to keep him alive. Mal gains respect for Walsh because Walsh comes back to fight for him. Furthermore, Walsh comes back for Mal because of what happens in that torture sequence.

Cut out that scene, and much of the plot falls apart. Truth be told, I found the lesbianism scene far more gratuitous. It seemed needlessly sensationalistic, as though it wanted to bring all the gay-bashers out of the woodwork to provide free publicity for the show, and didn't seem to contribute at all to the plot.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
Was it grusome? Yes. But Firefly is a drama, not a comedy. Dramas show unpleasant and depressing things sometimes.

...and I haven't complained one time about other unpleasant issues that were shown.

The issue here is not whether to show unpleasant things; but the **degree**.

The degree was important. Again, for the plot to work, Walsh, and, more to the point, the audience had to understand the nature of Mal and Zoe's relationship. We had to see why what looks like it could be a sexual relationship from the outside is founded on something entirely different - Mal and Zoe have lived through this stuff over, and over, and over again. They have a huge number of shared war stories. And this creates a bond that isn't sexual, but is, instead, very deeply horrifying. It's a bond of trust, and of a shared experience.

Again, they couldn't simply exposit that, or even cut around it. We had to know the basis of Mal and Zoe's bond in a way that made it totally believable to us. You can't communicate a "war buddies" bond without showing what war is like. That was the point of Saving Private Ryan as well - it sought to explain why war veterans view war and each other the way they do - because of what war is really like. But you can't just suggest that war is bad. You have to show it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
Truth be told, you probably weren't gonna be the liking a Joss Whedon show much in the first place then.

...and that's not true either.

We watched and loved every single episode and have been huge supporters.

Do you watch Buffy or Angel? Whedon shows run the gamut. Every season of every one has at least one disturbing and somewhat graphic moment that is played to very, very thoroughly show you how screwed up characters or relationships are. Buffy last season had an entire episode (Dead Things) that existed to show how screwed up Buffy and Spike's relationship was. It did this by showing, repeatedly, very disturbing displays of sexuality. Buffy also had a truly grusome torture sequence, when Willow has a bullet slowly bore through Warren's body. The effect here? To show how depraved Willow had become. Angel had repeated scenes with Holtz to demonstrate that Holtz posessed no quality of mercy or kindness whatsoever, and one or two with Justine to demonstrate the same thing. And, most prominantly in Buffy, you have Angelus's murder of Jenny Calendar and subsequent mental torture of Giles, which was crucial to show us just how absolutely evil Angelus was.

Whedon shows do not shy away from graphic sequences when they need to demonstrate how horrible something is. It's one of their major strengths, honestly. The fact that you know, on a level that you could not possibly know if you were merely told "Angelus did bad things", or even off-handedly shown "Angelus murdered Jenny and left her in Giles' bed", that Angelus is irredeemably evil. Or that Mal and Zoe have a bond that exists well outside of any terms Walsh can think of.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:43 AM

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Quote:
Originally posted by YeAhItSme:
The show was about how far you can push a man by torturing him that's why they kept refering to the book. So YES the torture scenes were crucial in the story and not just some gratuitous violence...

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that the episode where everyone is off Serenity and the Captain is trying to fix the ship before he dies was easily one the best episodes I've seen in the last year. Easily. Really powerful!

From that to an episode about "...seeing how far a man can be pushed under torture" is just not worthy of the show imho.

The writers are obviously capable of a more superlative mark!

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:55 AM

XERIAR

Quote:

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that the
episode where everyone is off Serenity and the
Captain is trying to fix the show before he dies
was easily one the best episodes I've seen in the
last year. Easily. Really powerful!

You know, it's a bit odd. I thought 'War Games' was
the best, because it defined Zoe and Wash, for me,
while before that I thought they were weaker characters
overall. The electrocution scene was about Malcom
keeping Wash alive, awake and, if angry, sane, through
the process.

And I've seen much worse on national TV than ears
being cut off. Do Van Gogh reinactments and open
heart surgery also put you off?

Quote:

From that to an episode about "...seeing how far a man
can be pushed under torture" is just not worth of the
show imho.

It was about revenge. Revenge for Mal having Zoe
first, revenge for Malcom going back on the deal,
revenge against a truly despicable man who would
do such a thing to his 'employees'.

Torture, sex, drugs and crime happen, sometimes all
at once. I find it far, far worse, personally, to
hide these things, to pretend that they never
existed, and let the children of the world find all
this crap out for themselves. Usually in a bad way.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:56 AM

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
That scene was the whole point of the show! The episode was, ultimately, about how Mal and Walsh overcome their differences and jealousies, (Which they both clearly had - keep in mind that Mal explodes at Walsh telling him that he didn't want Zoe to marry him before they find themselves in any torture) and gain respect for one another. Walsh gains respect for Mal because Mal goes to such lengths to keep him alive. Mal gains respect for Walsh because Walsh comes back to fight for him. Furthermore, Walsh comes back for Mal because of what happens in that torture sequence.

Tell ya what. Your paragraph has encouraged my wife and I to watch the rest of the episode.

Thanks for the insight!

Honestly though, if the episodes are just going to be violent, we will stop watching.

Thanks for the objective discussion folks and for the lack of personal attacks.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 7:59 AM

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Quote:
Originally posted by Xeriar:
Torture, sex, drugs and crime happen, sometimes all
at once. I find it far, far worse, personally, to
hide these things, to pretend that they never
existed, and let the children of the world find all
this crap out for themselves. Usually in a bad way.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

You make an important point here and one that I have heard many times before.

Yes, acknowledging evil and evil-deeds is important; but, showing them as entertainment makes no sense to me.

The darkest deeds of man should be best covered in newspapers and history books and not flaunted as entertainment during prime-time.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 8:09 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:
Tell ya what. Your paragraph has encouraged my wife and I to watch the rest of the episode.

Thanks for the insight!

Ok, Just curious, but were you critizing an episode THAT YOU NEVER FINISHED WATCHING? I'm sorry, but that just seems... kind of wrong to me.

________________

Well, you were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 8:13 AM

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Ok, Just curious, but were you critizing an episode THAT YOU NEVER FINISHED WATCHING? I'm sorry, but that just seems... kind of wrong to me.

We found the visuals that disturbing.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 8:15 AM

RINGWRAITH

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:

...so you have to show every second and not just imply it?

...and if plot lines are sometimes going to be, "...how far you can push a man by torturing him...", then this show really isn't for me.

Surely there are other plots more worthy. lol.

Actually you DO have to show it. You can't sugar coat it. If it's uncomfortable, if it hurts, if it is disturbing, if it makes you angry, sad, happy, then it works. The writer got a reaction.

It's not for us to decide what is or is not necessary in any given scene. To quote JMS (creator of Babylon 5) from USENET:

Quote:

See, here's where I start to have a problem. For starters, I don't do any thing to be politically correct, or politically incorrect, I do what I do in any story because that's what the story points me toward. Anybody who says "It's not necessary" isn't entitled to that judgement, frankly; you don't know what's necessary to the story. And by framing it in the "is this NECESSARY?" way is designed to make you defend your position when such defense isn't the point; is it NECESSARY to have humor? to have a romance? to have correct science? No, *nothing* is NECESSARY. It's what the writer feels is right for that scene, that story, that character.

"Oh, well, I saw it, but was all that violence NECESSARY?" This is, frankly, a BS observation usually offered by someone with an agenda, who wishes to invalidate the notion of an artistic view and impose some kind of quota, or objective criterion to what is and isn't necessary for a movie or film. As far as I'm concerned, the first person to throw this into a discussion has, frankly, just lost the argument.

Now, I'm not saying you have an agenda, I'm just quoting JMS here. What I am saying is that what I, or you, or anyone else thinks is irrelevant in the eyes of the writer. He/she writes what they want to write, for the story.

Personally I thought it was rather surreal, that whole electrocution torture scene.

It takes a lot to make one laugh and cringe at the same time.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 8:46 AM

DRAUGLUIN

Yes!

The mark of quality writing...tugging at conflicting emotions at the same time, and keeping it compelling.

Torture is always a touchy subject, but it was necessary here, as this show is more about the characters than the action.

Im not the squeemish type, but it made me cringe.

But I found myself laughing quite often during the episode as well.

Im here to stay, that's for sure!

_____________
Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 8:54 AM

ALLRONIX

The only thing I can go with is my own experiences as a writer to try and understand Wheadon's motivations.

OK, I'm a fanficcer, and I've written some gruesome shit, including the FF piece I'm working on now. I've gotten into it with a beta-reader over it. I've had the nasty e-mails where folks are like "can't you just imply it?"

The answer is...NO!

"Implying" it, cutting away from it, shutting your eyes from it...it's an attempt to escape from it. If I'm going to do those to a character - whether it be Wheadon's, Mandell's, Roddenberry's, or mine - I'd better have the balls to stare it in the face.

Same goes for the readers - if you're going to deal with the dark shit, you aren't doing anyone a service by trying to take small glances. You want light and fluffy, go somewhere else and don't lie and say you can handle it.

(rant mode off!)

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 9:12 AM

RAULENDYMION

What world is it that some of you people live in? The tourture scenes were VERY mild when compared to real tourture methods. For instance it is typically preffered to have the electro shock hooked up to ones genitals. With violent gun battles on almost every episode you had to expect something like this episode to come along. And as far as the lesbian scene goes, granted I did have to check real quick to see if my tv had somehow switched itself over to cinamax, but I think it is a nice statement that in their "verse" bi-sexuality is no big deal (most of the crew didn't really seem to care except for Jayne who gave the typical preverted male perspective, and he was made to LOOK foolish for the childish way he delt with the situation)

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 9:37 AM

DARKLADY

#1 - Not to pick on you in particular, but it was pretty obvious from "The Train Job" that someone on Serenity (namely, Mal) was going to wind up being tied up and tortured by Niska. And the argument between Wash and Mal during the torture was vintage ME stuff. It reminded me of the scene in "Primevil" from Buffy where Buffy and Willow reconcile while rappelling down an elevator shaft while invading a secret military installation. Joss & co. love to juxtapose personal conflicts with external danger.

#b I don't mind stuff being gratutious as long as there's a reason. There was a very definite reason for this. (Just like there was a reason for the scene with Inara and her client - don't get me started on that ruckus) Plus, we all knew Nathan wasn't spending the rest of the season without an ear, so it was going to get reattached. *g*

#iii - The worst episode of Firefly ever will remain about 1000x better written than the best episode of any Star Trek series ever in history. I'm just sayin... *g*

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 10:20 AM

XERIAR

Quote:

Yes, acknowledging evil and evil-deeds is important;
but, showing them as entertainment makes no sense to me.

The idea, behind all good stories of this sort ('good'
versus 'bad') is about overcoming these things.

That's what makes it a story. Mal helps Wash through
his troubles, until Zoe arrives. Mal hangs on long
enough for his crew to save him.

The torture itself isn't the entertainment, its about
surviving the hard knocks in life and rising again,
so to speak.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 10:44 AM

HJERMSTED

Niska needed to be scary. Not scary in the over-the-top Joker on Batman way. Niska needed to be scary like those people who torture political prisoners are scary. This is the typed of stuff that still happens today around the world -- by governments no less! Just check in with Amnesty International. Joss & Co. obviously wanted that scene to be real world scary and to demonstrate Mal's endurance and compassion for Wash in the face of extreme deliberate pain.

Brilliant episode.

There was a warning at the beginning of the episode.

You don't need to stop watching the show. Just know what to expect next time Firefly has a violence warning at the beginning of it.

Mattro

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 12:00 PM

ZATHRAS10

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:
It was a real shocker for a show that started off as pleasant as "Star Trek: The Next Generation" to *linger* over torture.

It would have been one thing for the camera to show both men tied up and then cut away and hear them scream,,, but it's quite another for the camera to stay on them while they writhe in pain.

Urm, did we watch the same ST:TNG? Or for that matter, the same Firefly? I'm thinking no. First of all, though I loved about 60% of so of TNG, Firefly is nothing like the overly-utopian view of much of Trek (most of DS9 excepted). Downright dystopian at times, and much, much darker. Reavers? Blue-hand guys (the creepiest thing since Buffy's Gentlemen)? Heroes who steal and kick guys into their engine intakes? Oh yeah, just like Trek.

That said, secondly, have you never seen TNG's "Chain of Command?" Picard being tortured, writhing in pain? "I see four lights?" Meaning no disrespect, but you seem to be viewing both shows through rose-colored glasses that just aren't my prescription.

Chris

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 12:10 PM

GAHERIS

I'm probably being repetitive here, but checking through all 25 posts is difficult. But here we go.

Firefly, has from the very beginning stressed realism. Granted it is surreal and has enough sci-fi to know that it IS fake and people do realize it is a TV show but, realism is what it has. Joss manufactures emotion like no other director. Now I never liked Angel or Buffy but Firefly has that degree of (I'm going to use that word again) realism that makes it go from a sci fi flick to a study in character. The torture scene, though not absolutely necesarry, was a display of the bonds that hold people together. The torture, which was graphic, also could have been far worse. Thumbscrews, stretching devices, mangling, twisting... all could have been displayed. Instead they stay with electro-shock and ear-removal. The other mechanism which I will dub the "snake-cable" was disturbing but also adds that Sci-fi twist. Imagery aside, I think that the scenes in "War Stories" were incredibly well-crafted if a bit gruesome and graphic. All I ask is to keep an open mind and if the gruesome parts disgust you, focus on the interplay of characters, not the graphic scenes.

-Gaheris

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 12:12 PM

ZATHRAS10

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:
Yes, acknowledging evil and evil-deeds is important; but, showing them as entertainment makes no sense to me.

The darkest deeds of man should be best covered in newspapers and history books and not flaunted as entertainment during prime-time.

So then movies like "The Killing Fields," "In the Name of the Father," "Midnight Express," "The Bridge Over the River Kwai," "Schindler's List," "The Crucible," "Salvador," "Apocalypse Now," "The Serpent and the Rainbow," "Braveheart," "A Dry, White Season," etc., etc., shouldn't have been made because cinema and TV should *only* be made to entertain, and never unflinchingly show us the darker side of human nature? Me, I like quirky, lighthearted hijinks at least as much as the next guy, but I also appreciate artistic efforts that try to hold a mirror up to humanity and challenge our assumptions. My favorite painting is Picasso's "Guernica"....

Chris

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 12:16 PM

BOBKNAPTOR

Question: I noticed a "disturbing violence" type disclaimer at the beginning of this episode that I've never noticed before. Is it usually there?

Ok, now for my little rant on why they had to show the torture (a scene which I thought was absolutely brilliant, and I was actually surprised to come to the board this morning and find this thread):

Just saying "and then they got tortured" isn't enough. Take the story with the apples and the ribcages. At the time I heard it, I was thinking "ok, so something bad happened, but obviously these apples don't have grenades in them, why do they still feel the need to cut them up before they eat them? And I think it was the same for Wash. He heard the stories, he knew it was bad. But he didn't *KNOW* how bad it was. He says this himself after Zoe rescues him. "i didn't know... I didn't know..." You can't possibly begin to understand what someone goes through if you don't show it.

Let's take the Buffy/Spike attempted rape last season. It had to be pushed to that extreme. Because it took that amount of violence to show people that Spike is still evil without his soul. Showing just another round of Buffy and Spike fighting and throwing each other around would not have proven it. But seeing the look of terror on Buffy's face as she struggles to get away from him, the ghostly look of shock on her face as she tries to cover herself up after she stops him.... They had to show it so we the viewers would understand.

There was no way Wash could have understood the bond that Mal shares with his wife without finding that bond himself.

This episode had me double think more than once. In the beginning, i remember thinking how odd it was that here these men are being tortured mercilessly, and they are discussing relationship issues. It didn't feel true to me. Until Wash passed out and Mal started yelling "you here me, Wash? Listen to me." then I got it. Oh, Geez, they are talking like this to survive the torture.

And when Zoe showed up, and Niska made her choose, and before he even got it out, she chose Wash. My first thought was that she chose him because he is her husband, and in her mind, he is always first. But then I started thinking, no, she did that because she knew of the two of them, Mal would fare better than Wash. Wash would break, Mal would not. So really, in rescuing Wash, she is saying "I don't think you can handle this, and Mal can."

I was utterly amazed at this episode, and far from it being a reason not to watch the show, I think it is a reason to stay tuned.

______________
Wash: Hey, I've been in a fire fight before. Well... I was in a fire. Actually I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity. I can handle myself.

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 1:20 PM

MERLINDREA

Actually, I have to agree with FIREFLYCLASSACT. Not so much that I will stop watching the show, but it was borderline for me, too.

As already said, I am from Germany. In Germany, we have a different attitude to Sex and Violence in TV or Cinema. Sex and nude bodies is pretty much okay - its natural. I have a life-size painting of a nude woman hanging over my couch and I love this picture!

But violence is a different matter. I truly believe that people dull to violence if they see too much of it. And no, I don't think anybody needs to learn how to torture (or to be tortured), just because life is hard!

I also think that adults completely underestimate the effect of violent scenes on kids. I very clearly remember the first movie in my life which made me afraid. As an adult you cannot see anything scary or violent in it, but as a kid I totally freaked out.

So in Germany, if a movie is rated 16, you cannot go in this movie if you are younger - not with parents or anybody else, you just can't. (It makes absolutely no sense to me here that they say: this move is PG16, but if you find a dude who will go with you, you can see it even if you are 5).

Another example which had me laughing (but is actually sad when you think about it) happened just 2 weeks ago. They showed Alien 2 in TV, around 3pm afternoon. They showed - of course - every bloody detail, but the bad words like fuck and bullshit and so on were blended out. Hence the dialogues had a lot of breaks in it. How much sense does this make??? Your kid learns how to kill somebody effectively but not how to swear when doing it? Come on...

So coming back to Firefly: I still found it disturbing. I don't question that it was well made and everything, but it was hard for me to take. Probably even more because of the funny dialogue in between. I understand that it was done by Mal to keep alive and sane, but as a viewer, you still laugh about people being tortured - you can't help it - and what does that teach you in the end?

Merl (deep in thoughts)

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 1:56 PM

SNOWSPINNER

Tell ya what. Your paragraph has encouraged my wife and I to watch the rest of the episode.

Thanks for the insight!

No problem. Hope you enjoy the rest of the episode. It's disturbing, but I really don't think the torture was at all played for entertainment. It's upsetting stuff... but it is good drama. At least, I think so. =)

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 2:10 PM

GAHERIS

Hm, another thing occured to me. In ancient times, torture was commonplace. Among people who conisdered themselves civilized. Treatment for wounds was cauterization. That's taking a red hot iron and pressing the thing down against the wound despite screams and thrashing of the subject until the wound was sealed. Before proper medical work, it was a mercy to slit a wounded man's throat.

Now, we consider ourselves more civilized. True it has been a good couple hundred years. War stories shows that sometimes, we are not. I do not ask anyone to blindly accept this. I just ask people to understand it. And as I said in my previous post, watch the interaction of character, not the torture.

-Gaheris

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 2:27 PM

SAINTOFCHEESE

Quote:
Originally posted by Zathras10:

That said, secondly, have you never seen TNG's "Chain of Command?" Picard being tortured, writhing in pain? "I see four lights?" Meaning no disrespect, but you seem to be viewing both shows through rose-colored glasses that just aren't my prescription.

I'm so glad someone mentioned that. There are four lights!! Picard's torture was grusome as well, so it is not fair to say taht all Star Trek was lighthearted (especially not DS9).

Now, I'm a cheery, optimistic 17 year old. I'm not a violent person, and i'm not a big fan of violent movies. In fact, War Stories gave me nightmares. But I loved it anyway. That was the point. We're supposed to understand how twisted Niska is. We're supposed to recognize the horror of what the characters are going through. I thought that in spite of the dark topic, the episode was well executed. IT was violent, but all of the violence was there for a reason: to scare the hell out of us, not to be gratuitous and shocking. I gave up on shows like Andromeda because of the pointlessness of their violence. On firefly, any destruction is dealt with in a way that is not glorified. It is shown as what it is: deeply disturbing.

So while it may not be fun to watch those torture scenes, they felt necessary for character development. I'll settle for that over a show without plot.

My suggestion would be don't give up on Firefly because of one episode's violence. They wont all be like that. And acknowledge that violence for what it was.

On a cheery note... i liked all the shirtless Wash stuff. And the word "healthsome" is beautiful. I used it whenever possible today!

~*Saint of Cheese*~

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

Saturday, December 7, 2002 2:58 PM

ALLRONIX

Right! Trek had its moments of being quite vile to its characters.

Violence - in real life, no. I'm a pacifist, a position that's earned me a lot of headaches as of late.

I've had some pretty bad experiences. I've literally stared my friends' rapist in the face and tell him flat-out "I know what you did" only to wind up at knifepoint, and glad I had the sense to confront him in a public place.

I've been "jumped" by about 4 people and beaten up because one of them thought it would be "fun." I've also been at the edge of knives or fists for holding religious and political beliefs that were unpopular.

Having lived this, and realizing that much worse goes on...(I've been in Amnesty International for years, among other political groups), I see no need to gloss over things or run away from it, nor do I see it as something to handle lightly.

Not to say I go seeking the stuff out. Several times dsuring the ep, I was glad for the bad reception that left the video garbled and the audio crystal clear.

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

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

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Late comment.

Unfortunately, I missed the first half of the show. Too bad, 'cause I missed the setup. I came in on the middle of the torture scene, and while I found it necessary for the story line (you can't understand Mal and Zoe until you've seen what they've been through) I thought it was badly done. As far as I know, nobody gets zapped like that and continues a conversation. The body goes through all kinds of physiological storms under intense pain. People sweat, go pale, lose bladder control, tremble, grunt, snivel, cry... all kinds of un-pretty things over which they have no control. Eventually they pass out or go into shock. Previous repeated experience leads to SOME amount of learning, but not like what was shown. In that sense, I found the screams coming thru the door MORE effective than the constant eyeball. Maybe my imagination is a little TOO vivid!

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

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:46 PM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As far as I know, nobody gets zapped like that and continues a conversation. The body goes through all kinds of physiological storms under intense pain. People sweat, go pale, lose bladder control, tremble, grunt, snivel, cry... all kinds of un-pretty things over which they have no control.

I agree with you, but since I view Firefly as a Sci-Fi Fantasy and not Science Fiction, it's okay by me with what they did.

Though, still, when you see someone like John Crichton being tortured on Farscape, where his eyeballs roll back, and nostril flairs with mucus, vomit, and the likes flying all over the place, one really appreciates how good Farscape is.

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

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You can laugh if you want to... (this really gives you an idea that I *never* watch TV) but... what is Farscape?

Got a website?

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

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:04 PM

ELDOR

Well, there's no way of knowing just how strong the voltage actually was, right? I tend to think Niska was just warming up, taking his time to get the the real stuff so he might have started off with a lower voltage. Plus, it seemed to me he found Mal and Wash's conversation rather entertaining.

I'm glad they cut off Mal's ear because there had to be some indication that body mutilation was in store for Mal in the future. To me, it would've cheapened the realism of the scene if they didn't give some indication of it since body mutilation is a pretty common torture practice.

Well, that was morbid...

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

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:59 PM

ELKA

I would agree with some of the points FIREFLYCLASSACT (FFCA) makes about the degree this episode went to. Yes, the show is gritty and realistic, but realism isn't really the issue I think FFCA had, once again, we come back to degree.

I am sure some of you remember the footage than ran on CNN repeatedly of a dog taking several minutes of agonizing, writhing, painful spasms and plaintive, mourful whimpers to die after having a biological weapon tested on it. That's Realism. That doesn't mean I want to see it on Firefly. There's a line between gritty and too far.

Personally, with the lesbian relations between Inara and her client and the extreme torture shown (for a primetime television show), I felt that this episode did go a little far and I also felt that it cheapened the episode quality. While I would still rather watch this particular episode of Firefly than any other tv show, I would watch this episode last out of all the ones I've seen.

I have no problem with extreme violence or same-sex couplings on tv, movies, etc. I usually find a good ear-ectomy amusing (Reservior Dogs, anyone?), but Firefly hasn't had to rely on that type of thing before. The episode was charactor driven, it was about the interpersonal conflicts of Zoey, Wash, and Mal. But I felt the lesbian side-story seemed like ratings mongering just a little bit, like filler, and the violence was also a bit exploited. It disapointed me. There have been much better stories told aboard the Serenity.

The bumpkiniest of the Bumpkin Army.

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

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:06 PM

SNOWSPINNER

The lesbianism sequence has been explained with the cut scene - with that in place, that sideplot makes a lot more sense.

I continue to hold that you could not do the episode without showing the torture sequence between Mal and Walsh. You just couldn't. Unless you have that scene, and unless you see what Mal does for Walsh, the episode has no meaning. The episode is about Walsh going from being jealous of Mal to understanding his heroism, and, by extension, Zoe's heroism. Unless Walsh saw that in as deeply terrifying a context as he did, that wouldn't be impressive at all.

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:18 AM

ELKA

I will stipulate that yes, I couldn't see this episode done without that level of violence. But still, in my opinion only, there have been much better episodes. It felt like I'd seen it done before.

The bumpkiniest of the Bumpkin Army.

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Eldor- hey, you don't know morbid until you hear "hospital humor". I laugh because it's painful.

OH. FREE SOUP!

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:18 AM

DOUG

A lot of people are defending the violence and sexual content of WAR STORIES. Their main defense is that this is simply the nature and theme of FIREFLY. While I wasn't offended by either the violence or sex, I disagree that this is how FIREFLY was originally conceived. All you have to do is look at the previous episodes. There has been some strong sexual content, particularly in "Serenity" and "Out of Gas," but there's never been the kind of violence we've seen in ARIEL or particularly in WAR STORIES. I'm glad to see it myself, but I think it's a new strategy adapted by Whedon and Co. (with Fox's blessing) to improve ratings.

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 6:44 AM

FUCHSIA

I'd just like to pick up this quote, because I thought it was a really good point. (Quoted by Ringwriath from the creator of Babylon 5.)

Quote:
And by framing it in the "is this NECESSARY?" way is designed to make you defend your position when such defense isn't the point; is it NECESSARY to have humor? to have a romance? to have correct science? No, *nothing* is NECESSARY. It's what the writer feels is right for that scene, that story, that character.

For that matter, is it really NECESSARY to have a TV show? Maybe I'm strange in that I rarely watch things purely for entertainment, so I rarely analyse things in terms of their entertainment value. I think the reason that humans are driven to create, whether that means a sculpture or a poem or a TV show, is because they need to get things out, to tell things about life as they see it. From that point of view, there is absolutely nothing that I would say "should not be shown" in fiction. As long as what we are seeing is actors and not some real person being violated, then torture, violence, bad sex, rape, murder, it's all fair game, because it all exists.

No, I wouldn't show it to a 5-year-old kid, but that's a parent's responsibility, not a writer's. The network put a warning in front of the show, and if parents are responsible, then at that point they should judge whether they think their kid can handle something that needs that kind of warning, and make the call accordingly.

Yes, the torture creeped me out and disgusted me. Yes, I felt guilty for laughing even though the Mal/Wash conversation was meant to be funny, but ultimately I give credit to the writers for that, because they made me feel, they made me think.

However, I'm a TV masochist who likes being made uncomfortable by the shows I watch. I can totally understand and respect anyone, who, when they think they're coming to a show to be entertained and they find horrific scenes of torture, decides that show really isn't for them. But I will continue to defend the validity of the writers in saying and showing those things.

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:32 AM

IDEFIX

there's some good points there. I have to agree.

I like it, when shows are fluffy and funny at times, I laughed myself silly on watching more than one FF EP so far (Our Mrs Reynolds, Janestown, Shindig, the flashbacks from Out Of Gas) but I do tend to like the thought and feeling provoking EPs even more (main storyline form Out Of Gas, Ariel, War Stories). what I can't stand are the merely entertaining ones (maybe most of Trainjob and Bushwacked but even they have some meaning beyond entertainment). If I watch an EP of any series and I wonder what it is about and I don't find a thing, I'm bored and kind of disgusted of having wasted my time with watching it. tends to happen with Andromeda S3 most of the time and I'm thinking about stopping to watch it. someone here said someday 'I'm sick of watching Special Effects in search of a Story.' same can be said about Jokes without a Story or Action without a Story.

if the writer wants to say something then we should be glad to have found something with a meaning and let him/her say it the way s/he wants to.

SO I'm totally apalled by violence without a meaning. watching Violence in search of a Story is the worst one for me. but I wasn't upset by the torture scenes in War Stories maybe I've seen to much violence in TV already. but there are enough scenes on TV and in movies that do upset me, so maybe not. maybe War Stories was done in a decent way. with all the talking and the meaning behind the talking right in front and the torture just to make it believable in the background. I really liked it when Zoe took Wash out to the shuttle and he pulls himself together and decides to rescue Mal even if it means going back and possibly be killed or tortured again. that was what it was all about. I was more upset with the blue hands guys device in Ariel. but maybe that's just a case of taste. you simply can't argue about that. it was a way to tell the story and so I never complained. I would have prefered to see less of the bleeding and dying there but it is the writers/directors choice and it wasn't meaningless violence just to grab some viewers with a very sad taste in entertainment.

and being a young and openminded german I'm never upset by consensual sex in any form. sex is good, sex should be fun or a way of showing love. and if sex for money is fun too - Inara never seems to mind, and if she does she simply calls the deal off and goes away (Shindig) - I see nothing wrong with that either. I'm really glad that at least a bit of Inaras 'work' is shown here and there. it is part of her life and we should see it to know what Inara's all about. this particular scene would have made much more sense with the cut scene not cut. it seems to float a bit like this, not much story attached to it except for the bits about Inara taking female clients now and then because she feels she can be totally herself with them and not always with men. sounds natural to me. to me watching people on TV having sex gets boring most of the time but it never upsets me. and I even do believe that it wouldn't hurt children, if they were told what it was all about and it wasn't forbidden to speak about and all that crap. there's nothing bad to it so why make it sound like something bad?

...but I digress.

Idefix

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:29 AM

REYVNDARKNIGHT

All I have to say Fireflyclassact is, spread the wealth. Hand out some more of those rose colored glasses that you are wearing so that we can see the world as you do.

Allow me to point out that the reason DS9 started losing an audience to B5 is because of those rose colored glasses.

The "Warstories" episode of Firefly has got to be one of the best sci-fi episodes I have ever seen. It now beats out "Our Mrs. Reynolds" as my favorite. And Zoe is now on the same level as Book as far as my choice of fav character on the show.

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:48 AM

MANA

Though, still, when you see someone like John Crichton being tortured on Farscape, where his eyeballs roll back, and nostril flairs with mucus, vomit, and the likes flying all over the place, one really appreciates how good Farscape is.

What was the name of that episode?

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:04 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
The lesbianism sequence has been explained with the cut scene - with that in place, that sideplot makes a lot more sense.

Which cut scene was that? Can you explain or post a link to the explanation thread?

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:28 PM

RHEA

Hmmm..I'm trying to think about how to say this.

One of the things I like about this show is that the violence *isn't* senseless - it's real. It's messy and sad and horrifying and you wish it hadn't happened, but Firefly is like life - sometimes bad things happen to people. And just saying "and I'm going to torture you now" and holding up a set of pincers wouldn't cut it. The snappy banter between Mal and Wash while they were being tortured wasn't for cuteness - it was Mal keeping Wash going when nothing but the talking might have done it.

We learned a lot that we never would otherwise.

1)Wash had never really seen true violence (inferred) or understood what Zoe was talking about when she reminisced about the war. He also didn't understand that her bond with Mal wasn't just because he was the boss - that it existed for a reason.

2)We've begun to see that Mal is a survivor because he's probably just too pig-headed to give in when things get tough. I've known people like him - people who just put one foot in front of another when things get tough. Zoe's loyalty to him is based on a bond formed because his toughness saved her life, as it saved Wash's in the episode.

3)In addition to what I said about Zoe above, she made exactly the right decision about which guy to take with her. She knew Mal could take it, because she's seen him take worse. She knew Wash couldn't. Simple equation. She counted on Mal's innate bullheadedness to keep him alive till they could get him out of there.

I suppose these points could have been made some other way, but I can't for the life of me figure out how all that could have been conveyed to us in any other *effective* way in a one-hour show.

And I can't even begin to enumerate the interesting things we learned about pretty much every other character during this episode.

I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry (and ended up doing both) during the torture scene. And I don't think I'd change a thing.

I see a lot of TV shows these days that have mindless violence. The good guys stand there and blaze away at the bad guys and come away without a scratch. In a video game sort of world, where actions often have *no* consequences, I would rather see Joss' version any day.

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:41 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
The lesbianism sequence has been explained with the cut scene - with that in place, that sideplot makes a lot more sense.

Which cut scene was that? Can you explain or post a link to the explanation thread?

Never mind, I found it:
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages/?msg=2793.44
(man that FOX board is a b@stard to navigate!)

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE