So... a higher body count if Firefly went the distance on TV-? by chrisisall

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

So... a higher body count if Firefly went the distance on TV-?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, August 13, 2010 17:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11115
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:22 AM

Bunnyman: I added something to my previous post, you'll find it more consistent with your analysis. But I still don't think Simon is one of multiple lead roles. Mal is the lead role, the other characters are important supporting roles, who all represent something about Mal and his struggles.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:25 AM

BYTEMITE

GWEK: Hmm. Okay, apologies. I was getting the wrong impression.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:45 AM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

@Bytemite - good addendum. To clarify what I meant by *a* lead role, what I'm referring to is which characters (other than Mal) are driving the overall direction of the story. I said Simon, b/c in the series and film it was Simon's cause Mal was taking up and driving a lot of his actions - and then Mal took it to the next level - the greater good, as you say - in the film. In the film I think River took a more central role as well, more-so than Simon, so she went from being sort of a mcguffin to being a more "lead" character. In hypothetical season 3, if the scene at the end of Float Out is an indication of what would come next, I see Zoe, with her choices and how Mal reacts, taking her turn as a more "lead" character than she was previously, again, all this on comparison to the other supporting characters. Which isn't to say they don't all drive the story in some way, but its a matter of varying degrees at different times. Does that make sense? Agree or disagree?

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:55 AM

BYTEMITE

I agree with what you're saying, though I wouldn't call it "lead." River's still a MacGuffin, even if she's "leading" the story (a good MacGuffin SHOULD do that). Simon is still an important supporting character, even if his input can change the direction of the story.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 10:06 AM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

@bytemite I love it when a good discussion decends into semantics, don't you? ;p

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 10:30 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm a scientist. We are all over the anal-retentive technicalities. *nod*

Sorry, then.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 10:46 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm a scientist. We are all over the anal-retentive technicalities. *nod*

Spock would agree.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 11:10 AM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

I was a philosophy minor once, so I understand ;)
/why yes, I would like fries with that.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 12:07 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Sorry, but regardless of the topic, when someone responds to me by making broad and inaccurate generalizations, I take issue.

Well, I take issue with your characterization of my response as inaccurate.

You're entitled to your view that Firefly was
(as I understand your point)
meant to be realistic and meaningful;
but I see Firefly in the same vein as any other escapist entertainment.
Yes the "Cheers" comparison was a bit "flip", but the POINT is the same.
Just as barflies, who go to a bar EVERY night as the "Cheers" characters do, rarely are as witty and charming as the "Cheers" characters are; likewise the conceit that a group of pirates with guns, hired muscle and a will to use them can be charming, moral and never hurt the innocent or get caught, is outside my reality index. The only way I'm willing to suspend my belief is for the sake of characters and a world I want to inhabit to be entertained.

If Firefly could make a valid point or present an interesting insight, GREAT, but not at the cost of the elements that drew me to the show in the first place.
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;
not some imagined gritty universe where one self trained mechanic and eight variously skilled folks can maintain a craft more complicated than a nuclear submarine. Where the government can't catch some petty thieves who broke into a core-world hospital, left a handful of bodies, assaulted a doctor and stole a bunch of medicine. Where yoSafBridge, after being dug out of the trash bin doesn't immediately squeal, "Malcolm Reynolds and the crew of the Serenity stole the priceless Lassiter!"

There are dozens of examples of "unreality" in the Firefly stories. I'll overlook them, until the writers kill off the elements that drew me in in the first place.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 2:15 PM

STORYMARK

Well, you are welcome to view it that way, I just find that interpretation a bit too simplistic for my taste. There is a lot of depth to be had in the show, far beyond as throw away entertainment. And loss is a part of drama. As for the interactions, they tend to become stale on any longer running show, and adding new elements and changing things up helps keep things interesting. Joss has never, ever been one to just allow the status quo to rule, and that's one of the reasons I love his work.

But to each his own.

"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."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 4:24 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Well, you are welcome to view it that way, I just find that interpretation a bit too simplistic for my taste.

I don't think of my expectations as simplistic.
Only that the writer should preserve the positive character dynamics.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

There is a lot of depth to be had in the show, far beyond as throw away entertainment.

GOOD entertainment and storytelling depth don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Escapist-fare isn't synonymous with "throw-away".
There were many Firefly stories to tell.
Story arcs exploring the reach and machinations of Blue Sun, tales of Companions and politics, dissatisfactions within the Alliance; the Firefly 'verse was rich with story ideas beyond a simple "peril-of-the-week-for-the-crew".

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

And loss is a part of drama.

Agreed, BUT, there are many things to lose besides a character's life.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

As for the interactions, they tend to become stale on any longer running show, and adding new elements and changing things up helps keep things interesting. Joss has never, ever been one to just allow the status quo to rule, and that's one of the reasons I love his work.
But to each his own.

Loss of dreams, lost opportunities, lost relationships and friendships; and not just loss, but CHANGE that doesn't go the way you expect, for both good and bad, provides rich fodder for drama. I'm not asking that the status quo rule, only that the writers find substantive issues and loss and change to craft stories around.
I feel that killing a character is the cheap way out and destroys dynamics that build audience acceptance of a fictional world.

I would argue that your view is the simplistic one.
Things getting dull?
Kill a character to stir the pot.
I hope for more creativity from storytellers.

Many of the things I liked about Firefly were done at the behest of FOX Studios.
(NOT FOX Broadcasting, who ill-used the property.)
Obviously, your view of drama is more in sync with Joss's.
That should mean you'll be happy with more of Joss's projects, where for me, Firefly is kind of an anomaly.

Happy viewing,
Mike

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:21 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:

Things getting dull?
Kill a character to stir the pot.

Hey, Shakespeare did it!

Actually, I kind of agree with ya Penn.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE