Mal Reynolds compared to Han Solo by chrisisall

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Mal Reynolds compared to Han Solo

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Monday, August 30, 2010 09:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5260
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:55 PM

IMO, Mal is like a deeper feeling, more realistic character than Han. Han was presented as kind of disconnected, but Mal was REALLY on the edge. Han just needed a cause; Mal needed REDEMPTION.
After Serenity, it's hard for me to watch Han Solo & really *feel* for his plight as a rogue loner (& possible Nerf Herder). An official Rebel recognition & a kiss from Leia made him all right again.
Mal is still somewhat fractured.

Thoughts?

The comparative Chrisisall

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 3:20 PM

BYTEMITE

well, I think except for the "dumped a load of spice when Imperial agents boarded him" that Han was in trouble with Jabba for, Han wasn't really involved in criminal activity (apart from the Rebels) for the entire first trilogy. He had a consistent income from the Rebels, and life was a lot easier for him.

Plus, Han never really went through anything like Mal did, he went to Stormtrooper Academy, then skipped out when he happened to be guarding a group of wookie slaves and felt sorry for them.

Han might have had more financial troubles if he had to feed eight other people, rather than just himself and his copilot.

Mal was like an essay on how often someone can get kicked when they're down. His life is almost a farce in difficulties; he never makes money, he never is able to hold on to money, so he's always desperately scrambling for food for his crew and parts for his ship. And that's not even scratching the surface of the tragic backstory or his deep seated emotional issues.

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 3:33 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Plus, Han .... went to Stormtrooper Academy, then skipped out when he happened to be guarding a group of wookie slaves and felt sorry for them.

Get ready for fan complication here: IS THAT CANNON??????

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 3:35 PM

BLUEEYEDBRIGADIER

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's kinda unfair to compare and contrast the two characters solely based on what we get to see in the Original Trilogy or the BDS/BDM.

Mal definitely comes off the more fleshed-out character of the two, but the EU novels covering Han Solo's life before meeting his future wife and brother-in-law do show that Han had a crap life until he was in his teens: didn't know his parents, grew up as part of a criminal gang with his only friend was the female Wookie cook (who got killed in front of him aiding his escape), got drummed out of the Imperial Navy for saving Chewie from getting beaten by a work gang overseer...

Overall, I think the characters are more equal than people think, but Han does come off with the "easier" life in the long run...close friends, 3 children and a happy marriage, war hero, etc. At least until the events of the New Jedi Order, where he loses Chewie and his youngest son. Then the eventual fall of his elder son to the Dark Side...

"The revenge of the beaten comes in refusing to fall." -- Mal, in "The Losing Side - Chapter 45" by jetflair

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 3:45 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueEyedBrigadier:
until the events of the New Jedi Order, where he loses Chewie and his youngest son. Then the eventual fall of his elder son to the Dark Side...

That sounds sucky to me. I'm glad I didn't read that...

The not-laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:14 PM

WAGNERAUDE

I believe the xkcd forums have an entire thread on precisely this subject

EDIT: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=27991

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:56 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Plus, Han .... went to Stormtrooper Academy, then skipped out when he happened to be guarding a group of wookie slaves and felt sorry for them.

Get ready for fan complication here: IS THAT CANNON??????

*shoots chrisisall with the Extraneous N Cannon*

(And technically, no; Han was a Naval cadet --he was training to be a TIE pilot [looks like he actually got the better end of that deal

]. Stormies were a separate branch, more like Marines.)

And yeah, much as I love the OT, Star Wars just isn't as good without the EU. It's where you really get to see the roller coaster of Han's life.

Note: That red stripe down the seam of his trousers? That's a Corellian Bloodstripe --like a set of medals, but more practical. There are two grades; yellow and red. The red ones are usually only given out posthumously. Han has never talked about how he earned his.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:46 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueEyedBrigadier:
until the events of the New Jedi Order, where he loses Chewie and his youngest son. Then the eventual fall of his elder son to the Dark Side...

That sounds sucky to me. I'm glad I didn't read that...

It was. It was like they were just trying to put some angsty shock value of killing off a likeable popular character so people would feel the horrors of entire worlds being destroyed more personally and go darker and edgier for the mov- Oops!

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:49 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Plus, Han .... went to Stormtrooper Academy, then skipped out when he happened to be guarding a group of wookie slaves and felt sorry for them.

Get ready for fan complication here: IS THAT CANNON??????

*shoots chrisisall with the Extraneous N Cannon*

(And technically, no; Han was a Naval cadet --he was training to be a TIE pilot [looks like he actually got the better end of that deal ]. Stormies were a separate branch, more like Marines.)

And yeah, much as I love the OT, Star Wars just isn't as good without the EU. It's where you really get to see the roller coaster of Han's life.

Note: That red stripe down the seam of his trousers? That's a Corellian Bloodstripe --like a set of medals, but more practical. There are two grades; yellow and red. The red ones are usually only given out posthumously. Han has never talked about how he earned his.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

...Why was he even guarding wookie slaves if it wasn't stormtrooper academy? Are you sure that wasn't Tycho Celchu? He was Imperial Navy and a TIE fighter pilot.

EDIT: Huh. You're right. Weird. What's up with the wookie slave thing?

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:57 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Been a while since I read the book, but I want to say Han got the blood stripes when he organized and lead the defense of Correlia. I vauely remember something to do with him convincing a bunch of civies and smugglers to hide their ships and hit the arrogant enemy as they came in in three waves, which was a big deal because baddies would only be expecting one desperate defense. I forget if they were fighting imps or hutts or whatnot, but I remember Han's side was using freighters and outdated starships like z-95's and I want to say the Han hadn't even acquired the Millennium Falcon yet, was flying in some sorosuub patchwork freighter.

As for Mal vs Han, Mal has the unfair advantage of being more evolved and having characters like Han for inspiration. Mal is the newer more advanced and realistic Han Solo of our time.

That being said, Han Solo would win in a fight, cause Han has luck powerful enough to rival the force and Mal's luck sucks.

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:59 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

I hated that they did that, Jacen Solo was my favorite character gorramit!

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 7:03 PM

BYTEMITE

On the positive side, Mal would at least survive. Narrative law. Nothing else has killed him, and two chaotic good characters might accidentally end up fighting each other, but have heroic immunity against death, and so can't ever kill each other.

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

Sunday, August 29, 2010 8:42 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

I've heard Joss talk on this and he describes firefly as "The Killer Angels with the Millenium Falcon" so I think we gotta defer to His superior knowledge.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 2:57 AM

GWEK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueEyedBrigadier:
until the events of the New Jedi Order, where he loses Chewie and his youngest son. Then the eventual fall of his elder son to the Dark Side...

That sounds sucky to me. I'm glad I didn't read that...

It was. It was like they were just trying to put some angsty shock value of killing off a likeable popular character so people would feel the horrors of entire worlds being destroyed more personally and go darker and edgier for the mov- Oops!

While I'm certainly not saying that the NEW JEDI ORDER series was GOOD (I actually think it was quite terrible), Chewbacca wasn't killed off fo "angsty shock value." Chewbacca was killed off for pretty much the exact same reason as Wash: "This is real, people. Things can change, and people WILL die."

At the time that NJO was written, the Original Trilogy characters had been with us for the better part of a quarter of a decade, largely unchanged. You can kill off as many members of the Rebellion as you want, but in the end, they're all just red-shirts. To show that they were serious about the Star Wars universe changing -- and about things being potentially serious and scary -- they had to kill off a major character.

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

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 3:10 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

And yeah, much as I love the OT, Star Wars just isn't as good without the EU. It's where you really get to see the roller coaster of Han's life.

More stuff I have to get...*sigh*

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 3:19 AM

GWEK

On the main topic of the thread, I've often described FIREFLY as "what STAR WARS grows up to be."

FIREFLY is intended to be enjoyed by the same adults who enjoyed the Original Trilogy as kids, and it succeeds smashingly, I think.

I don't know that comparing Han Solo to Mal Reynolds is really fair because they're intended for different audiences.

While Mal and Han make an interesting (and pretty obvious) comparision, how about Inara and Leia? I mean, sure, Whedon's original intention was that Inara would be a rough and tumble whore, but the end result of the Mal-Inara dynamic is basically a more nuanced, more "adult" version of the Han-Leia dynamic.

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

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 3:40 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
"This is real, people. Things can change, and people WILL die."

Right. Angsty shock value.

I was pretty much deliberately comparing Chewie's death to Wash's. I really do think that the "sudden death = reality" is an example of a widely used but very ineffective literary device.

The problem is, without sufficient lead up to the death, sudden death IS just a shock thing, and lessens the emotional impact on the viewer/reader. When the viewers/readers reminisce about the story, they and their friends won't be admiring the heroic/tragic/beautiful nature of the character's death or drinking to the sad but satisfying send off the character got, they'll be complaining about how pointless it is.

This also has a tendency to introduce plot holes rather than make things more real. In both cases, the stories had people with precognitive abilities. Plot holes.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 3:44 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

the EU

Okay... A.C. Crispin's? Brian Daley's?
Both? Others? Help me out, Cy.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 4:05 AM

GWEK

I just happen to disagree strongly with the assertion that a "meaningless" death is lazy storytelling.

People die pointlessly all the time, especially in warfare. People die due to friendly fire, or because the supply lines aren't what they should be, or because they wandered off in the wrong direction, or stepped with their left foot when they should have stepped with their right.

In the case of both Chewbacca and Wash, the writers were re-establishing previously existing ground rules. The fact that there was not grand fanfare surrounding the deaths does not make it "lazy writing" (both deaths were written VERY intentionally, with a VERY specific overall story goal in mind), not does it "demean the love the fans have for these characters."

It plays on the Batman rule: No matter how much peril the writers put Batman in, the audience will always remain detached, because the dude's name is on the front cover SO WE KNOW HE'S NOT GOING TO DIE.

By showing that major characters can die fairly quickly, easily (and, yes, "pointlessly"), the writers are establishing a dynamic where we have more emotional state in, and attachment to, the survivors.

Just because you personally may disagree with that intent doesn't make it lazy or bad writing.

Quote:
I was pretty much deliberately comparing Chewie's death to Wash's. I can't tell if you noticed, or if you were objecting in particular to my calling it lazy storytelling. Which it is.

For the record, comparing Wash's death to Chewie's is flawed on multiple counts. Wash dies "for nothing", whereas Chewie sacrifices himself to save his best friend's son.

In a technical sense, Wash's death is well-written, whereas Chewbacca's (in which he waves a defiant fist as a moon crashes into him) is poorly written. (Not "lazy", but poor).

Quote:
What they should have done, rather than focusing so much on the core characters, Han, Luke, Leia, Chewie, is brought in new characters every time there was a new threat. Instead, they kind of let the universe stagnate a bit too much, and had to resort to "shaking things up" in a way that probably turned off a number of fans.

I am assuming that you are not particularly familiar with the Star Wars Expanded Universe, because bringing in new characters every time there's a new thread is EXACTLY what the EU does.

I will also assume that you are unfamiliar with marketing and franchising, or else you would understand how silly it is to suggest that it would be a GOOD idea to write books that focus on the likes of Unar Thul, Tycho Celchu, Danni Quee when you have Han, Luke, and Leia available. You need look no further than the anger and annoyance directed at the addition of Ahsoka Tano as a major character in the CLONE WARS saga to see this principle in play.

I am not saying that the EU has been handled properly, by the way (I think most of the Original Trilogy expanded universe stuff is pretty lousy--although the Prequel Trilogy stuff is generally quite good), but merely pointing out that introducing tons of new characters is not the way to go.

Quote:
I don't have problem with character death, but jeez, at least have a poignant storytelling reason for the death if you're going to kill off a main character. Otherwise it's just a cheap emotional blow for the readers. They're not going to be saying, "oh man, wasn't that a heartwrenching moment when this character died so heroically/tragically/beautifully," instead they say, "what the crap? That was pointless." It's making a mockery of the emotional investment they have in the characters and story.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, which I am entitled to disagree with.

I'd like to say more, but I'm really at a loss for how to respond to the viewpoint that a death should be designed around making the audience say "Wasn't that a heartwrenching moment when this characted died so beautifully?"

So I suppose if Wash has been dressed prettier, his death would have been okay?!?

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

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 4:16 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

I don't know that comparing Han Solo to Mal Reynolds is really fair because they're intended for different audiences.

Mainly, I think it's the same audience, minus the young'uns for Firefly.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 4:30 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Chewie sacrifices himself to save his best friend's son.

Thanks for the spoiler.

jk.

Wasn't gonna read the one anyway. Star Wars is just a bit more fantasy than SF for me, and I don't like reality intruding too deeply into that realm.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 5:43 AM

BYTEMITE

Crapcakes, see, I tried to edit my previous post for clarity and because it was too freaking long, and people just end up using the long version anyway. Blah.

Quote:
People die pointlessly all the time, especially in warfare. People die due to friendly fire, or because the supply lines aren't what they should be, or because they wandered off in the wrong direction, or stepped with their left foot when they should have stepped with their right.

Of course. But the fundamental thing writers seem to forget is that what they're writing isn't real. The reason why fiction works is a Willing Suspension of Disbelief, because the audience wants to follow along to see something, feel something, and/or learn something.

So long as you don't break the rules of the universe you constructed, you're going to maintain that Willing Suspension of Disbelief. Trying to add some gritty reality when it's not already present in-universe doesn't actually reinforce this. Rather, it tends to take people out of the story. Point of fact:

Quote:
whereas Chewbacca's (in which he waves a defiant fist as a moon crashes into him) is poorly written. (Not "lazy", but poor).

See? Clearly this didn't work for you. You're far from alone in this. And I think I'm far from alone when I comment that Wash's death was fairly pointless.

Authors have a right to do whatever they want with their own story, but sudden character death is something the author does for themselves, because they're trying to be darkier and edgier (and of course, because true art is angsty). They don't do this for the audience, they sure don't do this for the story, and because they don't do it for the story, arguably it doesn't actually make the story any more real.

If something does nothing for a story, then I question it's usefulness as a literary device, and so thus why we are having this discussion. If you want to argue that Wash's death is going to be an important development point for Zoe, good, fine, I agree with you, but I dismiss any justification that Wash's death was good for the movie because "it's real now!" Not only is it overdone in writing, but it's a flawed approach.

Quote:
I will also assume that you are unfamiliar with marketing and franchising, or else you would understand how silly it is to suggest that it would be a GOOD idea to write books that focus on the likes of Unar Thul, Tycho Celchu, Danni Quee when you have Han, Luke, and Leia available. You need look no further than the anger and annoyance directed at the addition of Ahsoka Tano as a major character in the CLONE WARS saga to see this principle in play.

I'd say people are annoyed by Ahsoka Tano because she's a spunky teenager canon sue who is so perfect she can correct even her own far more experienced teachers. The problem isn't change of character focus from the regular characters, the problem is unnecessary character focus on a character most people find irritating. Also see Jar Jar Binks in Episode one, and how this was fixed in later material by punting Jar Jar to the sidelines. Your mileage my vary, of course, because there's some people who find Luke and Anakin whiny and overpowered, and think there's too much character focus on THEM.

There's a reason why the X-wing series are among the most popular of the original trilogy EU novels. It's mostly because the authors focused on characters other than Han, Luke, and Leia, because all characters eventually do get stale after a while. If they were writing the characters well in the first place, they wouldn't have to kill them off to generate interest for them.

Quote:

I'd like to say more, but I'm really at a loss for how to respond to the viewpoint that a death should be designed around making the audience say "Wasn't that a heartwrenching moment when this characted died so beautifully?"

So I suppose if Wash has been dressed prettier, his death would have been okay?!?

Now you're just twisting what I'm saying, and being fairly insulting about it too. *bonk*

Of course it's not okay, death is sad, and not something you want to have happen to people you care about. But if they're going to die, you want them to die in a way they would have appreciated, or would have been fulfilling for them. You want to say, "that's how s/he would have wanted to go," or "at least s/he is at peace now," or "well, they died happy/ got what they wanted out of life."

Do you know what catharsis is? Let's toss up the dictionary definition here.

World English Dictionary
catharsis (kəˈθɑːsɪs) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

1. (in Aristotelian literary criticism) the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions, esp. through certain kinds of art, as tragedy or music.

Wash isn't really anything like the traditional hero character (that's more Mal or Simon). He's something of the everyman, though Joss also basically used Wash as his author tract, the character he could channel pithy situational commentary through.

In any case, I think we can agree that Wash is not intended as a villainous character, right? He's a heroic character. And that there are certain deaths that kind of are considered "heroic deaths" and certain deaths that are considered "villainous deaths." With me?

So there are certain kinds of deaths that seem particularly effective for a hero, ones that make you wipe away a tear and nod and say "that Wash character, he was a good fellow." I'm not talking aesthetic beauty, I'm talking a story, that can be tragic, but also emotionally beautiful/poignant, which results in catharsis. Okay?

And so yes, I'm arguing that if there's going to be a main character death, it should 1) serve a purpose in furthering the story in order to have the greatest possible emotional impact, and 2) the emotional impact of a heroic death comes from catharsis, meaning the death should be a heroic sacrifice, or tragic, or poignant/beautiful.

If there's snow falling or cherry blossoms or autumn leaves or other visual appeal that conjures some poetry to the scene, bonus. If you have a tragic heroine who has died, sometimes you'll even put her in an elaborate, fancy gown, and deliberately invoke her physical beauty, even in death, to further underline how tragic her death is and how fragile life is. This is not exactly a new or shocking thing I'm talking about here.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 6:43 AM

BYTEMITE

On a lighter note, this is fun! I really like the idea you bring up here:

Quote:
I don't know that comparing Han Solo to Mal Reynolds is really fair because they're intended for different audiences.

While Mal and Han make an interesting (and pretty obvious) comparision, how about Inara and Leia? I mean, sure, Whedon's original intention was that Inara would be a rough and tumble whore, but the end result of the Mal-Inara dynamic is basically a more nuanced, more "adult" version of the Han-Leia dynamic.

I could see that argument, about Mal and Han. Han really is for a more children appropriate audience. (And the prequel movies took the child friendly idea to eleven)

Your Inara and Princess Leia comparison is also interesting. My feeling is not only were these two intended for different audiences, but depending on how you look at them, they're also potentially different character types.

Princess Leia is a diplomat in a Triumph story with some action girl underneath. Rough and tumble is right, she can be indescriminantly snappish, scathing, or snarky to friends or foes alike.

Inara is a more straight forward diplomat in a Tragedy story. She might be capable of some action, but just on a personality level I'd say she's not quite as rough and tumble as Leia is. She'll find her way out of a situation, but generally with somewhat less violence and bluster, and she also tends to be more demure, except towards her annoying romantic interest.

Inara probably isn't quite as complex a character as Leia is, but there's other things to like, and you're right, the Mal/Inara relationship is a bit more nuanced than the Han/Leia relationship. The Han/Leia relationship is Haughty Girl/Rogue, Mal/Inara is that plus a heaping dose of hypocrisy and denial from both sides.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:12 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Plus, Han .... went to Stormtrooper Academy, then skipped out when he happened to be guarding a group of wookie slaves and felt sorry for them.

Get ready for fan complication here: IS THAT CANNON??????

The laughing Chrisisall

The official line with EU stuff is it that it is Canon unless George decides to do something else.

"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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:17 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Authors have a right to do whatever they want with their own story, but sudden character death is something the author does for themselves, because they're trying to be darkier and edgier (and of course, because true art is angsty). They don't do this for the audience, they sure don't do this for the story, and because they don't do it for the story, arguably it doesn't actually make the story any more real.

I'd wager a majority of working writers (and many audience members) would disagree quite strongly.

Yes, death can and often does serve a story - it's asinine to say it cannot, and is ONLY for the author's benefit.

"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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:20 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

The official line with EU stuff is it that it is Canon unless George decides to do something else.

LOL!!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:25 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Yes, death can and often does serve a story

I hate that Wash died, but the 'Verse & characters were so real to me that I can't deny it's impact or out-of-left-field real-life feel. I've never lost anyone in my life where the loss didn't seem senseless.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:37 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...Why was he even guarding wookie slaves if it wasn't stormtrooper academy? Are you sure that wasn't Tycho Celchu? He was Imperial Navy and a TIE fighter pilot.

EDIT: Huh. You're right. Weird. What's up with the wookie slave thing?

I think the current version (or at least a "Tales" version that may or may not be accurate) was that he refused an order to scuttle a seemingly-abandoned slave ship. Instead he went aboard and found Chewbacca (IIRC the rest of the slaves had already escaped).

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay... A.C. Crispin's? Brian Daley's?
Both? Others? Help me out, Cy.

Crispin's trilogy tells a more complete story (and fits better with things we learn about later [ex-girlfriends, the Kessel Run, winning the Falcon, etc]), and they work more as a continuity-laden prequel (so-to-speak) to the OT --they end with Han walking into Chalmun's cantina on Tatooine, looking for work.

Daley's are classic --some of the oldest EU novels out there, before the term "Expanded Universe" meant anything. They're deliberately self-contained stories featuring just Han, Chewie, the Falcon, and some fellow scoundrels in a part of the galaxy far removed from the Empire itself.

(And yes, they both fit together; Crispin's trilogy has a bunch of time-skips where the Daley adventures can be slotted in.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Trying to add some gritty reality when it's not already present in-universe doesn't actually reinforce this.

The destruction of Alderaan, the massacre at Hoth, Han Solo's torture at Cloud City, the corruption of Anakin Skywalker, the shabla Jedi Purge --there is plenty of gritty darkness in Star Wars and always has been.

Quote:
I'd say people are annoyed by Ahsoka Tano because she's a spunky teenager canon sue who is so perfect she can correct even her own far more experienced teachers.

Based on what I've seen at different forums, you're in the minority. Ahsoka is one of the most loved characters in the series --she's not a proper and respectful Jedi Knight like all the other characters. Hell, if they weren't at war (and her Master wasn't the one Jedi in the order who'll put up with her), she probably would've been kicked into the Agricultural Corps by now. (And she rarely corrects her superiors; usually they're the ones who haul her shebs out of the fire after she screws up.)

Quote:
Of course it's not okay, death is sad, and not something you want to have happen to people you care about. But if they're going to die, you want them to die in a way they would have appreciated, or would have been fulfilling for them. You want to say, "that's how s/he would have wanted to go," or "at least s/he is at peace now," or "well, they died happy/ got what they wanted out of life."

I think I get what you're saying --more like Book's death, where he lasted just long enough to gasp out a final homily before dying in Mal's arms?

But isn't that itself a trope older than dirt? It only serves to emphasize the fact that we're watching something fictional, that is driven not by logic or rationality, but by the author blatantly reaching onto the screen and manipulating events to provide exposition. It breaks suspension of disbelief for most of us just as much as verisimilitude seems to do for you.

How unutterably boring would fiction be if all deaths had to be dressed up with operatic arias and choral monologues? Some of us like verisimilitude in our fiction.

Quote:
And so yes, I'm arguing that if there's going to be a main character death, it should 1) serve a purpose in furthering the story in order to have the greatest possible emotional impact, and 2) the emotional impact of a heroic death comes from catharsis, meaning the death should be a heroic sacrifice, or tragic, or poignant/beautiful.

And here's the crux of our disagreement; I don't feel that emotional impact comes only from catharsis. The end of a story must involve catharsis, yes, but a story doesn't end when one part of the ensemble is killed --anyone who's dealt with death in real life knows this; you go on. Because you must.

Sometimes the impact of a death is that it is sudden and unfair and undeserved. Sometimes it's not "he was a good man," but "I never got a chance to say goodbye." Sometimes it's not about the dead guy as much as it about the survivors finding the strength to go on when they just want to lie down and follow him into oblivion.

Wash's death wasn't just for shock impact: it led directly to Zoe's attempted death-by-Reaver, and her closing line. It's also inevitably going to drive a wedge between her and Mal --remember the definition of a hero? Wash's death was Mal's fault.

And yes, as Joss notes in the commentary, it's part of the misdirection setup: when Kaylee gets shot, then Jayne, then Simon, you start to think this is going to be a Bolivian Army Ending, where none of them survive. Not just an emotional impact, but a dramatic impact, which alters what we the audience expect from the film.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:43 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I'd wager a majority of working writers (and many audience members) would disagree quite strongly.

Yes, death can and often does serve a story - it's asinine to say it cannot, and is ONLY for the author's benefit.

You didn't read the full post (not that I blame you, it's long).

Death can serve the story, and often does. I'll even admit that Wash's death will eventually be a good source of character development for Zoe.

But if the sole reason for a death is to add gritty realism to a story, or go a darker edgier direction, I call bull. It doesn't serve the story, it's just author appeal or something the author feels like they have to prove.

At the time of the movie, Wash's death was not well foreshadowed, and Joss has even said he put it in last minute. It shows. It's not well set within the story, it's not poignant like Book was endeavoring for, it's just there. Doing nothing for the story within the frame we have (the movie).

So when someone pops up and says that sudden death is a good plot device for increasing dramatic tension, I have to argue on principle. There might be someone, somewhere, who successfully used sudden death to bring home the reality of a bad situation to their audience, but my general impression is it just makes plot holes.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:50 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
The destruction of Alderaan, the massacre at Hoth, Han Solo's torture at Cloud City, the corruption of Anakin Skywalker, the shabla Jedi Purge --there is plenty of gritty darkness in Star Wars and always has been.

Fine, but there's still the little fact that Chewie's death was basically "Wow, no one has died in this franchise for like a really long time. On your toes, people!"

Quote:
But isn't that itself a trope older than dirt? It only serves to emphasize the fact that we're watching something fictional, that is driven not by logic or rationality, but by the author blatantly reaching onto the screen and manipulating events to provide exposition. It breaks suspension of disbelief for most of us just as much as verisimilitude seems to do for you.

How unutterably boring would fiction be if all deaths had to be dressed up with operatic arias and choral monologues? Some of us like verisimilitude in our fiction.

Sure it's older than dirt. Done wrong, and you're definitely right thatit can just feel like an emotional manipulation. There's a reason why the term "tear-jerker" tends to be used as a perjorative, in that it can ALSO be a cheap emotional shot.

And you might be right that it could eventually lose the meaning and impact.

But it hasn't yet. Which suggests to me some important and enduring reasons about why people invest themselves in a story in the first place.

Quote:
And yes, as Joss notes in the commentary, it's part of the misdirection setup: when Kaylee gets shot, then Jayne, then Simon, you start to think this is going to be a Bolivian Army Ending, where none of them survive. Not just an emotional impact, but a dramatic impact, which alters what we the audience expect from the film.

Does anyone really think at that point Mal's going to die to the Operative? Does Wash dying really add to the sense that any of them could die? I'm just not buying.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 7:57 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Does anyone really think at that point Mal's going to die to the Operative? Does Wash dying really add to the sense that any of them could die? I'm just not buying.

I was scared outta my mind after Wash died. Not since Luke got his hand cut off have I experienced such cinematic terror.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 8:05 AM

BYTEMITE

Really?

I mean, outside the movie, Joss had gone to all this trouble to reassemble his cast. In the story, they actually reassemble the missing parts of the crew (if only in spirit, for Book's case). And Joss was hoping for a sequel.

Maybe it's just a problem with me, where I'm now too jaded and critical feel any extra fear or worry in an "everyone might die!" fictional scenario.

In that case, knowing it's just me does not decrease my irritation over how common the trope is, or my irritation over how needless and ineffective it seems to be.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 8:27 AM

BYTEMITE

Let me try a different tract, then.

Let's call Wash's death the best case scenario use of this trope, because it seems as though some of you WERE genuinely affected in the intended way.

After it's all over and the threat is gone, and you're walking out of the theater thinking about how a likeable character was killed off just to increase dramatic tension. What is your reaction?

Mine generally is "was that really necessary?"

I imagine that's not the take-away a writer generally wants to leave with their audience.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 8:36 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

I've gotta agree, when Wash died I thought our Big Damn Heroes were going to just barely get that signal out before they all died. I think Wash's death served a purpose, but I think that purpose could have been fulfilled another way if there were more time.

So much of the BDM just didn't feel right to me. I guess I was spoiled by all the individual attention the characters got in Firefly. I hesitate to calling Wash's end a cheap trick, (Wash's piloting right before he died was absolutely epic!) but I think if the movie was longer it could have been better and Wash could have survived. Of course, there was no time when you have to cram a season into a movie so it was a quick and brutally effective.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 9:13 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

After it's all over and the threat is gone, and you're walking out of the theater thinking about how a likeable character was killed off just to increase dramatic tension. What is your reaction?

I felt like a wet dish rag. Just like after "Empire."

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 9:16 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I've gotta agree, when Wash died I thought our Big Damn Heroes were going to just barely get that signal out before they all died. I think Wash's death served a purpose, but I think that purpose could have been fulfilled another way if there were more time.

Interesting. Season two, if only, eh?

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 9:17 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I felt like a wet dish rag. Just like after "Empire."

Guess it did ring you then. Sorry about that.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010 9:38 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Here's a line from my Serenity review:

"There has been quite a bit of talk comparing Mal to Han Solo, but I don't agree. Mal is a much more complex character, braver and with a better defined code of ethics, and I would argue that Nathan Fillion is also the better actor."

As for Wash's death, it devastated me the first time I saw it, which was at one of the advanced screenings on May 5, '05. I don't think I was thinking too clearly about the rest of the film after that...and then Zoe gets sliced...and Kaylee and Simon shot...I nearly freaked!

I applaud Joss' decisions for the BDM now, realizing I was originally mourning more over what I perceived to be the death of Firefly rather than the deaths of fictional characters. I disagree strongly that it was lazy writing on Joss' part.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE