Scariest villan of them all. by chapterandverse

FIREFLY EPISODE DISCUSSIONS

Scariest villan of them all.

POSTED BY: CHAPTERANDVERSE
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3533
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:18 AM

I loved the "best villans" thread and Early, Niska, and Saffron all deserved to be lauded for their contributions to villany but I have to say, after watching Safe again last night, the Tam parents, or at least the father, are the worst of the lot.

While the other villans threaten, and do, all sorts of nasty things to pretty much everyone they meet, the Tam parents value their wealth and respectability above the lives of their children. They opt to ignore the concerns that Simon has about River's safety and, when Simon decides to rescue River himself, they abandon him.

Now, I know that Niska is a cheerful torturer, Saffron left the crew to die, and Early was a nasty piece of work, but for me, the scene where Simon's dad bails him out of prison and coldly demands that he stop trying to help River is more chilling than any other scene in the series.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:33 AM

AGENTROUKA

To play devil's advocate, maybe the idea that River was in danger really was that absurd to him, and Simon's insistence to go against the law seemed like utter lunacy. Maybe he thought that a "tough love" stance would shake Simon out of a dangerous and irrational confusion.

I'm not ready yet, to assign true villainy to the Tam parents. Short-sightedness and carelessness, perhaps, but just painting them as Bad Parents without the benefit of some doubt is such an easy answer. Lacks meat and complexity.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:58 AM

DONCOAT

I sure would have loved the opportunity to see the Tams (Senior) fleshed out more. I would be willing to bet that we would have seen more of them if the series had survived longer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:06 AM

CHAPTERANDVERSE

I take you point devil's advocate but I think that if anyone was to suggest to a parent that their child was in danger, no matter how unlikely that seemed, they would at least investigate that threat.
It would have taken very little for Mr. Tam to ask to visit his daughter or to ask that Simon would be allowed to visit her.
To refuse to do so, when the only thing that would appear to be at stake is a little embarrasment, seems willful to me, especially if he believed that Simon's concerns were utter lunacy.

Moreover, in the early scenes at the Tam's estate, there seems to be more than a suggestion that Simon is the golden boy of the household and River, despite the fact that she is actually more intelligent, is regarded as less important.
When Simon looks set to become an important doctor, he is helped, when he is willing to risk everything to help his sister, he is abandoned.
I think Simon would have known "tough love" when he saw it from his father, and the scene at the station aint it.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:10 AM

ZZETTA13

I agree with AGENTROUKA on this. Although every time I view the scene with Daddy Tam trying to convince Simon of the error of his ways in the police station I want to grab, slap and tell him to get his head outta his ass, I don’t think he qualities for the villain status. Then when he states “ I had to walk through that door, which goes on my permanent profile!” he gives away his attitude that family perception by the silver spoon crowd is more important that anything, is disturbing.

Anyhoo, it wouda been cool to see an eps devoted to condition of the Tam family estate after the kiddies had becomes sought after felons. What is daddy Tam thinking now? And how is he conceived by the community since the children have joined out merry little band of do-baders? We’ll have to see when the series continues.

Z

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:23 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Yeah, I don’t think the Tam’s rise to the level villainy either. I think there is a lot about them that is not fleshed out, as others have indicated, but there are some assumptions that I think are implied.

1. The government was in complete control.

2. The Tams were wealthy and likely to feel comfortable, but knew that there wealth provided them a degree of protection from what they understood to be a very unforgiving and harsh world. They trusted the system.

3. They want what is best for their children, and felt that Simon’s attitude would jeopardize his chances at a successful and happy life. (And they weren’t really wrong about that.)

The Tam’s weren’t villain, but they were proxies for the true villains: the government.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:49 AM

CHAPTERANDVERSE

Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
I agree with AGENTROUKA on this. Although every time I view the scene with Daddy Tam trying to convince Simon of the error of his ways in the police station I want to grab, slap and tell him to get his head outta his ass, I don’t think he qualities for the villain status. Then when he states “ I had to walk through that door, which goes on my permanent profile!” he gives away his attitude that family perception by the silver spoon crowd is more important that anything, is disturbing.

Well, that is kinda my point. That is a disturbing thing to say when your son is pleading with you for help. How he is regarded is more important than anything else to Tam senior, including his children's welfare.
I have always found the bureaucrats who sign on the dotted line when evil deeds are afoot a lot scarier than the people who are actually carrying out the deeds. It seems colder and more inhuman.

I think that if the series had showed more of Mr. Tam, he would still have the same attitude toward his children, regardless of River's condition: Basically he would be angry that they had disgraced him by causing trouble. That is what I find frightening.

I seem to be in a minority on this one but I will continue to hiss and boo when Mr. Tam appears on screen!

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:14 AM

ZZETTA13

I think it’s in the definition of the word “villain” that ppl are having trouble with. Although folks are seeing daddy Tam as a self centered A-hole,misguided and misinformed it doesn’t seem that he is intentionally wanting to cause harm to his offspring. Where with a true villain it is with reasonable assumption that they are. I see your point CHAPTERANDVERSE but although Mr. Tam could be considered a “bad daddy” I don’t think ppl consider him a villainous one. And mommy Tam herself doesn’t want to hear of anything negative about the state of verse affairs either.

As for the hissing and booing of seeing daddy Tam on screen, I’m right there with ya

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:23 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by chapterandverse:
I take you point devil's advocate but I think that if anyone was to suggest to a parent that their child was in danger, no matter how unlikely that seemed, they would at least investigate that threat.
It would have taken very little for Mr. Tam to ask to visit his daughter or to ask that Simon would be allowed to visit her.
To refuse to do so, when the only thing that would appear to be at stake is a little embarrasment, seems willful to me, especially if he believed that Simon's concerns were utter lunacy.

Still, he can be accused of letting pride and stubborness matter more to him than making sure his daughter is alright, but that still doesn't imply actual maliciousness.

The only thing that could truly make them villains would be if they had known River was being harmed, had not cared and had therefor actively tried to prevent Simon from helping her - and I think this could have been done in a less obvious way, so it doesn't seem plausible to me.

Quote:

Moreover, in the early scenes at the Tam's estate, there seems to be more than a suggestion that Simon is the golden boy of the household and River, despite the fact that she is actually more intelligent, is regarded as less important.

What gives you the idea? All I see is Simon making a deal with his father regarding an unfiltered kind of communication device he wants.
River asks if she can have a "dedicated source box", as well, and daddy Tam says "many years". Could easily be due to her age and the fact that even super-geniuses can't necessarily deal with any "Heaven knows what" (quote) that would come in through the cortex connection when they are five.

Quote:

I think Simon would have known "tough love" when he saw it from his father, and the scene at the station aint it.

Do children, regardless of age, always see the love within the tough? I doubt it.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:06 AM

PAINTITBLACK

I think Chapter is right. Villans come in many forms and the Tam dad strikes me as the kind that will even cut off his own kids if they threaten to undermine his status.

I think that the early scenes in Simon and River's life set up the later scenes because they show how a seemingly normal and loving father can switch in a moment to an unfeeling supporter of the status quo.

Mister Tam would know Simon well enough to know that he was not prone to conspiracy theories (he is certainly not the hysterical type) and Simon would know his father well enough to recognize a false threat when he sees one. I think most children do know when their parents are bluffing (I certainly always did) and the scene in the prison is an impersonal threat, not a "tough love" moment.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:43 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by paintitblack:

Mister Tam would know Simon well enough to know that he was not prone to conspiracy theories (he is certainly not the hysterical type) and Simon would know his father well enough to recognize a false threat when he sees one. I think most children do know when their parents are bluffing (I certainly always did) and the scene in the prison is an impersonal threat, not a "tough love" moment.

Where do you take it from that I am thinking it was a false threat?

I think he is trying to communicate to Simon the seriousness of what he is doing. Telling him, explicitly, that he won't support him in it might have worked as a wake-up call, if Simon had not been so determined (and right).

If my sister started doing illegal, self-damaging things that seemed utterly crazy to me, I would tell her similar things and mean them. Just to make it absolutely clear what I think of what she's doing.

Mind, I'm not trying to excuse the mindlessness and quick dismissal of River's situation by the Tam parents. I'm just trying to say that you don't have to be a villain to do that. Just a bit stupid and blind.

Saffron, Niska and the Blue Hands.. they aren't stupid or blind. Or indifferent. They are malicious and predatory, they mean to do harm. That's a villain to me.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:45 AM

PAINTITBLACK

I understand what you are saying. I guess that I am taking it from the opposite angle. If my child started doing illegal things because they believed that something very bad was happening to their sibling, I wouldn't threaten to cut them off.

This whole storyline just highlights for me something that Joss has always pointed out about families that people create for themselves rather than being born into.

There are no blood ties between the crew of Serenity but Mal comes back for Simon and River anyway, even though it creates a great deal of trouble for him and things would be a lot easier if they were left where they were.

It all comes down to definitions.
Simon's father, for whatever reasons or motives, does not help him when he needs it, when he is pleading for it. That makes him a villan to me.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:18 AM

AGENTROUKA

You definitely won't find disagreement from me on the angle that Daddy Tam is being a bad and selfish father.

But we're agreeing to disagree on whether he's a villain, which is fine by me. :)

One thing though:

In "Safe", while it does create a beautiful contrast and mirror image to the daddy-issue, Mal didn't really have a reason to doubt that Simon and River were in some danger. He didn't owe them saving, but he knew that saving was needed.

Daddy Tam has some reason to doubt that his daughter is actually in danger. The only thing suggesting that, to him, is Simon's ranting. So, while he is morally obligated to save River, he doesn't really know (as in, is convinced) that she needs saving.

It's an interesting twist, but not an exact parallel.

The Tam parents took security and family for granted because they have it all. Mal has lost it all and craves family, so he reacts with much more care and protectiveness.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE