Investigating the Death of 'Agent Dubson'
POSTED BY: TheSomnambulist
UPDATED: Friday, October 15, 2010 23:25
VIEWED: 18452
PAGE 1 of 2
I have a question.
During Firefly, was there ever mention of an investigation for finding Lawrence Dubson's body and or his killers after the initial episode - I can't quite remember? And when the crew are questioned during Bushwacked by the Alliance officer should there not have been mention that the last known where abouts of Agent Dobson was aboard a Firefly class ship....?
Even in the film when the Operative views Mal's files -should his name not have lit up all sorts of lights saying 'possible involvement in the death of a federal agent!' or sume such?
Just wondering....?
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This should answer your question.
Select to view spoiler:
Dobson didn't die.
wo men ren ran zai fei xing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
This should answer your question.Select to view spoiler:
Dobson didn't die.
wo men ren ran zai fei xing.
BUGGER! Really. When was that said? I missed it entirely
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sadly, since Serenity didn't air first, Joss didn't feel the need.
Carrying fugee's + killed Fed would have up'd the tentions even more. More Alliance. More drama. More narrow escapes.
Gorramit.
*depressed again*
--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
This should answer your question.Select to view spoiler:
Dobson didn't die.
wo men ren ran zai fei xing.
BUGGER! Really. When was that said? I missed it entirely
In the first comic series, "Those Left Behind."
wo men ren ran zai fei xing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll see your...
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
This should answer your question.Select to view spoiler:
Dobson didn't die.
And raise you a...
Select to view spoiler:
After Mal shot Dobson, didn't he check him to make sure. Even Jayne thought Dobson was buzzard food. (Yes, I read the comic.) If it's canon that he didn't die (the first time), I'll go with it. But my rule is: if Dobson gets to live, then so does Wash.
--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In "Those left behind" (the comic) Dubson wasn't killed, my guess is if "Firefly" had lasted that story would have been an episode.
Those arn't boobs, they're lies! - Stewie Griffin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
In the first comic series, "Those Left Behind."
Ah righto. Must say it wouldn't be like Joss to leave a huge story plot like that just floating around - so figures he'd resolve it somehow...
Well thanks EC.
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RahlMaclaren wrote:
Select to view spoiler:
After Mal shot Dobson, didn't he check him to make sure. Even Jayne thought Dobson was buzzard food. (Yes, I read the comic.) If it's canon that he didn't die (the first time), I'll go with it. But my rule is: if Dobson gets to live, then so does Wash.
Rahl. You realise Joss would probably have killed Wash off and maybe one or two more anyhow had the show gone on... Least this way we've only lost two. It doesn't bare thinking about what he'd have done to Inara or Kaylee!!!
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I cant find my copy of Those Left Behind...
Select to view spoiler:
...but it's my information and belief that although Dobson lived, didn't Mal kill him "again" at the end?
In which case, yes that might show up on the Cortex.
Except by then Dobson was just another outlaw working with Blue Sun, which can never be admitted due to plausible deniability. So Dobson's demise might not show up on the Cortex, even for the Operative.
That's my story and I'm stickin to it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, you're correct about the content of "Those Left Behind" (and I agree with your assessment of the impact).
As for Wash not being dead: He's dead and gone. Get over it.
Joss wrote Wash's death in SERENITY.
He and Tudyk have both said in interviews that Wash was always slated to die.
He even approved Wash's wake (as depicted in FLOATOUT).
WASH.
IS.
DEAD.
End of story.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My point.
And so was Dobson dead at the end of Serenity (pilot).
--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except, clearly, he wasn't.
(If you haven't already, check out THOSE LEFT BEHIND to see how he survived. Incidentally, the miniseries serves as a great season finale and bridge to the movie.)
Appearance isn't everything, but I'll take the word of Joss Whedon for canon here.
Joss has stated that his intention was always to bring Dobson back.
He has also stated that his intention was always to kill off Wash.
As he has supported both of these statements by actually DOING them, I don't think there's much to dispute.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*digs out my THOSE LEFT BEHIND*
Select to view spoiler:
Fair Warning.
Dobson: "You tried to kill me - you shot my freaking eye out - and dumped me to die.
I might as well have - the Law marked me as dead without so much as a search, and so I decided to stay that way."
Doesn't tell HOW he survived, only that he did.
--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal did kill Dobson, per Joss' script in Firefly The Official Companion Volume One:
'Mal walks in behind Simon...and shoots Dobson in the face. He flies back, letting go of River and dead before he lands.'
Joss brings Dobson back, not so dead, in Those Left Behind Part 2.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.
Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).
Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.
I'd also note that I'm surprised ya'll are trying to hold a spoiler-free discussion about a franchise that is 5 to 8 years old.
Be like trying to discuss original Star Trek without saying that Kirk defeated the Gorn...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, guess I’m going to have to break down and spill the beans here….. Joss and I are very close friends. I got a phone call from him just before Serenity the BDM began at the theaters. My ‘ol friend Joss was in a bit of a pickle. He asked if I had any ideas for a sequel. He was a bit distraught after having killed off Wash and Book in Serenity the movie and said if he had to do it over again he wouldn’t have done it.
‘Here’s what you do….” I told him, “So Wash and Book return for Serenity 2!”
“First of all it’s a movie Joss!” I said, “ You can do anything you damn well please! Second, it’s a science fiction movie, and if a 15 year old girl can destroy an army of reavers don’t you think you have the power to bring Wash and Book back?”
“Here’s the set-up!”
“The whole return trip back through reaver territory was made by a Serenity hologram. Mal Wash and the rest of the crew were just vapors of deception. Once they landed on Mr. Universe’s world then Mr. Universe activated his Serenity fake bots (see Lenore) and they put up the best gorram fight on the movie screen that year.”
“After the smoke settled and the dust cleared, and the Alliance went home, the real Serenity left Miranda and broadcast the second verse alert wave because the first had been intercepted by the “ Hands of Blue” guys.”
“ So in retrospect this would have been the sequel to Serenity. Wash, Book and Mr. Universe all alive and well. Joss loved the idea ( He loves happy endings) but as we all know there was no sequel.”
“So this is what happened. I will stake my million dollar yacht on it!”
I’m glad to have cleared up all the crazy speculation…and I think I just ruined my idea for my next fan-fic storyline….BP, out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PS: Book never went to Haven. He remained on Serenity the whole time.
BP
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, Mal didn't survive Serenity Valley.
The events of Firefly and Serenity are delusions of his dying mind as he lays mortally wounded at the onset of the battle
That's why he can never "leave"...
(Hopefully someone gets the reference...)
I really do hate that Dobson survived.
He got shot through the eye by a gun that killed a horse with one shot. Then he was dumped in the middle of nowhere on a shitty litte moon then there is the possibility of a crashed Reaver ship nearby...I can usually suspend my disbelief, but c'mon!!! 
Its like something outta Science Fiction! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.
Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).
Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.
I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.
I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.
"I 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
My point.
And so was Dobson dead at the end of Serenity (pilot).
Select to view spoiler:
Tara
Cordy
Wesley
Fred
Jenny
Joyce
Do I really need to go on ? This IS Joss, after all.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.
Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).
Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.
I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.
I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.
I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.
Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).
Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.
I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.
I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.
I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?
Well, as you yourself mentioned, it ratcheted up the tension and the stakes, making the final act of the film much more intense than it would have been if they all got away.
Which is good storytelling - making the most out of the story at hand, bringing the greatest emotional punch. It's not just about giving everyone a happy ending so that no one goes away sad.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've heard Firefly called the Anti-Star Trek, but I believe Joss Whedon could learn storytelling tricks from Gene Roddenberry. There has to be reasons, which Joss Whedon can control, why Star Trek movies and TV were big commercial successes while Serenity and Firefly were not.
What follows is a transcript of 5 actors (Jonathan Frakes, Host Whoopi Goldberg, Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, Patrick Stewart) explaining why Trek was successful. It is from Star Trek The Captains Summit - [2009]. I dream there is some ingredient in Trek that Joss doesn't use enough of in his own shows. I know that is the same as believing in happily ever after fairy tales. Were it that easy, every show would be a commercial success.
www.subtitlesource.org/title/tt1394315
www.subtitlesource.org/subs/62212/Star.Trek.The.Captains.Summit.720p.B
luRay.DD2.0.x264
The best thing that ever happened to me in terms of contacts, as we're being serious now, was a letter I got from a police sergeant in the Las Vegas police force. And he'd said that he enjoyed the show, but most particularly he said, "There are bad days in the job that I do, really bad days when my view of humanity and of the world is low. I see some awful things. When that happens, when that day comes to an end, my response to it is to go home and put in a tape of Star Trek. And I feel that things will get better."
Yeah, that's great.
Is that Gene [Roddenberry's] legacy? That he actually left us with something, some great possibility of what mankind could be?
He had a great belief in mankind's capabilities. He had great...
He had real belief that the future was going to be the way Star Trek was.
Yeah, he had a great vision.
His vision of hope was exactly what drove... You know, when we started doing this show, there were stories about the Chariots of the Gods, the whole concept that maybe we have been visited by a previous incarnation of some kind and had built the pyramids and then gone away or whatever, and he said, "That's rubbish." He said, "These wonderful things were all done by mankind, not by any ancient astronauts that came here from some other planet. They were all done by mankind and mankind should take the credit for it and move forward and continue to do wonderful things."
I'm sure that's true about Gene. But also there is a real commercial aspect to that view. And that is when I was doing a show involving EMTs and it was called Rescue 911, we found and ultimately built on that, that the shows that were most successful were the ones where people were saved. You had a positive note. Here comes the EMTs, and you're gonna be okay. Whereas in fact about 80% of the calls result in death, but we didn't dramatize those.
How awful it was, it is. And subsequently it was proved by another show that Gene did, was if the view of the future was bad, people didn't wanna see that. But to know that we would exist 300 years from now, that we will overcome this environmental crisis that we're facing, this catastrophe that we're all hurtling towards, that will be cured by the very technology that is doing it. To know that that is true and to know that people will evolve and become better, even though there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary, that's a positive note and people want to see that.
Because, ultimately, we all want to have faith.
It's fundamentally the reason for the success of the series.
-Don't you think? That argument.
-Absolutely.
I think people are inspired by the anti-sexism and anti-racism that was practiced on all the shows for the last 40 years. And the hope of that possibility, given what's going on in the world. I hear it from people every day. The same thing that you hear from this Vegas cop. That when things go bad, I go back to the show where something...
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:
I've heard Firefly called the Anti-Star Trek, but I believe Joss Whedon could learn storytelling tricks from Gene Roddenberry. There has to be reasons, which Joss Whedon can control, why Star Trek movies and TV were big commercial successes while Serenity and Firefly were not.
Challenging material is rarely widely popular. The term "lowest common denominator" exists for a reason, beyond math.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Star Trek has it's place and all, but it's not an even remotely believable future IMO. Firefly made the point that even in the future we are still humans with the same basic problems we face today. That seems spot on to me. It made the show seem grounded in a way that Trek just doesn't.
Talk of changing something to make it more like Trek sounds like what Fox executives were probably thinking. "Can we get 20% more klingons?" We already have Star Trek. Can't hurt to try something new.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I've been in this argument before, and I also found Wash's death gratuitous and unnecessary. It's not about oh no, he died, a story can't end SAD. People really need to stop making this accusation, it's a strawman. Some of my favourite stories are tragedies. I'm not upset because Wash died, frankly I didn't identify much with Wash as a character, and wasn't affected by his death.
My complaint is that Wash's death was poorly executed in my opinion PERIOD. It's about the impact and the use of the death as a story telling device. Even Zoe isn't allowed much of a reaction over his death. Are we supposed to be feeling this? Because I didn't feel it.
Select to view spoiler:
Quick comparison: I felt more of a reaction over Ballard's death in Dollhouse because of Echo's speech afterwards than I did Wash's death... And I HATED Ballard, and I HATED the Ballard/Echo pairing. Joss can do a good death scene, but he copped out with Wash.
Also, I argue Joss is regretting it now, because all the comic books so far have been written so Wash can still be in them. Wash was the author avatar, after all, the character Joss could channel his sense of humour and commentary on situations into. Writing yourself into a CORNER is a mistake, not good storytelling. Wash's death added nothing to the movie, and it probably didn't do the franchise any favours.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
I'd also note that I'm surprised ya'll are trying to hold a spoiler-free discussion about a franchise that is 5 to 8 years old.
My oh my. QFT, needs to be signature quoted.
Regarding the original TV series Star Trek: it was not successful, it cancellation was attempted during and after it's first season, but was fought against by the studio head which produced TOS (Desilu Studios). At that time, Lucille Ball was one of the most powerful women in Television.
TOS was eventually cancelled after the third season, due to perpetually dismal ratings.
Try not to reinvent history, that's what the looney lefties do in RWED.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I have a question.
During Firefly, was there ever mention of an investigation for finding Lawrence Dubson's body and or his killers after the initial episode - I can't quite remember? And when the crew are questioned during Bushwacked by the Alliance officer should there not have been mention that the last known where abouts of Agent Dobson was aboard a Firefly class ship....?
Even in the film when the Operative views Mal's files -should his name not have lit up all sorts of lights saying 'possible involvement in the death of a federal agent!' or sume such?
Just wondering....?
Back to the original question, assuming the discussion is still desired.
1. Dobson's assignment was to tail River and bring in the Alliance. Therefore, if Dobson was known to have disappeared in connection to Mal or Serenity, then the show would have ended by the second episode - unlikely in Joss' scripts. It then follows that the Alliance did not have knowledge that Dobson was connected with Mal or Serenity. Not to give out spoilers, but this means that Alliance did not know which ship Dobson departed Eavesdown Docks on, did not get enough of his signal from Serenity before Wash scrambled it, and/or did not get an ID on Serenity before she rabbited right after KayLee was shot, and did not know Dobsons last expected repository on Whitefall.
Maybe that is the only point I'll make.
But in support of it, Dobson was under cover, so not in constant communication with his unit.
You also forget that they went to an Alliance ship in Safe, to save Book.
However, that does remind me of a problem I keep forgetting.
How does Serenity outrun The Alliance ship(s) after KayLee is shot? It's a slow ancient transport ship. They knew during the Salvage job for Badger, that they needed the decoys deployed in order fort he Alliance to choose to not chase them. Whenever they go up against the Alliance directly, they need the decoys or other tricks. Cry Baby, Pulse Beacon, multiple Nav Beacons, they know they cannot outrun Alliance ships in their 14-year-old medium cargo ship.
When Simon directs they rabbit after kayLee is shot, they have no props pre-set, so how do they evade the Alliance.
Anybody know?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
ow does Serenity outrun The Alliance ship(s) after KayLee is shot? It's a slow ancient transport ship. They knew during the Salvage job for Badger, that they needed the decoys deployed in order fort he Alliance to choose to not chase them. Whenever they go up against the Alliance directly, they need the decoys or other tricks. Cry Baby, Pulse Beacon, multiple Nav Beacons, they know they cannot outrun Alliance ships in their 14-year-old medium cargo ship.
When Simon directs they rabbit after kayLee is shot, they have no props pre-set, so how do they evade the Alliance.
Anybody know?
During the salvage operation when they use the crybaby to distract the Alliance cruise, that's to get them to redirect the compliment of much faster ASREVs waiting in the hanger.
Cruisers are very slow. ASREVs deployed in the defense of cruisers and interception are not.
An ASREV was the ship that the corrupt Fed Womack was chasing Serenity with in The Message.
My assumption is the cruiser was not yet close enough to get a good bearing off Serenity to deploy it's ASREVs to the location. Not good enough triangulation = miles off the mark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.
Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).
Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.
I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.
I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.
I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?
Well, as you yourself mentioned, it ratcheted up the tension and the stakes, making the final act of the film much more intense than it would have been if they all got away.
Which is good storytelling - making the most out of the story at hand, bringing the greatest emotional punch. It's not just about giving everyone a happy ending so that no one goes away sad.
My point was, in using the quotes around "peril" and "realism" and the word artificially, that killing Wash out of nowhere DIDN'T ratchet anything up.
The peril was already there.
The chase was on, both Reavers and Alliance in hot pursuit;
Wash's death was a throwaway author's trick.
A gratuitous trick that, for me, brought nothing to the story being told and cut off an important line of story telling were the franchise to continue.
When I first saw the movie, having never seen Firefly, Wash's death didn't really register beyond, "what a waste".
After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.
Now that I find that investing audiences in his characters,
then randomly killing them is a Joss trademark,
I find myself increasingly less interested in Joss' work.
The fact that Joss would approve bringing back a NON-character like Dobson,
but kill a meaningful character like Wash;
is nonsensical to my storytelling sensibilities.
Mike
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, that's great for you. But when I saw it, I did know the characters already, and his death did greatly increase the tension.
Maybe you would have thought they were in just as much danger had no one been hurt, but I don't. What you say is cheap and artificial, I saw as necessary.
And your use of words like "betrayed" is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about with the hurt feelings comment. What you see as "random" I see as very deliberate and calculated - and feel that the writing on display reflects this.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Leonard Nimoy has a story about the killing of his character, Spock, in Star Trek II. Gene Roddenberry had not thought about it clearly, analogous to Joss Whedon killing Wash. Spock must die but there was an escape clause appended on the very last day Nimoy is on the set.
Originally posted by pennausamike:
After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.
Now that I find that investing audiences in his characters,
then randomly killing them is a Joss trademark,
I find myself increasingly less interested in Joss' work.
The fact that Joss would approve bringing back a NON-character like Dobson,
but kill a meaningful character like Wash;
is nonsensical to my storytelling sensibilities.
Mike
Leonard Nimoy explains how a major screw-up in a screenplay is repaired. Joss' producer on Serenity should have ordered Joss to fix Wash's death, somehow, someway. This is one example of how that is done in Hollywood, according to Nimoy:
We really had planned to be finished with the Spock character. And I was depressed because the film was going so well, and I thought, "We're making a big mistake here." I mean, Star Trek II was being made and being made very, very well. It was a good script, well directed, well acted. And here we came down to my last day.
And... Anyway, fortunately, just before the final death scene, where I'm going into this chamber to save the ship and die, out comes the producer and says to me, "Is there anything you can do or say that would leave a thread for the future?"
I thought, "Whoa!" That's... Wow. This is momentous. So I said I could do a mind meld on DeForest Kelley, who was lying there unconscious, or semi-conscious, and I could just say a word to him, and he said, "What would the word be?"
And I said, "I'll say, 'Remember.'" That's ambiguous enough to be picked up as a thread to anything. And that's exactly what happened. I said, "Remember," and we built the next film on that word.
The above quote is from Star Trek The Captains Summit - [2009] - www.subtitlesource.org/title/tt1394315
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, that's great for you. But when I saw it, I did know the characters already, and his death did greatly increase the tension.
Maybe you would have thought they were in just as much danger had no one been hurt, but I don't. What you say is cheap and artificial, I saw as necessary.
Right...
Quote:
When I first saw the movie, having never seen Firefly, Wash's death didn't really register beyond, "what a waste".
...and I don't know how a storyteller reconciles two such divergent audience viewpoints.
But...
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And your use of words like "betrayed" is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about with the hurt feelings comment. What you see as "random" I see as very deliberate and calculated - and feel that the writing on display reflects this.
Quote:
After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.
...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.
I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.
While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".
I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.
Mike
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.
I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.
While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".
I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.
Mike
Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel. Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.
I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.
The poor box office need not ncessarily be down to this either (and I realise you mention it as a contributing factor and that may well be) but one of the highest grossing films of all time (TITANIC) didn't have a happy ending.
Therefore you have to produce the work in an honset way and from the heart. And I believe that's exactly what Joss does. Can you really ask for more from an artist?
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.
I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.
While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".
I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.
Mike
I understand that those are your impressions of the film, but they definitely do not apply to everyone. I didn't feel betrayed at all by Wash's death. I actually felt more betrayed that Book died without revealing his backstory. I think both of their deaths were absolutely essential to making the final battle feel very intense. One death feels like a token death these days. Killing 2 of the main characters really starts to make you wonder.
When Zoe got sliced, Kaylee got hit by darts, Simon got shot, River got pulled away by reavers and Mal got impaled I really did believe that any one of them could die if not all of the crew. When Simon got shot I turned to my friend and whispered "is he really going to kill them all?".
The deaths left the door open that the crew really might not make it. If no one had died it would feel like any other movie where the protagonists are in situations where they shouldn't survive but it's a movie so you don't really think anything bad will happen to them. Joss thoroughly took away that safety blanket for me. He did that by killing well established characters that we're invested in. If he killed Fanty and Mingo it wouldn't have had any impact. Sorta like how no one complains that Joss killed Mr. Universe. It had no emotional impact because we aren't invested in the character.
I saw the movie at least 4 times in theaters (that I can remember). I've gone to CSTS screenings every year since. I don't think the movie needed a happy ending to get repeat customers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel.
Joss did it with the original Firefly pilot.
The changes he made to appease the FOX creative heads are some of the fans' favorite elements of the show.
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.
And I'd agree, except the story was so compressed, I'm not sure it was really told.
I don't know that Joss didn't metaphorically kill Firefly/Serenity by killing himself/Wash...
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.
That's a whole 'nother discussion!
I would define what Joss did was to create VERY unrealistic characters that,
by speaking to the audiences' psyche,
FEEL realistic, even tho' they aren't, really.
I could write a character by character analysis about the unrealities of each character, and yet, why they touch our hearts.
The "hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold", the "loveable-thug", the "farm-girl-nuclear-spaceship-engineer", the "bitter-but-honorable-criminal-captain"....these are "REAL" characters?
Only in fiction, but I loved them, too.
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
The poor box office need not ncessarily be down to this either (and I realise you mention it as a contributing factor and that may well be) but one of the highest grossing films of all time (TITANIC) didn't have a happy ending.
Titanic was a weeper about the most famous shipwreck in history.
Totally different audience.
BDM Serenity is a sci-fi action flick.
I think it would have helped to stay true to that milieu.
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Therefore you have to produce the work in an honset way and from the heart. And I believe that's exactly what Joss does. Can you really ask for more from an artist?
As mentioned about the Firefly pilot, Joss "compromised" his vision for commercial reasons.
Those compromises improved the final product/story.
FOX Entertainment made Firefly better.
They GOT Firefly.
The short-sighted executives at FOX Broadcasting killed Firefly.
They didn't GET anything that wasn't "American Idol".
Point is, Joss is in a business to please his audience.
Firefly is standing up to long-term examination better than the BDM Serenity.
Even at the post showing Q&A in Australia, the audience stated that they wanted more Firefly more than they wanted more BDM Serenity.
Not sure it really matters.
With the new movie deal, I think life has carried Joss beyond Firefly.
Mike
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel. Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.
Agreed, however, I don't think the movie Serenity was the story he wanted to tell. He wanted to tell a 7-year series, where secrets about Wash and Book would have come out before they died (and they would have, I have enough faith in Joss to acknowledge he probably did plan to kill them).
Compressed into the time frame of the movie, Joss didn't get to tell us things about the characters he wanted to. He was trying to wrap things up, and in the end he did something that it now seems like he regrets, but can't admit he regrets because of artistic integrity.
Quote:
I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.
The dark wasn't out of place. Wash and Book were going to die eventually, and Kaylee, River, Mal, or Inara are probably going to die next.
The movie was just not the most optimal setting to tell the story Joss wanted to tell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Could be that his failure (and death/disappearance) in a non-Parliament-sanctioned black bag op resulted in the permanent dumping of all info on the mission to keep things simple.
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
And when the crew are questioned during Bushwacked by the Alliance officer should there not have been mention that the last known where abouts of Agent Dobson was aboard a Firefly class ship....?
I wasn't a fan of bringing him back myself. In my mind, Mal ended him with that shot.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"is he really going to kill them all?".
There's no way he would have killed all the crew; the point of the movie was sending out a big damn hail mary.
If Firefly/Serenity were a dystopian drama, If Joss were the Orwellian type, maybe it would have ended that way, with the Operative crushing the recording file underfoot without ever looking at it. That's called a "Shoot the Shaggy Dog Story," where nothing is accomplished and the futility of the efforts of the main characters is emphasized. In Orwellian stories, this works, because the message is "these people are scary, don't let them take power."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootTheShaggyDog
Despite a penchant for killing off his characters, Joss is not this writer. Joss believes these people HAVE taken power, the endings he writes are "hey! wake up! It's still possible to win!" He finished Angel and Buffy by STOPPING The End Of The World As We Know It, not having it happen anyway. This is the series he loved that broke his heart, the story he would tell if he got a chance to. For an ending, he's not going to be going for the message "nothing in this story mattered."
I admit that Book's death would not be sufficient to raise concerns that everyone might die. Too much of a time gap between that and the end battle.
Although... Heh. You're right. One death is a cop-out. But maybe two is a cop-out too, if the purpose is to ratchet up tension. Desensitization of the audience and darkness induced apathy. There's a losing battle if I saw one. This is a trope that seriously needs to be deconstructed, and soon, for the sake of storytelling everywhere.
I can accept Book's death if only because within the context of the movie, it worked, and there was a story-related reason for it. He gives Mal the push to do what needs doing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
"is he really going to kill them all?".
There's no way he would have killed all the crew; the point of the movie was sending out a big damn hail mary.
If Firefly/Serenity were a dystopian drama, If Joss were the Orwellian type, maybe it would have ended that way, with the Operative crushing the recording file underfoot without ever looking at it. That's called a "Shoot the Shaggy Dog Story," where nothing is accomplished and the futility of the efforts of the main characters is emphasized. In Orwellian stories, this works, because the message is "these people are scary, don't let them take power."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootTheShaggyDog
Despite a penchant for killing off his characters, Joss is not this writer. Joss believes these people HAVE taken power, the endings he writes are "hey! wake up! It's still possible to win!" He finished Angel and Buffy by STOPPING The End Of The World As We Know It, not having it happen anyway. This is the series he loved that broke his heart, the story he would tell if he got a chance to. For an ending, he's not going to be going for the message "nothing in this story mattered."
I admit that Book's death would not be sufficient to raise concerns that everyone might die. Too much of a time gap between that and the end battle.
Although... Heh. You're right. One death is a cop-out. But maybe two is a cop-out too, if the purpose is to ratchet up tension. Desensitization of the audience and darkness induced apathy. There's a losing battle if I saw one. This is a trope that seriously needs to be deconstructed, and soon, for the sake of storytelling everywhere.
Why isn't Joss that type of writer? He already "broke the rules" apparently by killing established characters and not providing a happy ending. I think Joss is very capable of giving us the emotional story that he decides to give us.
I actually didn't think that they'd utterly fail even if they all died. I figured the operative would watch the recording and they'd convert him. It would be a tragic victory.
I could see the audience being desensitized to the character deaths if they hadn't seen Firefly. However, for those who had seen Firefly I think every death would have a very real impact. Even if Jayne was the last man standing fans of Firefly would still hope he'd survive and start a crew of his own. I don't see any character as being expendable.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I can accept Book's death if only because within the context of the movie, it worked, and there was a story-related reason for it. He gives Mal the push to do what needs doing.
We're just totally different people then. Book's death was annoying because he got to put in his last words. It was scripted garbage that stands out like a sore thumb. Wash just died. He didn't get to say goodbye. Zoe didn't get time to cry out in pain. It was shocking and more realistic.
Joss's works are interesting to me for just that reason. He doesn't follow the predictable plot lines we've seen over and over again. Even when I expect the story to be going a certain direction I'm often surprised by the twists and turns. That's entertaining to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Why isn't Joss that type of writer? He already "broke the rules" apparently by killing established characters and not providing a happy ending. I think Joss is very capable of giving us the emotional story that he decides to give us.
The term you're looking for is "bittersweet victory," which is what Serenity ends up being, and is what Joss writes. (Which itself is not exactly "breaking the rules" but pretty much expected nowadays, really. Lucky for us, tropes are not bad)
He doesn't write downer endings where everyone dies. YET. >_>
<_<
Let's hope he doesn't read this thread and get IDEAS. XD
But yes, I also think Joss is more than capable of bringing the emotional pain, which is why I was disappointed by Wash's death. To me, the death fell flat. However, I still trust him because of his previous successes in the emotional arena, and I believe that he can and will do a good job with the rest of Firefly/Serenity. Plenty more tearjerkers and schadenfreude to come.
Quote:
We're just totally different people then. Book's death was annoying because he got to put in his last words. It was scripted garbage that stands out like a sore thumb. Wash just died. He didn't get to say goodbye. Zoe didn't get time to cry out in pain. It was shocking and more realistic.
Joss's works are interesting to me for just that reason. He doesn't follow the predictable plot lines we've seen over and over again. Even when I expect the story to be going a certain direction I'm often surprised by the twists and turns. That's entertaining to me.
No, you're still mischaracterizing me. I like unpredictable as well. When Saffron was first introduced in OMR, I was playing a game with someone online, and stopping to watch a few minutes, and pausing Firefly to go back to my game and exclaim in delight when each new twist happened. Saffron becoming the Vamp was BRILLIANCE and I loved it, never saw it coming. The morning after the wedding had me in tears I was laughing so hard.
Unfortunately, killing people for shock value, despite causing shock, is not new, edgy, or unpredictable in a storytelling sense.
What I don't like is flawed storytelling. Killing Wash was flawed storytelling, IMO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why do people keep saying it was a "random" death when it happens as part of a huge extended chase/action scene. Seriously, whould they have put out a memo first?
I still have yet to see any explaination or rationale as to why it was such a terrible storytelling choice beyond variations of "I really didn't want Wash to die".
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The term you're looking for is "bittersweet victory," which is what Serenity ends up being, and is what Joss writes. (Which itself is not exactly "breaking the rules" but pretty much expected nowadays, really. Lucky for us, tropes are not bad)
He doesn't write downer endings where everyone dies. YET. >_>
<_<
Let's hope he doesn't read this thread and get IDEAS. XD
So, now he is capable of it? So confusing.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But yes, I also think Joss is more than capable of bringing the emotional pain, which is why I was disappointed by Wash's death. To me, the death fell flat. However, I still trust him because of his previous successes in the emotional arena, and I believe that he can and will do a good job with the rest of Firefly/Serenity. Plenty more tearjerkers and schadenfreude to come.Quote:
We're just totally different people then. Book's death was annoying because he got to put in his last words. It was scripted garbage that stands out like a sore thumb. Wash just died. He didn't get to say goodbye. Zoe didn't get time to cry out in pain. It was shocking and more realistic.
Joss's works are interesting to me for just that reason. He doesn't follow the predictable plot lines we've seen over and over again. Even when I expect the story to be going a certain direction I'm often surprised by the twists and turns. That's entertaining to me.
No, you're still mischaracterizing me. I like unpredictable as well. When Saffron was first introduced in OMR, I was playing a game with someone online, and stopping to watch a few minutes, and pausing Firefly to go back to my game and exclaim in delight when each new twist happened. Saffron becoming the Red Sonja was BRILLIANCE and I loved it, never saw it coming. The morning after the wedding had me in tears I was laughing so hard.
Unfortunately, killing people for shock value, despite causing shock, is not new, edgy, or unpredictable in a storytelling sense.
What I don't like is flawed storytelling. Killing Wash was flawed storytelling, IMO.
I say agree to disagree. It was the best part of the whole movie to me.
And how can something be shocking and predictable other than getting an actual electric shock that is planned?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL, good one Story.
I hated that Wash died, I wouldn't have done it myself. But Joss has a vision of his tale.
You wanna tell God, "Dude, you suck for flooding the Earth that one time..."?
Like it or not, it's THE STORY.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And how can something be shocking and predictable other than getting an actual electric shock that is planned?
*points*
Quote:
Why do people keep saying it was a "random" death when it happens as part of a huge extended chase/action scene. Seriously, whould they have put out a memo first?
And besides, we're talking in terms of story telling, where killing someone to ratchet up tension has become SO common place that the audience doesn't even get worried unless TWO characters die.
Seriously, there's a problem here with this trope. I don't think this trope is actually shocking at all. Which is why I was utterly unaffected by Wash's death.
Furthermore, I can continue to think someone is a good writer even if I think they've written themselves into a corner. Joss Whedon is a good writer. What caused the writing into a corner was trying to use a trope that's hit or miss in application in order to add more angst, as is his want. The problem I am complaining about here is the "Anyone can Die" TROPE, not Joss Whedon.
We are not discussing Joss Whedon's skill, he clearly has it, and I, at least, am not arguing that Joss Whedon should compromise his artistic vision and principles by being less angsty. I am discussing specifically whether Wash's death at this point was useful in terms of the storyline. Seeing as Joss Whedon has indirectly indicated he would like to keep writing stories where Wash is still around... *shrug* It doesn't seem like it to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see people are going to continue trying to mischaracterize me as "trying to tell Joss what to do" rather than me just trying to have a discussion about the effectiveness of Wash's death.
Also that the battlelines are being drawn with the true Joss fans amassing to attack the evil heretic. I suppose it is definitely time to agree to disagree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see this as a "true Joss fan" thing. We just disagree. You think killing Wash didn't work. Others think it worked really well. What's left to discuss?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not at all, Byte!
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Also that the battlelines are being drawn with the true Joss fans amassing to attack the evil heretic.
You are a very nice heretic!
JK- it all comes down to the individual. I hate that Wash died, but I still love Serenity. I can see why those that wanted Wash to live, for emotional, or storytelling reasons have their opinions. And mostly, I respect them. But it's Joss' 'Verse.
Just sayin'.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've got to be rude about Joss' skill in setting a scene.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We are not discussing Joss Whedon's skill, he clearly has it, and I, at least, am not arguing that Joss Whedon should compromise his artistic vision and principles by being less angsty. I am discussing specifically whether Wash's death at this point was useful in terms of the storyline. Seeing as Joss Whedon has indirectly indicated he would like to keep writing stories where Wash is still around... *shrug* It doesn't seem like it to me.
Nobody noticed since we've never been shot by a firing squad, but Wash's death was random bullshit because Wash was looking straight out the window at the Reaver ship. He could see the projectile coming! The Reaver ship was big as a house and in his face! How could Wash not see!? Because Joss wouldn't let him look.
In the mechanics of Wash's death, it's obvious Joss just did not think it through. Quick fix: turn Serenity sideways to the Reavers then Wash couldn't see death coming straight at his head. Serenity was computer graphics - Joss could do it, if he had planned ahead. I guess that Joss thinks it is sufficient to place the movie camera where only the audience can't see the Reavers.
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't see this as a "true Joss fan" thing. We just disagree. You think killing Wash didn't work. Others think it worked really well. What's left to discuss?
Accurate.
I was the heretic, BTW. You guys probably are closer to being true fans simply because you're not as bothered by this as I am. :)
It's just kind of a pet peeve trope of mine, you know, "Anyone Can Die! - under a series of conspired circumstances where they could in fact either live or die and which one or two of them dying probably won't have any effect on the outcome."
Blah. Just bothers me, you see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
JK- it all comes down to the individual. I hate that Wash died, but I still love Serenity. I can see why those that wanted Wash to live, for emotional, or storytelling reasons have their opinions. And mostly, I respect them. But it's Joss' 'Verse.
Yeah, I know.
In the very least, there seems to be a Someone To Remember Him By plot development coming out of this, but I'd really have liked to see the baby question have a longer run, and for something surprising to come out of Wash's backstory before he was killed. Alliance pilot who flew a few missions in the war, maybe? Oh well.
I'm almost wondering if Float Out was suggesting Wash once flew as a pilot for the Blue Sun Corporation! Now that could have some posthumous ramifications.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah,
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Blah. Just bothers me, you see.
I used to call it "The Shakespeare Syndrome."
If you need to give meaning to your story, kill off people.
And in lesser works, I still find it annoying.
But Joss doesn't just go, "Let's kill ___!"
He feels the pain. I hear tell he actually cried as he wrote Wash's death.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I see people are going to continue trying to mischaracterize me as "trying to tell Joss what to do" rather than me just trying to have a discussion about the effectiveness of Wash's death.
Uh, there have been plenty of points made as to why people think it works, and very few have anything to do with telling Joss what to do.
You seem a wee bit disingenuous there.
Quote:
Also that the battlelines are being drawn with the true Joss fans amassing to attack the evil heretic. I suppose it is definitely time to agree to disagree.
Um.... okay. I'd say you are imagining things, but whatever.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's just kind of a pet peeve trope of mine, you know, "Anyone Can Die! - under a series of conspired circumstances where they could in fact either live or die and which one or two of them dying probably won't have any effect on the outcome."
How is that different than "Everyone lives, even though they're being pursued by ruthless, virtually unstoppable killers on two sides, where logically, they'd be lucky if ANY of them lived, and not dying has no effect on the greater storyline".
I still don't see how it's any more than emotional. You didn't want him to die, cool.
but his dying did serve a story purpose, even if you didn't care for it. His living, would have served no direct story purpose, other than to not make some folks sad.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
logically, they'd be lucky if ANY of them lived,
Well, Jayne might have...
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:Quote:I've got to be rude about Joss' skill in setting a scene.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We are not discussing Joss Whedon's skill, he clearly has it, and I, at least, am not arguing that Joss Whedon should compromise his artistic vision and principles by being less angsty. I am discussing specifically whether Wash's death at this point was useful in terms of the storyline. Seeing as Joss Whedon has indirectly indicated he would like to keep writing stories where Wash is still around... *shrug* It doesn't seem like it to me.
Nobody noticed since we've never been shot by a firing squad, but Wash's death was random bullshit because Wash was looking straight out the window at the Reaver ship. He could see the projectile coming! The Reaver ship was big as a house and in his face! How could Wash not see!? Because Joss wouldn't let him look.
In the mechanics of Wash's death, it's obvious Joss just did not think it through. Quick fix: turn Serenity sideways to the Reavers then Wash couldn't see death coming straight at his head. Serenity was computer graphics - Joss could do it, if he had planned ahead. I guess that Joss thinks it is sufficient to place the movie camera where only the audience can't see the Reavers.
The Reavers were aiming at him and firing a projectile with no course correcting capabilities. It pretty much had to be a straight shot. If Wash couldn't see them then they couldn't see Wash and it would have been a random shot that just happened to hit the pilot dead in the chest. That seems much worse than just having Wash strapped in and unable to react in time.
Basically I think by the time the shot was fired it was too late. I think he turned his head anyway IIRC. He probably didn't even see the shot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And he was distracted. Having just performed the most difficult landing ever, he likely wasn't instantly looking for the next threat - and was indeed patting himself on the back when the shot happened.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There was 3 pairs of eyes in the cockpit, all facing the Reavers. Wash not seeing? Okay, have it your way. Mal or Zoe could have seen the Reavers if only Joss hadn't made them blind to what was happening outside the window. If the Reaver's wooden projectile can get into the window then Zoe or Mal can see it coming. Unless you assume the projectile made a 90 degree turn in mid-air and seemed to come out of nowhere.
Originally posted by Zeek:
The Reavers were aiming at him and firing a projectile with no course correcting capabilities. It pretty much had to be a straight shot. If Wash couldn't see them then they couldn't see Wash and it would have been a random shot that just happened to hit the pilot dead in the chest. That seems much worse than just having Wash strapped in and unable to react in time.
Basically I think by the time the shot was fired it was too late. I think he turned his head anyway IIRC. He probably didn't even see the shot.
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:Quote:There was 3 pairs of eyes in the cockpit, all facing the Reavers. Wash not seeing? Okay, have it your way. Mal or Zoe could have seen the Reavers if only Joss hadn't made them blind to what was happening outside the window. If the Reaver's wooden projectile can get into the window then Zoe or Mal can see it coming. Unless you assume the projectile made a 90 degree turn in mid-air and seemed to come out of nowhere.
Originally posted by Zeek:
The Reavers were aiming at him and firing a projectile with no course correcting capabilities. It pretty much had to be a straight shot. If Wash couldn't see them then they couldn't see Wash and it would have been a random shot that just happened to hit the pilot dead in the chest. That seems much worse than just having Wash strapped in and unable to react in time.
Basically I think by the time the shot was fired it was too late. I think he turned his head anyway IIRC. He probably didn't even see the shot.
Just rewatched the scene to check, not only are none of them facing the window/Reavers as you say (Wash looking downward, then behind, Mal and Zoe looking at each other and Wash - none of them looking out the window), they are IN THE DARK. They were inside that larger hanger, with no lights on. So, not only was no one paying attention, it was hard to see. And the log comes in, a wee bit fast.
And the log/spike/whatever comes in from a distinctly UPWARD angle, thus indicating that the Reaver ship was above, and not directly in front as some want to claim.
So sure, they could have maybe seen it, if they hadn't been slightly distracted by almost crashing to death, had better lighting, knew exactly when to look, where to look, and had the Reaver ship had running lights (because as we know, they're all about safety).
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Uh, there have been plenty of points made as to why people think it works, and very few have anything to do with telling Joss what to do.
You seem a wee bit disingenuous there.
Actually, twice now people have reminded me that "it's Joss' story." I don't need the reminder, and I'm fine with Joss doing what he wants to. It's possible on a public forum to have a conversation with more than one person, meaning, that wasn't directed at you, or I would have quoted you.
Thanks for the disingenuous comment, though.
Quote:
Um.... okay. I'd say you are imagining things, but whatever.
Yeah, because calling me disingenuous over a conversation about the use of death in literature and film is entirely deserved.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, twice now people have reminded me that "it's Joss' story." Really. I don't need the reminder, and I'm fine with Joss doing what he wants to.
Thanks for the disingenuous comment, though. It's remarkably illustrative.
I didn't say NO ONE made that point, just that there had been plenty of others made, which you want to ignore and attribute it all to one, simply dismissed point.
That's the disingenuous part. Saying it's all about one thing, when that is quite obviously not the case. And now "correcting" me that people did say it, when I never disputed that notion. Dong ma?
Quote:
Yeah, because calling me disingenuous over a conversation about the use of death in literature and film is entirely deserved.
It is, when you pretend that it is the only point that's been made, and dismiss the others.
Actually discussing those other points would be that discussion you claim to want.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
logically, they'd be lucky if ANY of them lived,
Well, Jayne might have...
*SNORT*
Nice one Chris! I chuckled at that
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I still don't see how it's any more than emotional. You didn't want him to die, cool.
but his dying did serve a story purpose, even if you didn't care for it.
His living, would have served no direct story purpose, other than to not make some folks sad.
Again with the strawmanning. No. It's not emotional, it's not because I wanted a happy ending with no sadness, because hey, BOOK DIED, and I defended that. I just told you I don't particularly care about Wash as a character, which you ignored.
My dislike of the use of the Anyone Can Die trope is broader than this one case, but in this case I have two specific objections.
1) It seems like Joss Whedon is having trouble writing more Firefly because he now regrets killing Wash off.
Wash living has a direct storytelling result in that Joss Whedon still has an Author Avatar character and would want to keep writing Firefly.
2) Wash dying did not have a story purpose, it did not further the story line in any way, as it wasn't part of any sort of plot development. It did potentially have an effect on the MOOD OF THE SCENE, but at the possible detriment of the further storyline (see #1 above).
The effect on the mood for some people (myself) however, was minimal, which made the sacrifice of further storylines not worth it. Arguably, even if the mood had been sufficiently affected, the sacrifice would STILL not be worth it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:Quote:There was 3 pairs of eyes in the cockpit, all facing the Reavers. Wash not seeing? Okay, have it your way. Mal or Zoe could have seen the Reavers if only Joss hadn't made them blind to what was happening outside the window. If the Reaver's wooden projectile can get into the window then Zoe or Mal can see it coming. Unless you assume the projectile made a 90 degree turn in mid-air and seemed to come out of nowhere.
Originally posted by Zeek:
The Reavers were aiming at him and firing a projectile with no course correcting capabilities. It pretty much had to be a straight shot. If Wash couldn't see them then they couldn't see Wash and it would have been a random shot that just happened to hit the pilot dead in the chest. That seems much worse than just having Wash strapped in and unable to react in time.
Basically I think by the time the shot was fired it was too late. I think he turned his head anyway IIRC. He probably didn't even see the shot.
No I'm talking about having the Reaver ship off to the side. That wouldn't make sense because then the Reavers wouldn't be able to see Wash. They have to be able to see each other or there wouldn't be an attack. The Reavers are aiming at Wash. Not just a lucky pot shot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey it's interesting the way this debate has gone, but I wish folk wouldn't become so aggrivated at each other. Fact is we're all here for a little jibber-jabber and a healthy dose of Firefly re-living and that's what's been going on. Pats on
the back all round for having some nifty thoughts on the subject.
I love the fact we all see this wonderful show called FIREFLY from different points of view. Means it's a great deal broader than I ever thought and possibly broader than some of you thought... So that has to be good... Right?
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I didn't say NO ONE made that point, just that there had been plenty of others made, which you want to ignore and attribute it all to one, simply dismissed point.
I never made it about that one point! YOU DID!
I've been responding to everyone's arguments here, responses which you've been ignoring, all while dismissing MY points with repeated accusations of me being childish and immature. Don't you think I realize what you're really saying when you suggest that I just don't appreciate an in-story death because I want a happy ending? I do get the implication.
Quote:
It is, when you pretend that it is the only point that's been made, and dismiss the others.
I DIDN'T. :( You write a short post snarking at me, in response to a post that WASN'T directed at you (but was also snark - Sorry Chris), and then when I address the points in that post (while I've been addressing other points elsewhere) you accuse me of this?
Bad form.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Byte, I just don't agree. It served the story in that it reminded us that our BDH's aren't impervious. It was unexpected, like a roadside bomb in Iraq. It was a little bit of reality in a fantasy environment. Like Story said, logically, NO ONE should have survived. I'm just glad that as many that DID, did.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Wash dying did not have a story purpose, it did not further the story line in any way,
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
I didn't say NO ONE made that point, just that there had been plenty of others made, which you want to ignore and attribute it all to one, simply dismissed point.
I never made it about that one point! YOU DID!
I made it all about one point.... by pointing out there were others.
Ooooh......kay.
Quote:
I've been responding to everyone's arguments here, responses which you've been ignoring, all while dismissing MY points with repeated accusations of me being childish and immature. Don't you think I realize what you're really saying when you suggest that I just don't appreciate an in-story death because I want a happy ending? I do get the gorramn implication.
As I've said, I see nothing that doesn't boil down to "I didn't want him to die". I've explained my rationale, and asked for yours. Grr, mean old me.
Quote:
I DIDN'T. :( You write a short post snarking at me, in response to a post that WASN'T directed at you (but was also snark - Sorry Chris), and then when I address the points in that post (while I've been addressing other points elsewhere) you accuse me of this?
Bad form.
Gee, sorry for joining a conversation.
But I don't see how you've really addressed the points, other than to say, over and over, that the death of a character serves no purpose, and there was no heightened tension. Which may be true for you, but is not universal, and thus doesn't address how it bad storytelling - it just speaks to how it's not the story YOU wanted to see. Sorry is my drawing such distinctions is so upsetting.
You keep saying it didn't further the story, that it was unnecessary, etc - but you don't get into the WHY, as the rest of us have. Which is why your arguments come off as grounded in emotion. And that's cool. If you just hate the scene because you're pissed he killed Wash - FINE. But own it.
Or, if you have stronger reasoning, share it. But don't act like you're getting beat up on because your say-so isn't compelling for the rest of us.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Agreed, however, I don't think the movie Serenity was the story he wanted to tell. He wanted to tell a 7-year series, where secrets about Wash and Book would have come out before they died (and they would have, I have enough faith in Joss to acknowledge he probably did plan to kill them).
Compressed into the time frame of the movie, Joss didn't get to tell us things about the characters he wanted to. He was trying to wrap things up, and in the end he did something that it now seems like he regrets, but can't admit he regrets because of artistic integrity.
I'm not sure where I saw it but I do recall an interview with Joss where he comments that he basically put everything into Serenity because artistically you have to. You can't design it with a follow up in mind because it will tarnish the product. That said the world of art is full of artists who are constantly at odds with what they have produced. I think's it's just the rub of being creative. I'm sure he does have regrets about Serenity, but he has made the product and it would have been with him for some time, and it was obviously the tale he wanted to tell at the time, and I'm inclined to respect that.
I personally am unaffected by the death of Wash and Book (in the longterm) because for me it made the last act that much more tense, and there by design helped the film. I went in seeing SERENITY with a sense that Joss was probably not going to get a chance to do the seven season arc he wanted with Firefly and therefore what I was watching there and then with the film was Joss giving it everything - At one point I honestly thought they might all die! Except River because she was the reason for the endeavour. But that last act... Well it had me. It had me all the way to the credits and Wash and Books death allowed that. Otherwise I think I would have thought a great deal less of the film.
Quote:
The movie was just not the most optimal setting to tell the story Joss wanted to tell.
Possibly not. Difficult to contest that, to a certian extent as the characters were designed around a TV show, but I felt it flowed very well cinematically, and the two hour format was filled with plenty of content and only a little contrivance.
Bytemite - you and I have had a fair few healthy exchanges regarding Firefly in the past and I'd like to think we'll go on having many more and always with a healthy dose of mutual respcect. I hope you're not sore at my points. I direct none of them with hostility.
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I'M sorry, my post was a little full of itself.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
(but was also snark - Sorry Chris)
I apologize.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not ashamed to say I had a couple of tears running down my face feeling like it was the end for all of them...*sniff*
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
At one point I honestly thought they might all die!
Except, y'know, Jayne.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I made it all about one point.... by pointing out there were others.
You made the accusation I was dismissing all other valid viewpoints and not addressing the arguments so I could claim some sort of I Win button.
You've called me disingenuous, and childish, and immature. I'm going to defend myself. That's how a forum works.
Quote:
As I've said, I see nothing that doesn't boil down to "I didn't want him to die".
You know, I'm just going to keep quoting my points that distinctly aren't OH NO WHY DID HE HAVE TO DIE until you actually read them. Until you're actually willing to treat me like a human being, and not a brick wall, this conversation isn't going anywhere.
Quote:
My dislike of the use of the Anyone Can Die trope is broader than this one case, but in this case I have two specific objections.
1) It seems like Joss Whedon is having trouble writing more Firefly because he now regrets killing Wash off.
Wash living has a direct storytelling result in that Joss Whedon still has an Author Avatar character and would want to keep writing Firefly.
2) Wash dying did not have a story purpose, it did not further the story line in any way, as it wasn't part of any sort of plot development. It did potentially have an effect on the MOOD OF THE SCENE, but at the possible detriment of the further storyline (see #1 above).
The effect on the mood for some people (myself) however, was minimal, which made the sacrifice of further storylines not worth it. Arguably, even if the mood had been sufficiently affected, the sacrifice would STILL not be worth it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
I wasn't a fan of bringing him back myself. In my mind, Mal ended him with that shot.
That's how I feel, and that episode and MAL as a character work better for me if he did go and shoot the agent dead!
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:After the crash, Mal and Zoe are acting like they have been in a fender bender on Hollywood Blvd. Keep your seat belt on, check your hair, adjust your clothes. Real soldiers would be yelling, “Where are the Reavers!!! Where are they!!!” Real soldiers would be hyper-alert to what is going on around them. Who knows? They might even look out the window because Reavers are trying to kill them NOW. And then the Reavers do kill Wash.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Just rewatched the scene to check, not only are none of them facing the window/Reavers as you say (Wash looking downward, then behind, Mal and Zoe looking at each other and Wash - none of them looking out the window), they are IN THE DARK. They were inside that larger hanger, with no lights on. So, not only was no one paying attention, it was hard to see. And the log comes in, a wee bit fast.
And the log/spike/whatever comes in from a distinctly UPWARD angle, thus indicating that the Reaver ship was above, and not directly in front as some want to claim.
So sure, they could have maybe seen it, if they hadn't been slightly distracted by almost crashing to death, had better lighting, knew exactly when to look, where to look, and had the Reaver ship had running lights (because as we know, they're all about safety).
But making Zoe and Mal act like real soldiers would make it impossible to hear Wash say, "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch . . ." Maybe Joss wanted to show that Zoe and Mal had lost their alertness/edge and got fat and placid like Oklahomans who have a traffic accident while gawking at Grauman's Chinese Theatre on Hollywood Blve.
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
I'm not ashamed to say I had a couple of tears running down my face feeling like it was the end for all of them...*sniff*
Except, y'know, Jayne.
I had a flashback of when I was a kid and I saw the last ever episode of BLAKES 7 (you ever see that?) I thought Joss was going to draw from that... Very glad he didn't. I just was never the same after Blakes 7!!!
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:No, I'M sorry, my post was a little full of itself.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
(but was also snark - Sorry Chris)
I apologize.
No, mine was too. The snark about the true fans and heretic was uncalled for.
I did expect to catch a lot of flak for saying what I've been saying. I do know that I'm playing the heretic/devil's advocate here. I know what I think is unpopular.
I was trying to make it in the sense of you guys are truer fans for being more supportive of Joss' vision on this point, because I know I'm not being very supportive on this topic. I was aware of that when I wrote that, I know I'm being (overly) critical. But by saying "true fans," that takes it somewhere that the argument isn't just us all discussing, there's a zealotry I implied that wasn't fair.
Also, Storymark is right in that if I'm playing devil's advocate, I need to buck up. I expected getting piled on from the start here. And if I wanted to get out of the argument with a agree to disagree, I could have been less inflammatory about doing so. Frustration of the moment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't know about anyone else here, but Serenity is my favourite movie of ALL TIME. That can make some folks a little twitchy when that view is put in question. Me- I try to realize that when in a discussion... lest I'm trying to get a firey rise out of peeps, which I do admit to attempting now & then...
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I expected getting piled on from the start here. And if I wanted to get out of the argument with a agree to disagree, I could have been less inflammatory about doing so. Frustration of the moment.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:
After the crash, Mal and Zoe are acting like they have been in a fender bender on Hollywood Blvd. Keep your seat belt on, check your hair, adjust your clothes. Real soldiers would be yelling, “Where are the Reavers!!! Where are they!!!” Real soldiers would be hyper-alert to what is going on around them. Who knows? They might even look out the window because Reavers are trying to kill them NOW. And then the Reavers do kill Wash.
But making Zoe and Mal act like real soldiers would make it impossible to hear Wash say, "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch . . ." Maybe Joss wanted to show that Zoe and Mal had lost their alertness/edge and got fat and placid like Oklahomans who have a traffic accident while gawking at Grauman's Chinese Theatre on Hollywood Blve.
Or... maybe they were just in a huge spaceship crash....
But far be it from me to question your expertise when it comes to the behavior of space soldiers after sucha common crash.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Last time MY spaceship crashed on a distant moon, my first thought was "Crap- I hope there's oxygen here..."
Originally posted by Storymark:
But far be it from me to question your expertise when it comes to the behavior of space soldiers after sucha common crash.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As I've said, I see nothing that doesn't boil down to "I didn't want him to die".
You know, I'm just going to keep quoting my points that distinctly aren't OH NO WHY DID HE HAVE TO DIE until you actually read them. Until you're actually willing to treat me like a human being, and not a brick wall, this conversation isn't going anywhere.
Quote:
My dislike of the use of the Anyone Can Die trope is broader than this one case, but in this case I have two specific objections.
1) It seems like Joss Whedon is having trouble writing more Firefly because he now regrets killing Wash off.
Wash living has a direct storytelling result in that Joss Whedon still has an Author Avatar character and would want to keep writing Firefly.
2) Wash dying did not have a story purpose, it did not further the story line in any way, as it wasn't part of any sort of plot development. It did potentially have an effect on the MOOD OF THE SCENE, but at the possible detriment of the further storyline (see #1 above).
The effect on the mood for some people (myself) however, was minimal, which made the sacrifice of further storylines not worth it. Arguably, even if the mood had been sufficiently affected, the sacrifice would STILL not be worth it.
Just to clarify - I'm not trying to be a jerk, though realize I can come off as overly aggressive in these discussions. But I take story and storytelling seriously.
Okay, to address those points:
1) That is, at best, an assumption, which is as easily debunked as supported by the same evidence. Yes, he has published stories in which Wash was still alive, and you could take that as an indication of regret. However, he can publish what stories he likes, and the fact is that he has not chosen to do any post-Serenity stories showing him alive, and has indeed published one that re-enforces his not being alive. Which to me seems a clear indication that he really is dead.
2) I don't think anyone said it advanced the plot. Everyone keeps saying it was a device to enhance the mood. Now, this may not have been the case for yu, but I think it's fair to say you are in the minority. And the fact that you are so vehemently opposed to the event, I even question if the impact was as insignifigant as you claim.
But either way, it was done in an attempt to build tension and maintain a specific tone - both of which are tools of storytelling - the "telling" half of the equation, which includes far more than just plot points.
And you keep saying it's not worth it. Even when conceding that it does massively efect the mood for others, you maintain this. So, once again, it seems to come down to a personal, emotional response.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I don't know about anyone else here, but Serenity is my favourite movie of ALL TIME. That can make some folks a little twitchy when that view is put in question. Me- I try to realize that when in a discussion... lest I'm trying to get a firey rise out of peeps, which I do admit to attempting now & then...
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I expected getting piled on from the start here. And if I wanted to get out of the argument with a agree to disagree, I could have been less inflammatory about doing so. Frustration of the moment.
The laughing Chrisisall
Yeah. Sorry... I probably should be more careful about dissing on the Anyone Can Die trope, especially because it's so applicable around here. People can and do take offense.
Just a pet peeve. I can learn to hold my tongue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, don't do THAT!!!!
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I can learn to hold my tongue.
How else is interesting discussion generated?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Agreement here.
Originally posted by Storymark:
it was done in an attempt to build tension and maintain a specific tone - both of which are tools of storytelling - the "telling" half of the equation, which includes far more than just plot points.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I got facts. You got opinions.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Or... maybe they were just in a huge spaceship crash....
But far be it from me to question your expertise when it comes to the behavior of space soldiers after sucha common crash.
The real problem is that when Joss Whedon condensed a 190 pages screenplay into a 126 pages, he got sloppy and his producer didn't give enough constructive criticism. I spent time with both screenplays and I can see what went wrong in the rush to cut the page count. Killing Wash was one of those rushed pages. Joss should have hired Zack Whedon to help him rewrite. That last sentence is only an opinion. The rest is fact.
Screenplays if you want:
www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/13/2048723/Serenity-190pages.pdf
www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/13/2048723/Serenity-126pages.pdf
In the 190 pages version:
1) Serenity is facing the direction of the Reavers when the crash ends.
2) “I'm a leaf on the Wind.”
3) Crew see the Reavers arrive.
4) Crew run away in terror.
In the 126 pages version, everything is same except:
3) Crew see nothing. Nothing at all.
It is not believable that Mal and Zoe are oblivious to the arrival of Reavers. Is Mal's memory so short that he has forgotten the Reavers?
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Just to clarify - I'm not trying to be a jerk, though realize I can come off as overly aggressive in these discussions.
Yeah, I know.
Quote:
But I take story and storytelling seriously.
Heh. As do I.
Quote:
However, he can publish what stories he likes, and the fact is that he has not chosen to do any post-Serenity stories showing him alive, and has indeed published one that re-enforces his not being alive. Which to me seems a clear indication that he really is dead.
True. But that story was also still very Wash centric, when there's a bunch of other storylines to be exploring in this verse. I take that as he's still grieving for the character.
The fact that Book ALSO died, and the next comic book is a pre-series look at his life tells me something very similar there, as well. Though as I've said, in Book's case, there was an applicable storytelling reason, and I give it a pass.
Quote:
2) I don't think anyone said it advanced the plot. Everyone keeps saying it was a device to enhance the mood. Now, this may not have been the case for yu, but I think it's fair to say you are in the minority. And the fact that you are so vehemently opposed to the event, I even question if the impact was as insignifigant as you claim.
I didn't see Firefly first so, yeah. It really wasn't that significant. I actually forgot about the movie for about three years there, even though one of my friends gave me his edition of the Serenity RPG manual and kept wanting to run a game, dropping hints that I should watch Firefly. It took seeing Dr. Horrible for me to find Serenity again, and Firefly. Yeah, I'm a little thick. In my defense, at the time, before I forgot, I thought it was better than Star Wars. If you know me, you'd know that's pretty high praise. And, the reason I thought it was better than Star Wars was the gritty realism, which is pretty funny because Wash dying is arguably an attempt to inject more realism into the story. Hypocrisy!
Quote:
And you keep saying it's not worth it. Even when conceding that it does massively efect the mood for others, you maintain this. So, once again, it seems to come down to a personal, emotional response.
Uh... Wait. When did I say it wasn't worth it? I hate this trope and feel very strongly it needs to start going discredited. In places not Serenity, Anyone Can Die causes all sorts of ridiculous plot holes to kill off characters for shock and angst. I used to think it created a plot hole in Serenity, with River, but then I realized that River is the Cassandra, her precognitive abilities are the Can't Fight Fate kind.
And then you come back with that old accusation, validation for proof You Win? Come on. We just had a nice moment there. Let's not go spoiling it.
I'll quit, though, Chris and you made a point there about it upsetting people. After all, Wash doesn't die. Wash doesn't exist. The series and the movie are just Mal's dying dream sometime during the war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
True. But that story was also still very Wash centric, when there's a bunch of other storylines to be exploring in this verse. I take that as he's still grieving for the character.
The fact that Book ALSO died, and the next comic book is a pre-series look at his life tells me something very similar there, as well. Though as I've said, in Book's case, there was an applicable storytelling reason, and I give it a pass.
No one said he doesn't mourn for them, I believe that was directly addressed.
the fact remains, he has a venue for bringing Wash back if he so chose. And instead, he has chosen to not do so, and even go so far as publish a comic dedicated to eulogizing him.
Now, if you choose to see that as proof that he wishes he hadn't killed the characters, that's your call I guess. But it doesn't really stand up logically.
Quote:
Uh... Wait. When did I say it wasn't worth it?
Right here:
Quote:
Arguably, even if the mood had been sufficiently affected, the sacrifice would STILL not be worth it.
I included that section in my post....
Quote:
I hate this trope and feel very strongly it needs to start going discredited. In places not Serenity, Anyone Can Die causes all sorts of ridiculous plot holes to kill off characters for shock and angst. I used to think it created a plot hole in Serenity, with River, but then I realized that River is the Morrigan, her precognitive abilities are the Can't Fight Fate kind.
Sorry, but I don't care about your crusade to kill the trope - I am discussing how it was utilized in Serenity - period.
Quote:
And then you come back with that old accusation, validation for proof You Win? Come on. We just had a nice moment there. Let's not go spoiling it.
It wasn't an "I win" moment. I thought I was pretty clear - I see nothing in your argument that steps outside of an emotional response, not an analytic one. And now that you've made it clear that this is part of a greater campaign to eradicate the notion of "anyone can die" in storytelling (an idea I disagree with, but that's not really pertinent to this discussion) I'm even less swayed by your insistence that it's not.
Quote:
I'll quit, though, Chris and you made a point there about it upsetting people.
No need on my account. I'm not upset at all.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now, if you choose to see that as proof that he wishes he hadn't killed the characters, that's your call I guess. But it doesn't really stand up logically.
Well, it's an assumption, I grant you, but assumptions aren't necessarily illogical. Not if there's reasons to back them up. You even agree that Joss seems to be mourning his characters still.
This could be a perfectly valid inference of how mourning is affecting Joss and writing after the movie. It might not be RIGHT, but that's not necessarily a domain of logic. In any case, it seems like a reasonable assessment to me.
Quote:
Right here:
"Arguably, even if the mood had been sufficiently affected, the sacrifice would STILL not be worth it."
...That wasn't remotely the context of that comment. The sacrifice I was referring to was the possibility of no more Firefly.
Wash didn't really sacrifice himself, per se, as his death didn't accomplish anything besides dramatic tension.
Quote:
Sorry, but I don't care about your crusade to kill the trope - I am discussing how it was utilized in Serenity - period.
Fair enough.
Quote:
And now that you've made it clear that this is part of a greater campaign to eradicate the notion of "anyone can die" in storytelling (an idea I disagree with, but that's not really pertinent to this discussion)
See, and that's the thing. I'm totally okay with stories that kill off a lot of characters, like a war film. Even the important, named characters. What I'm specifically looking at is the trope where a character death is used seemingly ONLY to ramp up dramatic tension. As a storytelling method, it seems like a waste, and not as effective as it could be. It almost feels like resorting to a trick when the situation should be scary enough as it is. It feels... untrue or unfaithful, somehow, in a storytelling sense. It's almost better to have a death scene that's thoroughly apathetic about it, than it is to just shock people. Real life doesn't go "Surprise! Now one of you dies so the audience is more worried" for most people.
Though that may not be possible, because some dumb shit is always going to try to say it's all "shock value."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfDeprecation
Quote:
the fact remains, he has a venue for bringing Wash back if he so chose. And instead, he has chosen to not do so, and even go so far as publish a comic dedicated to eulogizing him.
So that brings up a new topic, and probably just in time! Do you think Joss is going to have psychic River seeing and talking to Ghost Wash and Book? Maybe they can still stick around!
After all, there might be something implied in Bushwhacked ("Ghosts.") and on Miranda ("I can hear them and they're all saying NOTHING!") that River might be able to do something like this. And we'll never know if it's her powers or if she's just crazy. I think that would be great.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So that brings up a new topic, and probably just in time! Do you think Joss is going to have psychic River seeing and talking to Ghost Wash and Book? Maybe they can still stick around!
After all, there might be something implied in Bushwhacked ("Ghosts.") and on Miranda ("I can hear them and they're all saying NOTHING!") that River might be able to do something like this. And we'll never know if it's her powers or if she's just crazy. I think that would be great.
Personally I really hope not. I think that would basically only be fan service. It's also a plot hole nightmare because you can't have every actor who ever played a fan favorite character live on in River's head. I mean when does it stop?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well I am, gorramit!!! Every time I see Wash buy it, I think of the little Bruce Campbell in Army Of Darkness getting pinned to the wall with a fork!!
Originally posted by Storymark:
I'm not upset at all.
There! Now can you get THAT image out of YOUR head??
I can't!!!
Love the flick anyways....
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So that brings up a new topic, and probably just in time! Do you think Joss is going to have psychic River seeing and talking to Ghost Wash and Book? Maybe they can still stick around!
After all, there might be something implied in Bushwhacked ("Ghosts.") and on Miranda ("I can hear them and they're all saying NOTHING!") that River might be able to do something like this. And we'll never know if it's her powers or if she's just crazy. I think that would be great.
Personally I really hope not. I think that would basically only be fan service. It's also a plot hole nightmare because you can't have every actor who ever played a fan favorite character live on in River's head. I mean when does it stop?
Absolutely agree on all points. Would be a terrible idea just to placate a certain set of the fanbase.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For the record, because nobody will download the screenplay.
This is the version where Wash lives from the 190 pages screenplay. www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/13/2048723/Serenity-190pages.pdf
Quote:
EXT. LANDING STRIP - CONTINUING
And Serenity HITS the ground, moving forward in what would be a perfect 747 landing if, like a 747, this ship had wheels. As it is, it's insanely jolting -- the landing gear folds and snaps under the weight -- the ship keeps going, now inside the hanger, heading towards the entrance to the facility, slowing, sparks shooting out behind it, slowing, fishtailing and coming about a full one eighty as it stops a very few feet from the wall.
INT. BRIDGE - CONTINUING
There is a moment of quiet.
WASH: I am a leaf in the wind. Watch --
And the ROAR and light of the Hunter setting down at the entrance shuts him up.
EXT. LANDING STRIP - CONTINUING
We see the ship about to touch down, engines folding in like an egret's wings. A second Reaver vessel enters frame from above, about to land next to it.
EXT. INT. SERENITY - MOMENTS LATER
The inner doors open and the entire crew piles out, all heavily bedecked with weapons.
This is where Wash dies from the 126 pages screenplay. www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/13/2048723/Serenity-126pages.pdf
Quote:In the first version:
EXT./INT. LANDING STRIP/HANGER - CONTINUING
And Serenity HITS the ground -- the landing gear folds and snaps under the weight -- the ship keeps going, now inside the hanger, heading towards the entrance to the facility, slowing, fishtailing and coming about a full one eighty -- it goes beyond the strip and crashes down into the pedestrian area, so that the nose is sticking back out at the runway but the body of the ship is hidden from it.
INT. BRIDGE - CONTINUING
There is a moment of quiet.
WASH: I am a leaf on the wind. Watch --
A massive harpoon CRASHES through the windshield and impales him to his chair. It's as thick around as a telephone pole. Wash has time to open his mouth in surprise before he is dead.
ZOE: WASH! (She moves to him) –Wash baby baby no, come on, you gotta move you gotta move baby please --
Mal rips her away and to the floor as another projectile slams through the window into the wall above them.
EXT. LANDING STRIP - CONTINUING
We see the ship that has fired the harpoons as Reavers start out of it. A second Reaver vessel enters frame from above, about to land next to it.
EXT. SERENITY - MOMENTS LATER
The cargo bay door opens -- just the little door housed inside the ramp -- and Jayne comes out with his biggest gun. He looks up, toward the edge of the runway, but no Reavers have arrived yet.
JAYNE: Go!
The entire crew piles out, all heavily bedecked with weapons.
1) Serenity is facing the direction of the Reavers when the crash ends.
2) “I'm a leaf on the Wind.”
3) Crew see the Reavers arrive.
4) Crew runs away in terror.
In the second version, everything is same except:
3) Crew see nothing. Nothing at all.
It is not believable that Mal and Zoe are oblivious to the arrival of Reavers. Is Mal's memory so short that he has forgotten the Reavers?
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, it's an assumption, I grant you, but assumptions aren't necessarily illogical. Not if there's reasons to back them up. You even agree that Joss seems to be mourning his characters still.
This could be a perfectly valid inference of how mourning is affecting Joss and writing after the movie. It might not be RIGHT, but that's not necessarily a domain of logic. In any case, it seems like a reasonable assessment to me.
It strikes me as what you want to be true, I'll grant.
Quote:
...That wasn't remotely the context of that comment. The sacrifice I was referring to was the possibility of no more Firefly.
Wash didn't really sacrifice himself, per se, as his death didn't accomplish anything besides dramatic tension.
And that dramatic tension served the purpose of making the film better - which to me, is a pretty important accomplishment.
Again, I'll reiterate - the "telling" part of storytelling isn't JUST about what happens. Increasing the tension is what a writer is supposed to do in the climax.
Quote:
See, and that's the thing. I'm totally okay with stories that kill off a lot of characters, like a war film. Even the important, named characters. What I'm specifically looking at is the trope where a character death is used seemingly ONLY to ramp up dramatic tension. As a storytelling method, it seems like a waste, and not as effective as it could be. It almost feels like resorting to a trick when the situation should be scary enough as it is. It feels... untrue or unfaithful, somehow, in a storytelling sense.
And I feel the exact opposite. The idea that characters can get into so many tight situations without ever having do face death strikes me as total BS, and removes me from the story. I'm not interested in a static status quo.
Quote:
It's almost better to have a death scene that's thoroughly apathetic about it, than it is to just shock people. Real life doesn't go "Surprise! Now one of you dies so the audience is more worried" for most people.
A) Life sure as hell does pull surprises once in a while, often deadly ones.
B) "Most" people don't deal with hordes of Reavers, and angry alliance troops on their tail, amongst other things. Our crew doesn't live a "normal" life.
But for those who do live lives with that level of danger - yeah, sometimes they do die unexpectedly. And I'd wager that those around them, feel a wee bit more tension for it.
Quote:
So that brings up a new topic, and probably just in time! Do you think Joss is going to have psychic River seeing and talking to Ghost Wash and Book? Maybe they can still stick around!
After all, there might be something implied in Bushwhacked ("Ghosts.") and on Miranda ("I can hear them and they're all saying NOTHING!") that River might be able to do something like this. And we'll never know if it's her powers or if she's just crazy. I think that would be great.
See, it's stuff like this that makes it hard to believe you're looking at this as objectively as you claim. Its not about being upset that he killed beloved character.... but golly gee, wouldn't it be nice if he could bring them back? It stuff like that that makes it seem like you're really arguing from a purely emotional perspective.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:
For the record, because nobody will download the screenplay.
You seem to think that not agreeing with you means we didn't read it.
This is incorrect.
In the longer draft, yes, Wash lived. But he really served no purpose from there. His death did serves a purpose, as has been discussed.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
See, it's stuff like this that makes it hard to believe you're looking at this as objectively as you claim. Its not about being upset that he killed beloved character.... but golly gee, wouldn't it be nice if he could bring them back? It stuff like that that makes it seem like you're really arguing from a purely emotional perspective.
You ever think there might be people who WERE affected by Wash dying, and maybe I'm trying to be nice to them? What I suggested I thought maybe could be the best of both worlds. Wash is still dead, who even knows if it's real, but Alan Tudyk fans are appeased. It's a possible way for Joss to write Wash, if that's something he still wants to do. Maybe it's not. Maybe he's tired of this whole damn thing and cheering up us nerds with false hope.
Christ. And maybe I'm NOT lying my ass off and disingenuous about my feelings, okay? It's really insulting that you keep going here. What have I done to warrant so much freaking mistrust?
Do I have to tap dance on Wash's grave? Distribute sharpened pencils or something? Seriously. You don't see me questioning your intentions, do you? Yeah, make me feel bad about offending people, but you don't care about the other side.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"So, you never have faced death."
Originally posted by Storymark:
The idea that characters can get into so many tight situations without ever having do face death strikes me as total BS, and removes me from the story. I'm not interested in a static status quo.
"No. Not like this."
Only in Joss' 'Verse, it's permanent.
Bringing Spock back would have felt like a cheat, if it had happened suddenly or had no lasting effects upon his character in the future.
"I've been dead before."
I cried when Spock died, but I REALLY cried when Wash died. Like when my Mom died. There ain't no commin' back. In the really real 'Verse, anyway.
Just sayin'.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay, maybe I watch Star Trek too much, but I feel like I'm witnessing an argument between McCoy & Spock here...
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Christ. Maybe I'm NOT lying my ass off and disingenuous about my feelings, okay? It's really insulting that you keep going here.
"You green-blooded, inhuman..."
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*Raise hands in frustration*
Fine. Whatever. I don't know my own feelings. Clearly my fanfiction I've been writing for two years where Wash was very certainly most absolutely dead and I wasn't even going to have Zoe be pregnant because I thought it was "too happy" and "Joss would never go for that" and had to throw it in last minute when Float Out came out is all a big fucking lie.
I'm going to go suck a lolipop now, and then maybe someone can change my diapers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Byte, seriously, no one is saying that.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Fine. Whatever. I don't know my own feelings.
No one besides Jayne is saying that.
(sorry, couldn't resist- I'm a bad man)
I *think* you're being too sensitive- we all love you as a fellow Browncoat, Storymark as well. Hell, we're all in Serenity Valley here, right?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You ever think there might be people who WERE affected by Wash dying,
Sure. Hell, I'm one of them. It HURT to see him die. That doesn't mean I think it was a bad storytelling choice, nor does it make me incapable of discussing it objectively.
Quote:
and maybe I'm trying to be nice to them? What I suggested I thought maybe could be the best of both worlds. Wash is still dead, who even knows if it's real, but Alan Tudyk fans are appeased. It's a possible way for Joss to write Wash, if that's something he still wants to do. Maybe it's not. Maybe he's tired of this whole damn thing and cheering up us nerds with false hope.
Sounds like bad storytelling to me, creating scenarios that are inconsistent with the established 'verse, just to satisfy the (I know, you hate the word) emotional desires of some fans.
Quote:
Christ. And maybe I'm NOT lying my ass off and disingenuous about my feelings, okay? It's really insulting that you keep going here. What have I done to warrant so much freaking mistrust?
I'm not saying you're lying. But I do question your objectivity, yes. Sorry that upsets you. But no matter how many times you say it's not an emotional issue, when most of your points boil down to emotion, it's hard to miss. It's not mistrust, it's observation.
Quote:
Do I have to tap dance on Wash's grave? Distribute sharpened pencils or something?
Gee.... I believe you accused me of employing straw men arguments. Pot, kettle, etc....
Quote:
Seriously. You don't see me questioning your intentions, do you? Yeah, make me feel bad about offending people, but you don't care about the other side.
Yes, you are really convincing me that this isn't emotional.
I'm not questioning your intentions. Nor was I trying to make you feel bad. And other side of what? I'm looking at the story, and the storytelling behind the choices, from an analytical perspective, and trying to be objective.
I'm genuinely not trying to upset you, but while I am trying to look at the choices Joss made as a writer and director, and WHY he made them, you seem to only want to look at how it effected you and other people - which is a valid topic and worth discussing - but it IS an emotional one, and not really on the topic of storytelling choices we started with.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME