What else can I say? ***IMMENSE spoiler warning***
POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Friday, October 7, 2005 18:01
VIEWED: 7129
PAGE 3 of 3
Actually, when River went into the room and closed the hatch so she was alone with the Reavers, I thought to myself, well, the Reavers are all gonna be dead.
I had no worries at all about River's survival and due to the death of Wash I no longer cared about the rest of the crew.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I had no worries at all about River's survival and due to the death of Wash I no longer cared about the rest of the crew.
... and that's surprising.
I understand that one would detatch oneself from the charcters as a defense mechanism, and I won't fault you for going in that direction. We all have different levels of engagement and different reactions to crisis.
For me, it got me more involved. YMMV.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Weren't Alan Tudyk and Ron Glass the last 2 to commit to the movie? I've been wondering whether their deaths could have been a writer having to handle actors that had stated they would not be there for future movies. If Joss knew that those 2 wouldn't be back he isn't guilty of just randomly picking someone to die; instead he was using a known loss to a greater impact.
Quote:
I had no worries at all about River's survival and due to the death of Wash I no longer cared about the rest of the crew.
I didn't get that at all. The loss of Wash hurt, but it did not make me care less for the rest of the crew's fate. Instead it made me care more, as intended. I have never felt that any crewmember of a Star Trek ship was actually at risk during a movie (not even the ones I knew were going to die). Since I know all of the ST crew will make it everything felt safe. And therefore boring. Wash's death rammed it home even further that in Joss's world there is no one who is guaranteed to be safe, and that is far more intersting because it means that there is actually something at stake. If Wash had come through unscathed I would have had full faith that River would have been ok. Instead, since everyone's life was at risk I doubted whether she would make it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We've been talking about this all day since seeing it last night. Wash's death seemed just to be there to make us jump, and to show us how serious the situation was.
In which case why Wash? I would have killed Zoe instead or Simon later. Not because the characters are weaker or because it would have had less impact, but because it would have added more.
Imagine Simon died for River, sacrficing himself somehow. The importance of love is reinforced and we get a nice reason for River to stay on Serenity, not to mention every Browncoat in tears.
Imagine Zoe dies in the fight (heroically of course). The importance of love is reinforced and Wash gets a nice character arc going from ships joker to a darker, bitter man, and all the Browncoats in tears.
Imagine Wash gets speared in a shock value moment.
We get to think 'did Alan not want to make the second film?' and what a pointless (no pun intended) death that was. Sure we worried more about the rest of the characters but it drew me out of the film.
When I get the dvd (if I do) Book's death will, the more I see it, make me think and make me cry.
Wash's will make me think 'how did they do that effect'.
We don't even know if we'll be seeing it again.
Pointless death aside, it was on helluva movie.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, your completely right. I'm taking it too seriously! Thanks for the wake up. 
It's still nice to be able to 'process my feelings' with other folks.
Guess I can get on with the rest of my pathetic life now.
Cheers!
JWC
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME