Tim Minear reveals another unfilmed FF episode
POSTED BY: Blinker
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 07:31
VIEWED: 54391
PAGE 5 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by zirzird:
I'd just like to point out that this is precisely the reason it's dangerous for fans to have any say over the object of their fandom. I'm a longtime Firefly fan and an ardent supporter of all things Serenity. But reading through all these comments about how revolting this episode may have been, or how incompatible it may seem with the surviving shows... that's the point, people!! That's the point of art, especially dramatic art: to challenge us, to take us to the point of no return and beyond. Precisely because it's uncomfortable.
Great art is more than shock for shock's sake.
"it has some sweet character deaths -- I mean moments!" - Joss Whedon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally, I didn't like the Mal/Wash torture scenes. They looked like fake TV torture. I didn't find them convincing at all.
That said, Niska was presented as a ruthless, bad dude, and people who crossed him as likely to end up dead. The Reavers were presented as the ultimate in inhumanity, and those who crossed them as lunch, or at the least traumatized into being like them. Torture by Niska simply has less psychological baggage.
I wouldn't have batted an eye had, for example, the Academy gotten River back and for several episodes the crew had to figure out how to retake her before she got back to the Academy itself. I wasn't crushed by Wash or Book's death, both pretty significant events. And had any other character died, that would have been OK.
But a character surviving Reaving without being completely broken in body and mind would break the internal logic of the 'verse. You could do it once, but afterwards the Reavers would never be the same.
I'd believe this episode in season 4, maybe as part of the S3 finale. Not earlier.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who's to say it's just for the shock? All we've got is a rough outline. I'm certain they had a point with it... I mean... it's Joss and Tim. It's just not neccisarily clear because we have so few details and it was just an idea anyway, nothing concrete.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well we don't know how long it would take Inara to recover, if she's going to recover at all. I'm assuming that if Firefly had gone on longer, there would have been long term consequences to their actions and it wouldn’t have been like other tv shows where a character is able overcome serious problems like alcoholism in just one or two episodes. I know that if I had been a writer for the show, I probably would have made a 10 or 15 episode arc where River gets addicted to a drug and show all the different stages of drug addiction, craving, tolerance, withdrawal, probably even a relapse.
"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Man o man, reading through these posts makes it very clear to me why some Browncoats went to see Serenity and came away not liking it.
These are like 2 sentence, second hand breakdowns of an idea Joss and Tim had for the show. Certainly it would have been refined A LOT. A 2 or 3 sentence blurb is a starting point for the writers to take and run with to craft a great show.
That being said, it's too funny seeing so many people start chiming in with all sorts of absolutes about what this character or that would or wouldn't do. Or the assertion is made that if someone had seen that then they would not have been a fan. Some look at this second hand blub and start picking it apart like crazy.
It's like so many here forget that it's not your show. You love it like it was your own (which is great), but for cryin' out loud it's Joss's characters and his show/movie, all of which have been executed with a precision and skill that has spawned a whole new type of fan: the Browncoat. Don't you think, just maybe, that Joss and Tim would have the ability to pull it off? Don't you think that, just maybe, their track record pretty much answers that question?
It's these same absolute assertions that people are making here that lead them into a theatre with a closet full of expectations. You become your own worst enemy by making yourself unable to enjoy the entertainment that is set in front of you. Sometimes too much analization is a bad thing.
It's just funny to me to see such a short synopsis picked apart so much. Cheesy? So Joss's track record hasn't given you any sort of confidence in his ability to pull something like that off and make it good?
When making a show, they usually keep notebooks full of ideas. Any time a good idea is spewed forth it is added to the list. And then, as a show takes on a life of it's own, certain ideas still fit and others don't. Some ideas still fit after the appropriate tweaking is done. Either way, this was just one simple idea that they had that Tim threw out there for us. Who knows when it would have actually taken place and how different it would have been once it was actually executed.
All I know is that it would have been great because it was done by them and it would have been handled with the same talent and passion that everything we've seen so far has been. Any more speculation from there (IMHO) just seems to lead to expectations and therefore dissapointment.
Oh, and one other thing: this explanation would certainly fit the comments on the commentary about the syringe being something much worse than a suicide drug. Hell, it's worse than the other ideas people have come up with for it as well.
"I don't wanna explode."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the things that I like about this site is freedom of speech. People can express their opinions about all aspects of firefly, whether they are positive or even negative (within reason, of course). A site where any remotely critical comment was completely shot down would be a less enjoyable and stimulating place to hang out. Well, frankly, it would be quite scary.
I think we are an analytical bunch. The great thing about Firefly is that it stands up to so much analysis - deeper meanings reveal themselves as you delve.
To me it seems a natural reaction when the future of firefly is up in the air, that people would want to speculate about what may have happened, to try to find out what may have been planned for the series. When I'm handed a possible clue like this - I want to think it over, see how it might or might not fit.
I'm grateful for the comments from the people above, as I always am for the varied viewpoints that make me think a little more deeply about things. They've helped me put the topic in perspective.
People didn't like Serenity because they thought too much? Hmm. Doesn't say much for the movie if that's the case. Personally, the more I thought about it, the more I loved it, started appreciating the nuances of the film.
----
Mal: "Hey, little one. Understand your part in all this?"
River: "Do you?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that some of the people who dislike the episode idea are assuming that the situation is resolved at the end of the episode. That's the way it works in most tv shows, a character goes through an extremely traumatic experience in one episode, recovers completely in the next episode, and the traumatic experience is never mentioned again or maybe it's just sort of alluded to but doesn't affect the story. I do not believe that the Firefly writers would have done that. Inara’s recovery would have probably taken place over an entire season and even then she won’t recover completely.
"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I agree completely that the more you look at Firefly/Serenity the more there is to see, and yes that is one of the things that makes it so great.
I'm all for thoughtful discussion as well; freedom of speech to boot. I actually find some of these discussions a lot of fun.
I'm simply expressing my observation that some people tend to get a little too "assumption happy" about characters and stories that are not their own and that they weild a very free hand when analizing other people's creations.
I admit though that I find even this interesting. I myself am a creative type (I am a writer/storyboard artist/illustrator/cartoonist/etc...) for a living and it's interesting to see how people analyze and critic such creations. I don't know, I think that Joss would find all of this amuzing (in a good way). He knows what he's doing, so letting people get into and talk about his work (and in this case "non-work" for lack of a better term) is not something that will get to him very much I would guess. I suppose if someone were to analize something to death that I was writing I would laugh as well. I'm going to do what I'm going to do and if you like it, you like it, and if you don't, you don't. Joss has had enough success to know that he's going to lose a few and gain a few.
I guess I'm just sensative to people getting in and ripping up other people's work due to my own place in the world. I suppose if someone heard a 2 sentence blurb about an idea I was working on and said it was "cheezy", I would just smile, shrugg my shoulders, and set about to prove them wrong. That's actually a large part of the satisfaction of being creative (or trying just about anything for that matter) - stepping out on that limb and succeeding where others might not have expected you to (including one's self).
But I stand by what I said before about people makeing assertions about characters that are not their own. They see only certain things that they want to see in any given character and get to thinking that they actually "know" this character, but really, how could you actually "know" any of these characters? You may certainly be familiar with them, but the only person who really knows these characters is Joss - and even HE may not totally know these characters. Most writers I know tend to have their characters take on a life of their own (especially when there is someone else playing the role for tv/movies who brings their own two cents to the table). Anyway, when anybody starts to think that they "know" the characters or the 'verse too well, they set themselves up for dissappointment because inevitably attached to their assumed knowledge is expectations.
And I'm not saying that people should just quit analyzing the show (or whatever fiction they like), I just think you have to be careful about making assumptions. I mean anyone is certainly free to do so, but why toture yourself like that? Why assume yourself right out of the ability to enjoy something that can be so much fun? Analysis free of assumption, that's my motto (for tonight anyways).
Ugh. I'm so tired. I've been up working almost all night on a movie poster, so if I'm just being crazy, please excuse me. Oh, excuse the terrible spelling as well - I'm too tired to check it. I'm now putting my sopbox away and going to sleep.
By the way, just so show how much of a fan I am, I hid a Firefly image in the movie poster I'm illustrating. Ha! Maybe I'll share it once the movie is out and I'm free to show the work. Til then just rest easy knowing that I'm subliminally putting Firefly/Serenity out there in front of people. 
"I don't wanna explode."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by psychoticbride:
I've said to my boyfriend, while analyzing the show a bit, that Mal sees Inara's job as below him, but Inara herself as above him. The handkiss part, that's Mal catering to the part of Inara he sees as being above him.
Okay, I'll grant that it makes sense on that level. *g*
But still the focus on Inara having to have gone through something traumatizing to make Mal step back and take notice, it IS a tad clichéd.
I don't think it's a bad thing at all that people are overanalyzing this tiny little blurb, or that they are willing to criticise it harshly.
Isn't that what fandom is all about? Taking someone else's creation and looking for the parts that you respond to, making them your own by imbuing it with personal meaning, good or bad?
Maybe the entire finished episode would have been spectacular. Or maybe it would have been their first glorious failure. All we have IS the blurb.
And it's not like Joss has never failed. It's not a fan's duty to love everything. Personally, I think Atherton Wing and Rance Burgess were both pretty boring cardboard villains, and the hill folk of religious mania were also not exactly a revolutionary breakthrough in story telling.
They did serve to forward plot and say something about the other characters but by themselves they were pretty flat, one-dimensional. The reaver rape idea might have turned out no worse or better than that. Saying something profound about the core characters by less than brilliant means.
Doesn't mean someone who thinks the idea silly doesn't understand the nature of the series or posts "I hate Joss Whedon, you ruined the show!" in every board...
It's just a case of differing tastes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not objecting to this on cheeziness grounds, or because I think it would be resolved at the end of the episode--I'm objecting to it because (1) if Inara recovers it destroys the Reaver mythos (even if she takes a year to recover), and if she doesn't then it's way too early to have destroyed a main character, and (2) Whether she recovers or not, I don't like that level of darkness in my TV shows or movies.
Select to view spoiler:
Angel's going to hell in Buffy was about my limit--visually showing his tortures would have put me off
Firefly's mix of darkness, humor, action, and deep character interaction is what drew me in--while one instance of (off-screen) gang-rape and its consequences wouldn't put me off, enough other darkness and brutality so that this plot point wouldn't be out of place would.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME