Didja notice . . . . 'Serenity' *SPOILER*
POSTED BY: Ursula
UPDATED: Sunday, January 8, 2006 06:43
VIEWED: 6008
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Also, right after the "Barn Swallow", wash says over the intercom, "We all here? What's going on?" Then it cuts to Wash all alone on the bridge saying, "Hello?" It always gets a laugh, of course, but every time I see it, it disturbs me. Wash is all alone in a very big bridge, framed to the left, not in the center or on the right, and even facing out of frame. It's actually a very poorly framed shot: wrong side of frame for the direction he's facing, lens to make the bridge look really deep, and then him really small in there. Interestingly, the framing of the "Let's get to the beacon shot" is badly framed, too: Wash all alone in a very large frame, and Jayne's arm still in the left half of the frame. Both frames just feel wrong. I think it was some very subtle foreshadowing on Joss' part.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
Watch Here's How It Was: The Making Of Firefly again, and you'll see what the DoP has to say about framing. Joss actively encouraged his photographers to mis-frame, jolt the camera, use unusual angles, to create a certain style. So maybe he continued this trend in the BDM.
-----------------------------
"That ain't more'n a mosquito bite."
"Pretty big mosquito."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jayro:
Watch Here's How It Was: The Making Of Firefly again, and you'll see what the DoP has to say about framing. Joss actively encouraged his photographers to mis-frame, jolt the camera, use unusual angles, to create a certain style. So maybe he continued this trend in the BDM.
Yes, I'm well aware of the unique camera work. But as I understand it, that was part of the attempt to make Firefly in the "you-are-there", cinema verite style. As many unique angles as Firefly used (e.g. looking at Wash and Zoe in the bridge from the passageway), none of them were jarringly bad. When I watched the BDM for the first time, I was jarred by the two shots listed above. They just felt wrong. When I watched them for the second time, they made sense--"Ah ha! He's creating some uncomfortableness with Wash as a means of forshadowing his death!"
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The impaling of Wash still troubles me. I doubt Alan Tudyk wanted Wash to be killed off unless he has other commitments and can't continue with a sequel. Serenity will now need a new pilot and the whole dynamic of the crew will change. OK killing Sheperd you can get away with but killing Wash is not right, he is a key character. You may as well kill Zoe, Jayne or Kaylee. If Serenity was wrapping the whole Firefly saga to an end that's ok but I believe there maybe other movies. Who's gonna be the new pilot? Tom Cruise? LOL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by j6ngo1977:
The impaling of Wash still troubles me. I doubt Alan Tudyk wanted Wash to be killed off unless he has other commitments and can't continue with a sequel. Serenity will now need a new pilot and the whole dynamic of the crew will change. OK killing Sheperd you can get away with but killing Wash is not right, he is a key chracter. You may as well kill Zoe, Jayne or Kaylee. If Serenity was wrapping the whole Firefly saga to an end that's ok but I believe there maybe other movies. Who's gonna be the new pilot? Tom Cruise? LOL
I thought that River was gonna be the new hotshot pilot now that Wash died. That would be kinda cool now that she's somewhat sane again. And Alan did agree with Joss to have his character killed off. It created a realistic sense that everyone might just kick the bucket in this film and also made a great arc for Zoe so she could just go on an Amazon killing spree with those Reavers. We all understand why Book had to go. His backstory would never be able to have been explained in the next movie and would have taken a TV show. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like it that Wash died, but it had to be done. I just hope we'll get to see them again in flashbacks in the next TV sereies or movie that comes out.
Jayne: Are you saying River's a witch?
Wash: Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the Beast.
Jayne: She's in Congress?
Wash: How did your brain even learn human speech? I'm just so curious!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by j6ngo1977:
I doubt Alan Tudyk wanted Wash to be killed off unless he has other commitments and can't continue with a sequel.
You know, I'm always amazed at how this theory is still circulating, given the plethora of information to the contrary. IIRC, Joss even mentions it in the Serenity commentary (though I'd have to give it another listen to tell you categorically). I'd rather not go into it in depth; suffice it to say, you're wrong. It really was just a device to add real emotional peril to the picture. Alan was not pissed, nor written out due to other commitments. They even joked about why Alan's script was shorter than everyone else's.
Quote:
OK killing Sheperd you can get away with but killing Wash is not right, he is a key character. You may as well kill Zoe, Jayne or Kaylee.
Now, I have to take issue with this idea. Shepherd was every bit the main character that Wash was. The idea was that every character would have his or her own arc over the course of the series. Book's arc seemed to have been his mysterious past. In some ways, that arc seems to have been more significant plot-wise than Wash's. The issue, though, seems to be that Wash is innocent and lovable and funny. This makes him more endearing than Book. But it doesn't make him more important to Firefly than Book was. In addition, we see Book wounded but alive, and we know that he's going to die, so the death has less emotional impact. Wash dies in a totally unexpected, horrifically brutal way. It makes the emotional impact of his death much, much more intense.
Quote:
Who's gonna be the new pilot? Tom Cruise?
I realize that you were kidding with the Tom Cruise bit, but the bigger question of who's going to fly the ship is yet another thing that bothers me about the "I'm mad Wash is dead" series of threads. This seems to assume that Joss would never have changed anything in the 'verse, despite his predilections to the contrary. Think he never would have killed anyone in the series? Think he'd never have changed the role of a major character. Think he'd never have altered the dynamic of relationships? If the answer is "yes"--to any of those--you're dead wrong. Joss doesn't make static worlds. He wants his created worlds to be real--that means pain, death, hurt. Real emotion in other words.
Honestly, watch the movie a few more times. The hurt of Wash dying fades eventually and you will come to appreciate Serenity for the work of art that it is.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. After my tenth time, I got away with just a few tears. The first watch was the hardest.
Originally posted by Causal:
Honestly, watch the movie a few more times. The hurt of Wash dying fades eventually and you will come to appreciate Serenity for the work of art that it is.
And as much as I liked it the first time, I've only liked it better with each additional viewing.
(I've even jumped from flick to deleted scene and back, effectivly adding back Inara talking to her Companion friend, and Mal and Inara talking after launching from Haven. It works well w/those scenes back in, IMHO)
Chrisisall, frustrated film editor
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yep. After my tenth time, I got away with just a few tears. The first watch was the hardest.
And as much as I liked it the first time, I've only liked it better with each additional viewing.
(I've even jumped from flick to deleted scene and back, effectivly adding back Inara talking to her Companion friend, and Mal and Inara talking after launching from Haven. It works well w/those scenes back in, IMHO)
I think I'll try that next time.
BTW, really enjoying your comments over in that ridiculous "The Movie Sucked" thread.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like the idea the innoculation is for landing on planets where terraforming has gone slightly wrong, so the inhabitants tend to pick up a disease unique to that planet due to the terraforming.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jayro:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
I never noticed that, however I did notice how when we first get to the crew, Mal walks through the kitchen to see Kaylee and he throws his jacket onto the table, and when they are in the cargo bay leaving on the Mule, he has it again.
It was quietly rumored, but not officially admitted to, until Joss fessed up on the commentary. The long sequence of Mal starting on the Bridge, talking to Jayne and Zoe, moving through the kitchen, to the engine room and Kaylee, talking to Simon as both go from upper level down the stairs to the lower level... all the way to the cargo bay is NOT a single shot. There is a break in that shot, cleverly disquised. Can you find it ? It would explain the jacket issue of Mal.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Yeah, the transition from one take to the other was done with a digital wipe (I think that's what it's called - feel free to correct me, students of film!), where the camera 'passes' quickly across an obstruction (in this case, an adjoining wall) to meet up with the action again. If it's planned and executed well, as in this scene, it appears as a seamless camera move.
I don't know for certain where it is, but after watching it, it appears the break is while Malcolm is talking to Simon, as they leave the main corridor and starting heading to the stairs when Malcolm says, "This boat is my home; you all are guests on it." At that, the camera pans around and for that moment, there is no one on screen at all...that's where the edit is made. If you look closely, you can very slightly see how the two scenes are meshed together, and then Simon appears back on screen and says, "Guests? I earn my passage, Captain..."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by j6ngo1977:
I doubt Alan Tudyk wanted Wash to be killed off unless he has other commitments and can't continue with a sequel.
If Joss Whedon can bring back a clearly dead X-Men in his comic work (Colossus) then he's enough of a brilliant writer to resurrect Wash. Even so, other shows have used actors past their characters. (Magnum PI springs to mind)
Anyone else watch the out-takes/bloopers on the DVD? I found them to be the best I've ever seen on any movie's extras. Nathan is simply hilarious.
SPOILER................................
I loved his ad-lib/retake as he explained his plan to disguise the ship. "Kaylee, you find the kid taking the dirt nap next to the baby Jesus, we need a hood ornament." I've seen that three times and it still cracks me up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME