There is no continuity error with River's rescue.
POSTED BY: Adamwankenobi
UPDATED: Thursday, July 13, 2006 18:54
VIEWED: 14272
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'll just point out that you removed the contradiction by not mentioning it.
So this:
"There is a perceived discrepancy regarding Simon's role in the rescue of River, as the series and film offer slightly conflicting views on how exactly River is released from the Academy. The explanation given in the series (more specifically, in the pilot episode "Serenity") is that Simon funded the group that smuggled River out ..."
Is what you call, "Not mentioning it"? Interesting to say the least. Did you, in fact, read the article?
Quote:Clearly you did not read the article.
ie what happened in the BDM goes against Simons speech in the aired pilot ep.
Once again, the first paragraph of the article in question:
"The explanation given in the series (more specifically, in the pilot episode "Serenity")"
Later in the article it, of course, quotes Simon's speech.
Quote:So what you're saying is that because he talked about and indeed quoted the controversy, which to you means he did not mention it, it does not cut the mustard.
Sorry guy, but this just doesn't cut the mustard.
Again, interesting to say the least.
-
Of course this is more or less what I expect from you. The last time you argued that it went against Simon's speech you cited something that occurred in neither the aired pilot nor the unaired pilot.
This time you won't even say what part of the speech it contradicts. If you can not be bothered to watch the episode there is a transcript of the aired pilot available here:
http://www.whedonsworld.com/files/Transcripts/Firefly/01_Serenity_Tran
script.doc
Please tell me what the movie contradicts and quote the actual speech this time.
-
--
-
Personally I do not agree with the way in which he resolved the issue, but I think it is a bit odd to say that he did not mention it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by shinyseven2:
replying to christhecynic: the series has an arc where both River and Simon become more accustomed to and more comfortable with violence, and also an arc where they gradually are accepted and become part of the crew. Then the whole thing re-sets in the movie.
I disagree that the whole thing resets as such.
First off I assume that you're talking about becoming part of the crew and not both typs of arc because in terms of River and her abilities she's pretty damn comfortable with them, and in terms of Simon he's definitely accustomed to violence.
In terms of crew even Jayne seems to care for River durring the bank job, though as we expect from Jayne that loyaty is fleeting. Kaylee's obviously accepted them, though that isn't surprising and probably isn't significant, Zoe is still worried about them, Wash doesn't really make his feelings known but he shows no indication that his relationship with them has changed.
The only relationship that seems to have changed is the one with Mal. The crew is larger than one person, even if that person is the captain. If it reset all of the relationships would have changed, and I think (and will explain why in the paragraph after next) the one with Mal would have changed in a different way if it had reset.
Right from the pilot we know that Mal can get pretty damn far from accepting when times are hard, to the point where he's even yelling at Zoe, the person closest to him in the world. Simon and River are a lot less close than Zoe (meaning he'd go further) and his reasons for not liking them are pretty damn clear. The ship is falling apart, he's worried about having enough money to eat, and the cause he identifies for not having jobs is that he has to turn down plenty of them to keep River off the radar.
He's already come close to death once because of equipment failure, and he knows that that would mean not just his death but Zoe, Wash, and Kaylee's deaths as well. And why are they all so close to dying? Simon and River. The fact that he didn't kick them off the ship before the movie even started is a show that in spite of the fact that they may be the cause of everyone's death, in Mal's mind at any rate, and he has no objections to them leaving, they're still part of the crew.
If that wasn't enough the fact that he picked her up and brought her on board when the threat had become more immediate than parts falling off his ship and a need to eat, definitely shows that there's still a strong relationship there.
If I'm right and Mal would have kicked the cause of his problems off the ship were they not crew that means that they are crew, and thus you’d have to assume that they spent a good deal of time becoming crew even if you watched the movie without the series, since that is exactly what they did in the series it fits.
If I am wrong, and Mal would have risked his entire crew to keep fugitives on the ship whom he did not consider crew even after it became a very real threat to the continued to survival of his ship and his crew... well then I guess I just don't get Mal. I thought he cared about the crew enough to do what it took to protect them. I thought he was the kind of person to dump them in a shuttle and leave them for the feds if people he didn't care about were a threat to the lives of his crew.
-
I freely admit I could be very, very wrong, which is more than I can say for some (I'm not referring to you), and am fully willing to change my mind, but to do that I'd need something that I didn't see as fitting. I assume continuity until show otherwise, even though I know full well that what happened in the movie wasn't what was intended originally. The story changed, yes, but I've never heard of any story going as originally intended and indeed we know that the series was different from the intent from the second episode on.
Since my conception of the character of Mal is that he wouldn't put up with trouble like Simon and River unless he already considered them part of the crew the f
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
So this:
"There is a perceived discrepancy regarding Simon's role in the rescue of River, as the series and film offer slightly conflicting views on how exactly River is released from the Academy. The explanation given in the series (more specifically, in the pilot episode "Serenity") is that Simon funded the group that smuggled River out ..."
I read the history section in which ther is no mention of it. Rather "convenient" considering people have a tendancy to go with what they hear first rather than thinking about the cronological order of things.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Is what you call, "Not mentioning it"? Interesting to say the least. Did you, in fact, read the article?
A rather general assumption that is not a good one given the reality of the situation ie the contradiction was not even referenced where it should be referenced.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
...
Again, interesting to say the least.
More and more bad assumptions... assumption... read the first 3 letters of that word.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Of course this is more or less what I expect from you. The last time you argued that it went against Simon's speech you cited something that occurred in neither the aired pilot nor the unaired pilot.
This time you won't even say what part of the speech it contradicts. If you can not be bothered to watch the episode there is a transcript of the aired pilot available here:
http://www.whedonsworld.com/files/Transcripts/Firefly/01_Serenity_Tran
script.doc
Please tell me what the movie contradicts and quote the actual speech this time.
Perhaps it's that I just rolled out of bed, perhaps it's because you are being very much overly aggessive because someone doesn't agree with you. But, in all seriousness, every single time we've met on this board you've acted like this. So, my conclusion is that you are a complete fucking asshole, and b/c of that, I see no reason to converse with you anymore.
Good day, sir.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I read the history section in which ther is no mention of it.
So you freely admit to not reading the article in question?
After all this thread isn't about the history article that was probably written by someone else, it is about the article called, "Controversy."
Rather "convenient" that you skipped over what the topic is about in order to make your point.
Quote:
Perhaps it's that I just rolled out of bed, perhaps it's because you are being very much overly aggessive because someone doesn't agree with you.
I'm agressive because you refuse to back up what you say and sometimes use things that never happened as evidence. I'm also annoyed that every time someone points this fact out to you you throw around insults and refuse to respond to the points they brought up.
Quote:
But, in all seriousness, every single time we've met on this board you've acted like this. So, my conclusion is that you are a complete fucking asshole, and b/c of that, I see no reason to converse with you anymore.
Good day, sir.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I may be new here but I think it is safe to say that we should not argue with eachother regardless of who said what. I just left a forum arguement on another website so I am trying to mellow it out here before it becomes worse.
Back on topic now. I read the entire article on Wikipedia about inconsistency involving River's rescue. I personally believe that the Wikipedia article is very accurate in its information but I can also see how it can be disproved at the same time. Personally, I would not be surprised if Simon lied to the crew of Serenity about River's rescue but the fact that it is never indicated that he lied makes me somewhat suspicious. I mean, we always know if Simon is lying in Firefly (because we see the end results) but for this one we never knew, we just took Simon's word as the honest one and moved forward. I believe that Simon was lying though because the theory made in Wikipedia is very plausible and cannot necessarily be disproved. Also, the fact that there is a continuity error would ruin it all for me, I tend to think that Joss Whedon is a Godlike writer. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MY gripe isn't with his story at all. Fine, maybe he lied or maybe it was an oversight. I don't care. My confliction in more cahracter driven. Simon can pretend to be a scientist and flawlessly interrigate an Alliance general before he whips out a stun grenade and whisks his sister away...but he can't act suave or keep his mind calm when he was supposed to pretend he wanted to buy mud? I love Firefly, I love Serenity. And Simon and River are two of my favorite characters, so that starnge character confliction is the only thing in the entire series that strikes me wrong. Interesting disscusion though.
Cory
"That's A Dumb Planet"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MY gripe isn't with his story at all. Fine, maybe he lied or maybe it was an oversight. I don't care. My confliction in more cahracter driven. Simon can pretend to be a scientist and flawlessly interrigate an Alliance general before he whips out a stun grenade and whisks his sister away...but he can't act suave or keep his mind calm when he was supposed to pretend he wanted to buy mud? I love Firefly, I love Serenity. And Simon and River are two of my favorite characters, so that starnge character confliction is the only thing in the entire series that strikes me wrong. Interesting disscusion though.
Cory
"That's A Dumb Planet"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GhostTown:
Simon can pretend to be a scientist and flawlessly interrigate an Alliance general before he whips out a stun grenade and whisks his sister away...but he can't act suave or keep his mind calm when he was supposed to pretend he wanted to buy mud?
Every so often I talk about how people see things in different ways.
I'm assuming that when you said "flawlessly" you meant it even though you were obviously joking four words later when you talked about a "general." If that's a mistake sorry.
But assuming that you were serious and you do believe that interrogation of Dr. Mathias was flawless I have to say that we looked at that scene in very different ways.
At first he does a good job, he says as little as possible, "I've heard that," to River being the star pupil and, "Tell me about them," when the side effects are mentioned. His third line in the movie is shoving his foot right in his mouth:
"What use do we have for a psychic if she's insane?"
Think about that for a second, any one standing in that room would know exactly what use she was and, as importantly, that, "She's not just a psychic," if the doctor was thinking at all he would have known something was wrong by the fact that that was asked. Lucky for Simon clearance apparently counts over logic. I think that's how that works everywhere though, I mean people just assume that if you have the clearance you should have it.
But in addition to showing that he doesn't know anything about the project he is supposedly inspecting we also see emotion creeping through. When asked why he was there Simon turns to the tried and true high school way of weaseling out of a question, "Am a making you nervous?" It's either the most briliant or most clumsy defelction in existance, but it works both in real life and in the movies. I suppose it could be flawless, and in my mind it is when Simon is doing the best in his act. The problem is that even though it is perfectly executed it's something that people far more awkward than Simon (yes, there are people more awkward than Simon) have done just as well in real life. Even so, when he said it I got the impression he'd read something like, "How to Bullshit for the Weak Minded," several times before actually walking into the faclity. Then again that's what I'd think Simon would do anyway.
Simon only has one line left in his act, "How is she physically?" and his feeling really seeps through in that one, I wouldn't call it flawless, but then again I'm not you.
My point is that watching it I felt like Simon had practiced this and still managed to screw it up and it was only the fact that Dr. Mathias was totally off his guard that allowed him to go as long as he did (not long) before he dropped the act and stunned the guy.
Where with the mud thing he clearly had no time practice and he couldn't just say, "I've heard that," "Tell me about them," "Why is that?"() and, "Am I making you nervous," the only thing he said in Serenity that wasn't a direct response as simple as, "Uh-huh," was, "How is she physically?" and that hardly added to his crediblity.
When I saw Serenity I didn't see a flawless interrogation, I saw a thing that showed the benifit of rank. Ask yourself this, if he'd forged identification saying that he was the new medic, and asked the same questions, do you think he'd have lasted that long? Maybe you do, but I think he'd have gotten a simple, "If you don't know the answer to that you shouldn't be here," and then locked up pending investigation.
He walked in, demonstrated in less than 20 words that he had no idea what was going on or what the facility was for, and was feared rather than suspected. That is the benifit of rank. It never even occured to me to compare that to what happened in Jaynestown because I never considered the possibility that he was shoved in there without any practice on what to say and how to act, which is exactly what happened at the mud sale.
-
I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying that I never
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm curious as to how when Joss mentions that he had to change things for the beginning of the BDM, a bunch of fans will create a continuity to fit the BDM and BDS together. Though the novelization does that also, I still would take it with a grain of salt since novelizations (and this one in particular) have little input from the creator. I can certainly see why BDM continuity was altered, and I can see how the link between BDM and BDS make sense. My question is, is it that important to force the two parts to fit? Afterall it is the journey that counts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GhostTown:
MY gripe isn't with his story at all. Fine, maybe he lied or maybe it was an oversight. I don't care. My confliction in more cahracter driven. Simon can pretend to be a scientist and flawlessly interrigate an Alliance general before he whips out a stun grenade and whisks his sister away...but he can't act suave or keep his mind calm when he was supposed to pretend he wanted to buy mud? I love Firefly, I love Serenity. And Simon and River are two of my favorite characters, so that starnge character confliction is the only thing in the entire series that strikes me wrong. Interesting disscusion though.
First of all, when was he "interrogating an Alliance general"? He was talking with a doctor.
Second of all, as others have pointed out, Simon's behaiviour at the start of the movie is consistent with his behaviour during the series. In "Ariel" he is cool, calm, and efficient in his dealings with the hospital authorities while undercover. The Simon we see in Ariel is the same Simon we see at the start of the movie. When he's put into the world of bureaucracy, technology, and wealth he fits right in, because that's where he came from. When he's out on the frontier he's clumsy because he's out of place.
The exact same thing happens in reverse with Jayne. On the frontier he's cool and in control. When they are on Ariel he's a bumbling buffoon, almost blowing their cover when they enter the hospital.
On the greater issue of a perceived continuity error, I think error is too strong a word. Sure, Joss didn't have the movie in mind when he wrote the TV series, but there's nothing I see that is in direct contrast. Any so-called errors can be explained away by Simon fudging his words with the crew, etc.
Remember, breaking into an Alliance high-security facility could very well be a capital offence. Is he going to admit to it in front of a group of mercenary strangers, or is he going to say that someone else did it? I do think there were others involved with River's escape (they probably smuggled Simon into the faciilty, then took River from him after he got her out, put her in the cryo capsule, and arranged for her transfer off-world) but I think he was hiding his own involvement.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME