Possible Serenity Spoilers from Nathan Fillion at Buffistas.org

POSTED BY: outlander
UPDATED: Thursday, March 25, 2004 00:14
VIEWED: 8681
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:50 PM

It sure is difficult to resist these spoilers. Thankfully, I don't think anything that's been mentioned so far has taken anything away from the movie as much as it has enhanced my antici......pation. I wonder if someone behind the scenes is releasing little tidbits to whet our appetite? The movie really sounds like a blockbuster. I believe Universal trusts Joss' view of his Universe and characters. The only thing that would make me think otherwise is the company execs wanting a different script. But it sounds like that was because Joss was wrapping the story up instead of planning for it to continue. Boy oh boy.

One thing's for sure. It's going to be a great story to read the behind-the-scenes information once this chapter in the ongoing(!) life of Firefly ends. The DVD features should be great!

SCIFIDO

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:48 PM

I simply do not believe either of these rumors.

Like it was mentioned above, Reavers are scary because we don't have concrete imageary to place upon them. They are the proverbial things that go bump in the night. Heck, several characters did not believe they existed until they crossed paths in Serenity. If we see them, they lose that mystery JW has developed.

Secondly, Mal doesn't go shooting mothers and babies. It doesn't add up. I know he is a survivor, but I see him putting his own life on the line first. It just doesn't ring true for me even if it makes perfect sense.

Well, that's another 2 cents worth.... what do you think?

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:
I simply do not believe either of these rumors.

Like it was mentioned above, Reavers are scary because we don't have concrete imageary to place upon them. They are the proverbial things that go bump in the night. Heck, several characters did not believe they existed until they crossed paths in Serenity. If we see them, they lose that mystery JW has developed.

Secondly, Mal doesn't go shooting mothers and babies. It doesn't add up. I know he is a survivor, but I see him putting his own life on the line first. It just doesn't ring true for me even if it makes perfect sense.

Well, that's another 2 cents worth.... what do you think?

We are of like minds on the Reaver issue SciFiDo. I think it is better to leave the Reavers as the faceless things that go bump in the night than to show us what they look like and ruin the mystery/dread.

As for Mal shooting the mother & child, I agree that he would probably sacrafice his own life trying to save them before he would shoot them. Of course I guess it would depend on the situation too. What if his going back for the mother & child meant his crew died? Would he sacrifice his crew to try to save the lives of people that he may not be able to save?

Interesting to ponder these rumors, and figure out how our favorite characters might react.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

MELEAUX

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:52 PM

i can see mal shooting anybody as an act of mercy which it cetainly would be, but I hope very much that we don't see the reavers. in my imagination they are so bad that it would ugly up the beauty of firefly. besides its the unknown that is soooo scary.

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by outlander:
Nathan pulls out his gun and shoots both the mother and the boy to keep them from being tortured.

That would be Mal shooting both the mother and the boy - which is a very Mal thing to do, in the way he was written for the first pilot. Consider for a second the way he shot the Fed in the first pilot - without even thinking about it, with River in the mix. Just draw and shoot. That doesn't mean he wouldn't feel some remorse over having to shoot a woman and her child. I could see him getting powerfully drunk afterward.

Quote:
Originally posted by outlander:
As they pull away in their landspeeder.

I'm sorry - landspeeder? So they upgraded from the mule? Stole Burgess' landspeeder in HoG? How shiny is that?

Suddenly I have an image of everyone piled on the landspeeder the way the crew of the Memphis Belle piled on the jeep to head out to the flight line.

I just hope they don't show too much of the Reavers. I really don't want to see them, and in fact NOT seeing them makes them scarier. Not knowing what they look like, yet understanding they are the horror of mankind - my imagination can go down all manner of avenues with something like that.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

JARED

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:21 PM

and there we have a problem. i agree that the reavers shouldnt be shown. frankly, i dont think anything they could come up with and show on screen could even come close to what your mind is making up when you see the result of their attacks. they would have to show us things that will turn a man into a homocidal maniac just because of watching them. if they are shown it would have to be shocking and with that i mean in the way the exorcist shocked and offended people back then and passion of christ does now. but would serenity get away with that or just be thought of as tasteless gorefest?

if it wasnt for bushwhacked i might even expect something unexpected. spending most of the movie with the picture of horrible monsters forming in your head just do discover its a bunch of laywers.. sorry.. slightly savage looking, starving people that just went mad. but considering the self mutilation they are probably far from looking "normal". a horde of exaggerated ed geins was on my mind but seeing all the bodies hang from the ceiling im not sure what it is good for what they do to their victims.

anyway, that scene and not showing the reavers wouldnt work. without a whole lot of them about 1m right behind mentioned mother i cant imagine mal seeing no other way. of course this shouldnt happen to early on and the audience would definitely need to have a good idea whats expecting them if the reavers get them and they should mal good enough to know what it means.

one way or another, if this isnt completely made up or just meant to lure you the wrong way im sure they will pull it off and make it a memorable scene (for the audience and mal). but then, isnt mal already tortured enough? and could the consequences for him be shown good enough without a new show following the movie and seeing what this even did to his life?

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:34 PM

I totally disagree. I would love to see the Reavers. We already have some idea of them from the guy in the episodes disfiguring himself after his encounter. However, since we are all would-be directors, if they are shown I'd prefer flashes and shadows — enough blackness and cut-aways to obscure a full fledged image.

That being said, I trust Joss' imagination will not let us down whatever is decided.

As far as Mal shooting mom and son, sure it's in his character if there's no other option. To quote Aragorn, "We will not abandon Merry and Pippen to torture and death." Just have to make sure it's the last option. He might make a mistake in such an action. *gasp!* The hero make a mistake?

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:48 PM

Channain wrote:

Quote:
That would be Mal shooting both the mother and the boy - which is a very Mal thing to do, in the way he was written for the first pilot. Consider for a second the way he shot the Fed in the first pilot - without even thinking about it, with River in the mix. Just draw and shoot. That doesn't mean he wouldn't feel some remorse over having to shoot a woman and her child. I could see him getting powerfully drunk afterward.

I totally agree.

I think Mal has it in him to shoot them if there is no other way and he knows he can't rescue them without endangering his crew. It would be a mercy killing, and would be shocking, which is so Joss.

I do think it would eat at Mal, and I could see him getting powerful drunk afterwards. Oooooo! Even better, breaking down and having Inara comfort him.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

DRAGONLORD

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Reavers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mal shooting a kid and mother?! Joss did say he wanted to explore the darkness in Mal during the movie.

If I couldn't get away from the Reavers, I'd want to someone to shoot me and my family. If I had a gun I'd do it myself. It's better to die than to submit to the torture of the Reavers. imho.

Dragon Lord

Summer: Jane's a girls name
Jane: Well I ain't no girl! I can prove it!
Simon: I'm trying to picture you more vulgar... but, I can't

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I think Mal has it in him to shoot them if there is no other way and he knows he can't rescue them without endangering his crew. It would be a mercy killing, and would be shocking, which is so Joss.

Yes... yes... and most definitely YES. then again, if that's what we expect, then Joss may write something totally contrary. He's been known to do that too.

That's the funny thing about rumors and Joss - current relevance has absolutely no bearing on what the actual story will entail.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I do think it would eat at Mal, and I could see him getting powerful drunk afterwards. Oooooo! Even better, breaking down and having Inara comfort him.

OH! Man. This whole line of thinking could lead to an EXCELLENT fanfic...hmmmmmm.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE