Mal's word no good?
POSTED BY: jewelstaitefan
UPDATED: Sunday, October 14, 2007 03:26
VIEWED: 18720
PAGE 3 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
I have read your replies. I'm afraid I find them akin to rationalizations, perhaps the episode is less fresh in your minds.
Having just watched 'Safe' last week for the 10th or so time in as many months, I would say it's pretty fresh...and pretty well-known to me. (I also find it a little rude that you woud brush people's opinions off, those that you asked for, saying that the ep must not be as fresh in their minds.)
IMO, I think you're trying to see something that isn't there. Mal was acting as a captain...evaluating need and acting upon who needed help most from what knowledge he had. They could've stayed and let Book die while they looked for Simon and River some more, or they could go, take care of the most pressing issue and then return on the less pressing, more unknown issue.
Mal made an adult, mature decision the made it look like he wasn't keeping his word. But any adult nows that it is a child's notion that life won't interefere and make things go wonky, no matter what you promised. Mal actually made good on his word...even if it wasn't immediate.
***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SchoolboysWink:
This has been a great thread, but a couple things that haven't been mentioned yet I'd like to bring up:
When Mal tells Simon "We won't leave without you," I think the point of this, both in-character for Mal and as a literary element from Joss, is to indicate that Mal understands Simon's reluctance to leave the vicinity of the ship is in self-defense, so to speak, and to explain to Simon that Mal's request that he go into town is not an INTENTIONAL effort to trick him into being left behind. I don't necessarily take it as a promise that "no matter what happens, we won't leave you." It is something of a throwback to the Pilot: "You don't know me very well son, so I'll explain this once. If I ever shoot you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed." Simon and Mal almost never agree, and they don't like each other, but from the first there was always candor between them. (Except for when Mal tells Simon that Kaylee is dead, but practical jokes, no matter how warped, don't count as deception, per se. And it was hi-larious.)
Furthermore, while Simon was CREW (with River's status being more akin to Simon's pet than anything else, in those early episodes; i.e. "you keep her out of trouble and clean up after her and she can stay, you she's YOUR responsibility, not MINE"), Book was a PASSENGER. The captain of a ship has an even higher responsibility to his passengers than he does to his crew; their safety is paramount. There is a thread throughout later episodes that Mal worries about Book and Inara's safety before that of crew members; there is that "feel" to his comments when he sends everyone away in OoG, and also during the Reaver attack in the Pilot.
All in all, I think Mal's honorable nature is one of the critical parts of the show. Let us remember that, though we may not like to admit it, usually our adversaries and enemies know us in many ways better than anyone, and in the Pilot, Badger pegs Mal perfectly: "Man of honor in a den of thieves." (Contrast this to Jayne's always assuming that Mal was playing an angle with the Tam's, and it's an interesting commentary on who knows him better. But I digress...) There aren't a lot of absolutes in FF, but this is one of them, so in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, I think Mal should get the benefit of the doubt that he planned to go back for the Tam's, at least to TRY.
"When you can't do somethin' smart, do somethin' right!" -Jayne Cobb quotes Shepherd Book
Maybe I need to wait until my copies are returned - that shooting script doesn't seem accurate to onscreen.
They misjudged going to the Alliance, and completely lucked out with Book's Ident.
Perhaps I should emphasize another facet. Mal is put up as somebody loyal to those who are loyal to him. In the military, he and Zoe avoided leaving one of their commrades behind. In BDM after the Lilac raid, Zoe incorrectly calls Mal on the "can't run with 5" decision to throw off guy who got ett by reavers (although the mule had 5 seats) - incorrect because that guy was not "one of them", he was an unknown, and Mal was not beholden to him other than all he had done with the vault guard to save everybody. Zoe was still uneasy about "leaving somebody behind" and (I think) particularly because they are the only 2 veterans aboard - also note that Zoe did not discuss this in presence of anybody else.
In Safe, Mal leaves the Tams behind. That there stinks. No subplot like in Message. No knowledge that the Tams are safe - those kidnapped are never returned to freedom. Jayne could sniff down... err track down the Tams in little time, while the poor choice Alliance was at the outer fringes of their time/distance parameters.
Simon is a GENIUS truama surgeon, and they know that.
Make no mistake, I understand the plot devices and all, but the apparent ABANDONMENT of the Tams after stating "We will not leave without you" just makes his word worth spit.
What does the Companion say about the dialog before the corral shoot
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
I have read your replies. I'm afraid I find them akin to rationalizations, perhaps the episode is less fresh in your minds.
Having just watched 'Safe' last week for the 10th or so time in as many months, I would say it's pretty fresh...and pretty well-known to me. (I also find it a little rude that you woud brush people's opinions off, those that you asked for, saying that the ep must not be as fresh in their minds.)
Sorry to sound rude, not my intent. I know about trying to defend/sugarcoat my favorite performances. I was trying to say that my points weren't being taken on, debated, but instead a shift in perspective was attempted.
Quote:
IMO, I think you're trying to see something that isn't there. Mal was acting as a captain...evaluating need and acting upon who needed help most from what knowledge he had. They could've stayed and let Book die while they looked for Simon and River some more, or they could go, take care of the most pressing issue and then return on the less pressing, more unknown issue.
Mal made an adult, mature decision the made it look like he wasn't keeping his word. But any adult nows that it is a child's notion that life won't interefere and make things go wonky, no matter what you promised. Mal actually made good on his word...even if it wasn't immediate.
***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Mal made the wrong decision. The Alliance would not accept Book, until blind luck made Mal's decision look good in hindsight. Without that, Mal's decision kills Book, versus letting Simon save Book.
I should also mention that I do appreciate all thoughtful discussion and responses. I'm hoping you'll show me the light.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
They misjudged going to the Alliance, and completely lucked out with Book's Ident.
You're right...Inara did misjudge the Alliance's willingness to help someone in need. Mal didn't necessarily, but knew there wasn't really another option. While Simon is a genius trauma surgeon, Mal has no idea what condition they would find him in, IF they found him in time. He doesn't know if Simon will be in any state to perform a surgery. Inara made an assumption that the Alliance would treat Book. You're making an assumption that Simon would be able to treat Book.
Mal doesn't even know if Simon will return. Simon could've found his new situation favorable...in fact, there is a glimmer of that when they talk about the house that is waiting for them and when he sees how happy River seems to be. They COULD'VE been happy there...until River is accused of being a witch. Where would that leave Book?
Again, I say, it's a childish notion that every single word uttered is a promise that must be held to by the strictest definition. Circumstances arise, choices need to be made that may delay "promises". That's the real world. It would've been foolish to search for the Tams while Book lay dieing.
Mal DID uphold his word. He came back. As Mal4Prez asks, show us indication that Mal DIDN'T intend to come back.
***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, what does the Companion say about the discussion after bringing aboard injured Book and evaluating options? Is there any indication or inkling that Mal has any thought regarding the Tams other than leaving them stranded and fly away?
I am not saying that he is infallible. I just expected more from Mal. Simon was following Mal's DIRECTIVE - "you might not take that as a suggestion".
"My turn"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It now appears that some are justifying that "oh, Simon will be fine", but then others admit "we don't know what state, how incapacitated Simon might be after only a few minutes elapsed since our shootout".
These contradict.
Mal hasn't left a lot of wiggle room to think that when he makes a demand or directive that it would be a "childish notion" that he didn't mean what he said, and expects to be obeyed, in the strictest sense.
I do still appreciate your input.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
shiny thread!:)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
It now appears that some are justifying that "oh, Simon will be fine", but then others admit "we don't know what state, how incapacitated Simon might be after only a few minutes elapsed since our shootout".
These contradict.
Eesh. It's called the unknown. We don't know what Mal thought. We aren't given that information. We are given the info:
1. Mal tells Simon to go into town
2. Book gets shot
3. They leave to get help for Book
4. They get help
5. They come back to get the Tams
Because the rest is unknown, there are many options to what actually could've happened.
And more than just a few minutes elapsed. Simon/River in store, River running off, River dancing (heh), Simon getting nabbed, River following through the woods, etc. More than just a few minutes.
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Mal hasn't left a lot of wiggle room to think that when he makes a demand or directive that it would be a "childish notion" that he didn't mean what he said, and expects to be obeyed, in the strictest sense.
I do still appreciate your input.
"We won't leave without you" isn't a demand or a directive. Nathan Fillion didn't deliver it that way. It's a placation. To get Simon comfortable with leaving the ship.
What's really interesting is I think you're missing the whole point. Mal is being contrasted to Simon's real father, who does in fact abandon both him and River...for nothing more than ruining his social standing. Mal leaves the Tams for true emergency, and then comes back...never abandoning, though it may have seemed so.
***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by wytchcroft:
shiny thread!:)
More than I expected. But this one irk WAS the primary reason I've registered on this, yet another message board. This doesn't even relate to cars.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, welcome to the site. You started you stay with quite a debate of our hero, Mel. Though I can see the point on both sides, you have to put leaving the Tams in context of Mel is a whole. He makes bad decisions; he makes good decisions, but he always takes responsibility for them.
Also, I have to say you are not giving Mr. Nathan Fillion enough credit for his performance by just looking at the script. Look at Nathan's eyes when he is fighting with the crew about leaving them. He is fighting with himself about leaving members of his crew behind, but that was the decision that was made.
I think what you are looking for is some kind of regrete for the decisions in the dialouge. I believe that Joss really believes in the actors that he casts in his shows to be able to say things without him putting them into they're mouths. (Don't shoot me! I love Joss's writing as much, not more then the rest of you, but you have to give the actors they're do. Remember the strawberry!!) Before you go and condemn Joss on an inconsistency, watch Nathan's eyes during the scenes where he is fighting for Booth's life. You can see the conflict.
That's just my opinion.
Mel is my hero. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME