Mal's word no good?

POSTED BY: jewelstaitefan
UPDATED: Sunday, October 14, 2007 03:26
VIEWED: 18720
PAGE 7 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

GORRAMNREEVER

Sunday, October 7, 2007 6:19 PM

DAAAAmn......callin Mal not trustworthy??? That is a bold statement my brother. Mal would lay down for any one of his crew regardless of circumstance. Well maybe Jayne would get a second thought but certainly none of the others too include Irana who literaly is just a renter. I am in the service and there are very few individuals that hold the values of loyalty to the extent of Sgt Malcolm Reynolds. These values proven in "The Message" when even when the individual put them in jeopardy and blatantly used them......he still kept his word and honored his fallen brother in arms with dignity and respect.

Mal's word no good.....hell no! You are liable to get lynched for breathing those words! That is as bad as saying "Book was still an active operative that was monitoring River in an uncontrolled environment unbeknownst to all but the highest "key parliament" representatives." But that is an argument that I can go on for days about. Book wasn't such a good guy.....if any wasn't loyal. There's my .02

......I brought the Grenades.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, October 8, 2007 6:29 AM

I got back my DVDs today.

recent replies: Mal ends Dobson when Dobson proves himself dishonorable by holding a gun to River.

When in command, I did not let my group leave one behind. When injuries required fallback (if no corpsman resolution available), a few could quickly retreat with the wounded to quicken care, but the main body of my group would not leave until all were coming. Among the enemy, one or two stranded and surrounded would not last when outflanked and outgunned. We only retreated with all members. If somebody was going to fall to the enemy, we all would - and every member knew it. Once re-consolidating the group, we could then retreat as one, and regroup after dealing with WIA.

About Safe:
Mal says "Don't worry, we will not leave without you"
On ship, Mal says "We already lost 2, not gonna lose a thrid" I think this clarifies he thinks the Tams are already lost, and he is leaving them behind.
Already pointed out, taking Book to the Alliance was a bad gamble, they turned him away until the Ident card made Msl's decision retroactively acceptable.
Mal gave no indication he had intention of returning for the Tams.
The Alliance Magellan is 2 hours away, this is after Wash returns from the trip to town, and the Tams are still walking in the woods with the kidnappers.
The ship too far away is 10 hours away.
I would not suggest being kidnapped would be confused with being "safe" as some have implied.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, October 8, 2007 6:43 AM

So I was really hoping this was some error in the script, or discontinuity.
I don't have any problems with Mal's actions in any other episode or BDM, anything that seems out-of-character. At Haven in BDM, he was effectively offering a way out for all others, so they did not have to go on the suicide mission to Miranda - he just presented it in his way.

I feel in Save Mal went back on his word, and had no intention of going back.
Although the script did need to seperate Simon fro the crew to require Book to get Alliance treatment (and what was the point of that, really?), I really think the script could have used a more palatable choice of words for Mal to give Simon, lines that would have not made Mal's word no good.

MRBEN

Monday, October 8, 2007 9:39 AM

Some thoughts:

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
About Safe:
Mal says "Don't worry, we will not leave without you"
On ship, Mal says "We already lost 2, not gonna lose a thrid" I think this clarifies he thinks the Tams are already lost, and he is leaving them behind.

If we're taking lost to mean the same for all three (which he does) then it means he thinks they are dead, which puts a completely different spin on things.

Quote:
Already pointed out, taking Book to the Alliance was a bad gamble, they turned him away until the Ident card made Msl's decision retroactively acceptable.

I'm confused as to why this is a problem. What would have happened if they had turned him away? Book would have probably died, yes. But would he then have turned back for Simon and River? Given that he did even after the extended time on board with the Alliance giving Book treatment, I think it is likely he would've if he had been turned away.

Quote:
Mal gave no indication he had intention of returning for the Tams.

If we were condemned for not giving indications of our good actions, then the world would be a sad place. You seem to be hinging your entire theory on this point, but I think you're on flimsy ground. I think it is simply a plot device used by Joss to inject dramatic tension. If he had truly intended not to go back, the sensible dramatic resolution would have been an argument between Mal and (most likely) Kaylee. Do you not think that, if he hadn't intended to go back, Kaylee would not have kicked up a huge fuss?

Quote:
The Alliance Magellan is 2 hours away, this is after Wash returns from the trip to town, and the Tams are still walking in the woods with the kidnappers.
The ship too far away is 10 hours away.
I would not suggest being kidnapped would be confused with being "safe" as some have implied.

The name 'Safe', and the construction of the episode, is, I believe, intended to make us understand that Serenity is now the Tams new home, and the crew their new family. The flashbacks indicate the breakdown of the real family, and the final conversation between Mal and Simon indicates the new order.

mrben

"Carpe Aptenodytes"
http://www.jedimoose.org

ASARIAN

Monday, October 8, 2007 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Already pointed out, taking Book to the Alliance was a bad gamble, they turned him away until the Ident card made Msl's decision retroactively acceptable.

Yes, taking Book to the Alliance was a bad gamble. But that's no reflection on Mal's (judgement of) character. In fact, Mal knew full well it was a bad call; and meeting an Alliance Cruiser was probably the last thing on his mind. But he did it anyway, because, again, it was the right thing to do! Mal was soldier enough to realize Book would not make it without professional medical care. And since Simon was gone, it took Inara but a small nudge to make Mal see that taking Book to the Alliance WAS the best thing to do, regardless of the chances.

Also, I can k... no; erm, I meant, the psychology of Mal not wanting to see yet another person die under his command, as mentioned on this thread a few times, I think was paramount, too. Despite his issues with the Alliance, Mal was not going to let that happen.

Furthermore, it should perhaps be pointed out that the Alliance, even though we primariliy get to see their ugly side, are essentially still, as Joss once suggested, to be considered a benign bunch. It really is, for the most part, "A beacon of civilization." Not everyone gets to reap the same benefits of that civilization, of course; but it's no Evil Empire. In Bushwhacked, for instance, when Harken doesn't let them keep their cargo, Mal says: "Had to. Couldn't let us profit. Wouldn't be civilized." There's an understanding between them. Mal's not so blinded by his aversion of the Alliance that he doesn't understand that the Alliance, when not dealing with a band of brigands, can probably be counted on to act civilized. The "bad" call, if you can call it that, is that this particular Hwoon dahn of a Commander is too snooty to help them (and probably DOES look upon them as bandits). As to be expected, not everything goes right. Possibly you're not recalling some of his previous plans. Besides, if everything were right, the'd be in jail. :)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

ASARIAN

Monday, October 8, 2007 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mrben:
Some thoughts:

If we were condemned for not giving indications of our good actions, then the world would be a sad place. You seem to be hinging your entire theory on this point, but I think you're on flimsy ground. I think it is simply a plot device used by Joss to inject dramatic tension. If he had truly intended not to go back, the sensible dramatic resolution would have been an argument between Mal and (most likely) Kaylee. Do you not think that, if he hadn't intended to go back, Kaylee would not have kicked up a huge fuss?

Very good post, mrben! :)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

HOUDINI

Monday, October 8, 2007 2:05 PM

Personally I haven't read this entire thread, but from what I HAVE read I think most people here are missing something. Most of what I read is from people who are stating that Mal always intended to go back for the Tams, would never go against his word, etc.

That is not Mal's character. Joss has stated before that Mal is NOT your typical hero. He's not all good. He has inner demons.

This is part of the reason why Mal shot people who were unarmed in the BDM. It's why Inara mentions that Mal runs away from fights "all the time".

Mal intended to wait for the Tams but when the emergency came up he had to leave. However, if you watch the show again you can see he was struggling with himself on whether he should go back for them. Meaning he was not "always intending" to go back. Finally his conscience got the best of him.

This is what makes Firefly such a good show. In real life you don't have "all good heroes". Things are not just black or white. People make mistakes, don't always make the right decisions, and aren't all good. This is Mal. This is good TV.

- Houdini

MUGGI

Monday, October 8, 2007 5:00 PM

I don't buy that Mal shot Dobson because he showed he was dishonorable. Besides hitting Book with the fire extinguisher (which there's virtually no way Mal could know of), Dobson's actions are hardly different from his actions earlier in the show, when Mal wanted him kept alive.

Another point: As JEWELSTAITEFAN described in his personal command experience, he would never leave a man behind.

FF to the Zoe/Mal convo in the BDM..when Zoe brings up "leave no man behind", Mal's gives his famous "maybe that's why we lost" line.

I think you may just have to accept that Mal is not, as a previous poster stated, a perfect hero. He's not going to do the honorable, "right" thing every time. He's written more reactionary than that..he does what he thinks is best for him and his AT THE MOMENT, not necessarily what is most honorable.

RUGBUG

Monday, October 8, 2007 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mrben:
Quote:
I would not suggest being kidnapped would be confused with being "safe" as some have implied.

The name 'Safe', and the construction of the episode, is, I believe, intended to make us understand that Serenity is now the Tams new home, and the crew their new family. The flashbacks indicate the breakdown of the real family, and the final conversation between Mal and Simon indicates the new order.

Exactly. The episode is contrasting what is believed to be 'safe' and stable (a home, a traditional family, a community, an honest living) with what seems to be instability in a nomad lifestyle with petty criminals. It's not that the community Simon and River IS a better place for them, it's that it has the appearance of being a better place.

jewelstaitefan, you don't want to change your mind, so there is no evidence that can make you. That's fine, you go ahead and judge the character of Mal from one line that you've understood (incorrectly, from my POV) as a promise. Don't take into account any of Mal's other actions in other episodes.

Oh and the whole Alliance/Book situation was just supposed to be another piece of the puzzle...one that we never got to see to completion because, you know, the show ended. You HAVE to view this show in the context of there being more out there...more that while you were seeing inklings of, you never got to see.)

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

ASARIAN

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Muggi:

I think you may just have to accept that Mal is not, as a previous poster stated, a perfect hero. He's not going to do the honorable, "right" thing every time. He's written more reactionary than that..he does what he thinks is best for him and his AT THE MOMENT, not necessarily what is most honorable.

Mal's not a traditional hero, but lives by a sort of brigands code. Badger (though he was being sarcastic, of course) pegged him right: "A man of honor in a den of thieves." The crux to Mal's heroism, however, is seated in his own words: "I look out for me and mine." That's why Dobson got it in the head. It was not out of character at all; nor was Mal somehow breaking his word to Dobson (about not killing him). In Mal's view of things, you hold a gun to an innocent teenage girl, you die. No quams. Like the way he deals with Burgess and his men. River was directly part of "his" (and Petaline and the other girls were so by proxy, as it were, as he was doing it for Inara).

The "me and mine" thing is really key. In "Safe," even Simon was surprised Mal came back for them: "You... you came for us!?" Well, they're on his crew. Why we still talking about this?

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE