Did Joss paint himself into a corner with Serenity?
POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Monday, September 1, 2008 22:55
VIEWED: 28681
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?
Quote:And you might have noted the happy face I put on the end of that line. I know the idea is ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous to take it so personally when a writer who created a character decides that character's fate. As if the viewer owns the character more than the writer. Uh-huh.
Yeah, let's all watch Alan Tudyk in Dodge Ball, 'cause that's EXACTLY like watching Alan Tudyk in Firefly/Serenity
Guess the irony of my post was too nebulous for some to figure. (Yes, I'm condescending again. So shoot me. If you can aim high enough. My pedestal is quite towering.
)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. We're Browncoats arguing over Firefly/ Serenity. You'd think we were Trekies! LOL!
Anywho. If they make another Serenity without Book and Wash, I know I'd see it and I'm pretty sure everyone here would as well. I think there's just several schools of thought here.
One is the looking forward to what's gonna happen now.
Another is, "Wait a minute! We only got half a season of TV and a movie! Let's go back and take our time here!"
Still another is, "Let's move forward, but make sure EVERYONE is onboard."
I'm a member of the later.
Sure Joss is the creator of these characters and has a right to do with them as he pleases. (That's why I'm glad he mentioned bringing back Book and Wash in the Serenity visual companion.) And I know that, even though things may be different, they could still be great. They just can't be AS great as they were without Book and Wash.
To say that it could be better or even that it could be just as good would be like saying that Book and Wash were dead weight. And I know no one here would say that.
So sure. If they made more Firefly and Serenity, I'd see it. I'm just saying that, because it can't be the saem, I'm not as thrilled about it as others.
Firefly was very special and it's sad that it was cut short. As good as further stories could be without Book and Wash, I have to believe that they would be better with them.
Again, just the opinion of me and the other card-carrying members of the third school of thought. ;-p
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I want to state that while a new series or movie would be completely different, I' would still be very happy if it happened.
Of all the Joss shows, I think this is the one most deserving of a return.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed!
Have some mudder's milk on me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Slowhand:
Sure Joss is the creator of these characters and has a right to do with them as he pleases. (That's why I'm glad he mentioned bringing back Book and Wash in the Serenity visual companion.) And I know that, even though things may be different, they could still be great. They just can't be AS great as they were without Book and Wash.
It was my understanding that Joss has no intention of bringing Book or Wash back "alive", but that they would be seen in flashbacks.
I feel that works for Book, but not so much for Wash.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by swish:Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?
When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.
Well swish, if your latest demeaning comment was aimed at my original statement:
"But please keep in mind that I acknowledge that my bias runs to the fact that I like my entertainment to be FUN....etc.",
you obviously define condescending differently than the dictionary I have.
At no point did I presume to pass ultimate judgment on anything; only presented my views on why I feel about, or like/dislike, certain elements of Serenity.
I find the need to use condescension and sarcasm to answer my view (that Serenity betrayed the nature of its Firefly parent by frivolously killing a main character) undermines the legitimate points you have.
For the most part, I have found Browncoats to represent a HUGELY diverse number of interests and beliefs.
In my experience, that very diversity has always meant spirited discussion without denigrating anyone else's opinion.
(I guess that's why Browncoats are "Independents"!)
The insistence that uplifting and positive has to somehow carry some negative connotation when applied to entertainment, smacks of Alliance control, seems to me.
I don't know who has been on this board "long enough" or which opinions represent a minority or a majority.
I only know that each poster's answer to the original question, "Did Joss write himself into a corner with Serenity?" is legitimately right for themselves.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
amazing how wedded some folks are to happy endings, and how betrayed they feel if they don't get them. like someone else implied on this board, serenity isn't a disney movie. besides, (extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pepperg:
(extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.
I think Firefly did a better job of not having the consequences outweigh the dramatic return.
i.e. the crew overcame peril at some cost, just not the cost of their lives.
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.
Actually, I viewed things not going "according the gorram plan" to be sort of the running gag of the show.
Shoot, even the Lassiter heist didn't pay off like they hoped.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:Quote:
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.
Kaylee was shot by Dobson in the pilot episode.
I agree that the Firefly episodes we were blessed to see did generally end on an uplifting note, but if you are familiar with either Buffy or Angel then you would have to assume that was not going to remain the norm for very long. In this case we saw that type of event in the movie, but it would have happened in the series if it had gone another season or two.
Please don't misinterpret what I am saying either. Wash was the character I identified with the most, and I was devastated when he was killed. However, I think that event made the end of the film a better one than it would have been otherwise. And my comment about how long you have been a Browncoat was less about denigrating your opinion and more about saying it makes no sense for someone who did not see the film in the theater to make the judgment that Wash's death is the reason it failed at the box office. It failed because so very few movie-goers were even aware of it at the time, not because of the story line. It's the same way that there are so many people aware of Firefly now that when it was on the air. If those people watched it then it might still be on the air, and if a lot of them had seen Serenity in the theater it would not be considered a failure.
wo men ren ran zai fei xing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh criminy - I'm not going to quote you back to yourself for a third time. You did more just state your views - oh yes you did! (I'm in third grade all of the sudden LOL!) Plenty of people on this thread have stated that they didn't like part of the BDM, didn't find it as entertaining as the series, etc, which you may or may not have noticed that I agree with. The part I disagreed with the absolutes you spoke in, and the way you seemed to be setting down rules that bound Joss's choices. (Do I really need to quote you back to yourself here?)
Originally posted by pennausamike:
At no point did I presume to pass ultimate judgment on anything; only presented my views on why I feel about, or like/dislike, certain elements of Serenity.
As I told you before: there's a difference between saying "I wasn't entertained "and "that wasn't entertainment". You definitely said the latter
I note that now you are being clearer about stating your views as your own opinion, and that's cool. Yay! See, I knew you weren't a jerk. It's just the imperfection of the medium - your first few posts came off pretty strong. You know, like a soft French cheese.
Maybe stronger than you intended?Quote:Dude, the only one speaking of "had to"s here was you! The rest have opinions as to fluffy entertainment - opinions, not absolutes. For instance, I said I find it fake and hollow (that's just my taste), but I also said there's nothing *wrong* with that (hence removing judgement from others whose taste is different) and I go there from time to time (I do find it entertaining).
The insistence that uplifting and positive has to somehow carry some negative connotation when applied to entertainment, smacks of Alliance control, seems to me.
Quote:It's an excellent question and no one, certainly not me, is saying otherwise. It was your first few posts that I (and others) disagreed with.
I only know that each poster's answer to the original question, "Did Joss write himself into a corner with Serenity?" is legitimately right for themselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME