Book's death one of the weakest in Science Fiction

POSTED BY: hughff
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2008 06:35
VIEWED: 2293
PAGE 1 of 1

HUGHFF

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 7:22 AM

Hard to argue with that, I feel, though I'd make the case that Wash might also qualify.
http://io9.com/5049753/12-weakest-deaths-in-science-fiction-history

www.cpfc.org - my life

2BY2GINGERBLUE

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:40 AM

I agree 100%I feel like they should have had a little more screen time considering that they were killing them off.

FREEBROWNCOAT

Friday, September 19, 2008 2:46 AM

I didn't see the deaths having any value to the film, that's for myself, mind.

Now Book sacrificing himself for his colony, that I can see. I can only think the randomness and unfairness of some deaths was the point to Wash's untimely demise. Badly injured and left behind, yeah, I can see that. But to take a harpoon, I thought Reavers wanted their food alive, in such a frivolous manner didn't seem right.

BROWNCOATBEAR

Friday, September 19, 2008 6:35 AM

Book's death certainly seemed to preclude any possibility of discoverying his hidden past without giving a whole hell of a lot of backstory. But because Book's past was so complex and labyrinthine, I just cannot imagine the opportunity to squeeze in so much information in backstories and flashbacks. Not to mention the fact that Book's character was so cool that it was just hard to see him go. Wash too.

Seems like a moot point now.