General Discussions

Okay, we did this before, but let's do it again.

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, February 22, 2010 00:58
VIEWED: 7120
PAGE 2 of 3

TWO

Saturday, February 20, 2010 5:11 PM

Simon loudly opposed Mal's plan to decorate Serenity with corpses. Mal knows Simon wants to care for the wounded. That's a weak excuse to not help rope together the dead. Mal's bullet took away that excuse. This is Mal's kind of fast and effective leadership.

It is very clear in the movie that murdering the enemy's wounded is nothing for Mal. If Mal heard anyone at fireflyfans.net talk about forgiveness and redemption and justified homicide, he'd tell you, "I don't need you nit-picking my past. Get off my boat before I shoot you, too." If you disapproved of this killing, he'd be less polite.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 20, 2010 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PlainJayne:
I'd have splattered his ass, too. He stuck his head up out of a ship that just killed everybody in the settlement. No better than a Reaver. He was lucky he got dropped on the first shot.

That sums up my my feelings on the matter.

The laughing Chrisisall

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

Saturday, February 20, 2010 6:46 PM

I'll go against the grain here. The man was unarmed and surrendering. That's a d-bag move, doesn't matter how you choose to rationalize it.

Not saying I would or would not have done the same thing (seeing as how the guy in question had just bombed out a settlement...but then again who knows what info his superiors gave him about why he was attacking), I'm just saying.

Mal's NOT a nice guy. He has good qualities, obv., and inner goodness, but the movie was supposed to show us how dark and in some ways fundamentally broken he is as a man - and how he finds himself again. Mal's redemption doesn't come until later.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fearthebunnyman:
That's a d-bag move, doesn't matter how you choose to rationalize it.

No, it was an understandably human move, the d-bag move was burning down innocents at Haven.

Quote:

then again who knows what info his superiors gave him about why he was attacking

In that case he was in the game & anything could happen. Play & be played. Work for d-bags & one might be killed like one.
The cooks & electricians on the Death Star took similar chances.
Just sayin'.

ETA:

Quote:
the movie was supposed to show us how dark and in some ways fundamentally broken he is as a man

Yes, and were I Mal, that action would not be one I was proud of, nor anything I'd particularly even want to remember, but I'd easily forgive myself under the circumstances.

The laughing Chrisisall

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
No, it was an understandably human move

Yes, and sometimes humans are d-bags. Such as in this instance.

Quote:
In that case he was in the game & anything could happen. Play & be played. Work for d-bags & one might be killed like one.
The cooks & electricians on the Death Star took similar chances.

Ha! nice Clerks ref. But everyone thinks they're righteous (or at least neutral), or they wouldn't be there to begin with.

Quote:
Yes, and were I Mal, that action would not be one I was proud of, nor anything I'd particularly even want to remember, but I'd easily forgive myself under the circumstances.

Ditto here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

TRAVELER

Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:52 PM

I remember the debate in "Saving Private Ryan" about a prisoner they could not afford to deal with. They let him go. In the end the German soldier shows up again and is dispatched when he foolishly calls out to them.

And in "The Victors" a squad of British soldiers did not except the surrender of some Germans. They shot at them and drove them back into their bunker, where they blew it up with all inside. Meanwhile a squad from the United States Army watched in disbelief.

I have spoken to veterans of WWII and Korea and the idea of high morals is lost very early. None were ashamed of what they had done. I have seen docimentaries that have combatants admit their deeds in front of a camera. Killing becomes a way of life.

Mal was a veteran and probably saw and done worse.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN

Saturday, February 20, 2010 9:06 PM

It's a sad truth that that environment brings out the worst in people. Coming from a military family myself however (and the fact I'm surrounded by military folks everyday at my work) this isn't true of everyone. But Mal's been through some heavy shiat, and is going thru a pretty nutty time during the movie, so his better self is taking a beating. I find him a lot more compelling in the film than in the series, for that reason (although to be fair, I think Nathan's generally better with portraying the charm.)

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 20, 2010 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fearthebunnyman:
I find him a lot more compelling in the film than in the series, for that reason

Me too. Cracked at the beginning, starting to shatter later on, yet able to pull the pieces together by the end.
There are sometimes tears.

The laughing Chrisisall

OPPYH

Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:52 AM

Mal is a cocky bastard, and will do whatever he damn well pleases.
The Browncoats lost. The Alliance are evil. Mal knows this. There is no gray area on this one, either your a Browncoat(liberty, freedom) or Alliance(obey or die). Was Mal in the wrong? Absolutely frikkin no way in Hell was he even close to being wrong.

ANOTHERSKY

Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:58 AM

Mal usually has a "lighter shade of gray" in the shooting people department, so this scene definitely gets people's attention--it's the start of gearing up for the finale.

The two no-hesitation instances I can remember that are important plot points are Dobson (Fed agent in the pilot) and this one.

Dobson had crossed the episode's moral event horizon so far he was coming back again (battering an unconcious Shepard, threatening a laid-out Kaylee, and kidnapping River with a gun to her head--let alone seriously waving that gun at the ship's only doctor). It was justification for the audience. Mal don't take well to hitting people when they're down.

He does have a taste for revenge.

I thought that shooting the surrendering Fed in the movie was a kind of bookend to this thought, and a reminder of Serenity Valley--who is more "down" in the scenario in Mal's mind? Who has more "right" to live? Practically, they didn't have time or energy for prisoners.

Again, it becomes justification(sort of), but we're not happy either. Having all the crew there for reaction doubles it: "Want to see the real me now?"

Mostly what it said to me is that things have started to go very far south.

__

Going for a ride.