So... a higher body count if Firefly went the distance on TV-?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, August 14, 2010 03:21
VIEWED: 14189
PAGE 4 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

GWEK

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
Originally posted by LAUREN779:

SNIP
However, personally, one of the things I thought made Firefly great was the cast and the chemistry they all had.
SNIP

This point by LAUREN779 is the crux of the whole issue.
The interactions of the crew,
the contrasts of their personalities and motivations,
the clever back-and-forth of their dialog,
the chemistry of the actors playing their roles
are what made Firefly great.
At no point does killing the characters make that better,
unless you're trying to make "Terms of Endearment".

Another poster wrote:
Quote:

I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.

The story doesn't "warrant" anything.
The story is a blank slate until the writer writes it.
Maybe "Cheers" would have been better off if they had killed a character off now and then.
Or maybe "Gunsmoke" coulda killed off Marshal Dillion so we could have seen how Miss Kitty would have run things...
Naw, I call BS.
Those shows lasted FOREVER because viewers tuned in to see characters they loved,
not to see who the creators would "kill off".

Quote:

No one every dying makes things a bit too pat and unbelievable. Scorching the Earth is too harsh.

While I recognize there are people who find entertainment in stories ABOUT killing people
(like the SAW movies or suspense flicks)
that's not what drove Firefly.
Firefly was episodic TV.
There were elements of Firefly that were already unbelievable,
(like the fact that they weren't hauled in after the Ariel heist, where they were undoubtedly on every security camera in the place!)
but we bought into the Firefly 'verse out of love for the characters.

Killing those beloved characters doesn't make Firefly more real OR better,
only...less...

Mike

I beg to differ. FIREFLY is about a group of people living on the edge, trying to eke out an existence, and barely getting by. The stakes of the game for them ARE, in fact, life and death. They live with the possibility of death every day of their lives. If we don't see the effects of that death periodically--sometimes even visited upon the main characters--it becomes hollow and meaningless, and the struggle of the heroes becomes hollow and meaningless.

The first time I saw OBJECTS IN SPACE, I cringed through the whole episode at Early's threat to rape Kaylee. Why? Because I know Whedon's track record. He might do it. If I were watching a show by Abrams or Kripke or some other writer/creator, I would NOT have been on the edge of my seat wondering what would happen.

The deaths of Wash and Book in the movie are brutal, but they demonstrate for us how very real the stakes are. This is life and death we're talking about. And, I don't know about you, but if Joss ever does another FIREFLY movie or TV show or whatever, I will watch every segment on the edge of my seat wondering if the characters will all survive. Because Whedon has created in environment in which the states are real and dramatic and meaningful. THAT is the 'Verse in which our crew lives (and dies) and that is part of why we love them.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

GWEK

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by khambilo:
I hate to say it, but I agree on the point with Book possibly being the big bad of the show. But with the premature cancellation of Firefly, Joss got to play this storyline out in Dollhouse with Boyd. So if any more new material is ever released on the progression of Book, I doubt it would point to him being the secret evil any more.

My thoughts exactly. I think that Joss used DOLLHOUSE as something of an "idea clearinghouse" for stuff he wanted to do for FIREFLY but knew he never would.

As a sidenote, the "living mainframe" idea is something that would mesh perfectly with the FIREFLY universe, and would explain why Blue Sun was trying to create people can can't not feel. Imagine how powerful River's processing power would be if she were subjected to the Attic.

Quote:
Though it has been rumored, and murmured at conventions and what not that Inara is dying of a terminal illness, I don't believe it really, at least not until a comic book or short story or something comes out confirming it.

Morena Bacarrin confirmed it, and I believe either Joss or one of the writers did as well. I agree that it's not canon until it appears in a story, but there's no denying that it was, at one point, there intention (and there is nothing to contradict it to date).

Quote:
Also, if anyone has read Still Flying, I believe Inara was still alive much into her elderly years in the one short story. Can't exactly remember and sorry if thats a spoiler.

I apologize for any spoilers as well, but I think you're mistaken about elderly Inara.

The Molina story is basically Mal-penned "fanfic", so none of the "future stuff" is in anyway true (for that matter, I don't think Inara actually appears).

In "Crystals" (or is it "Shards"?), River tells Inara that she has two questions, and that the answer to one--and only one--of them is "yes." I believe Inara places a "face" on each question, one being hers, the other Mal's.

Although the questions are never asked, the context, to me at least, implies that they are along the lines of:

1) Will Inara have a relationship with Mal?
2) Will Inara live a long life/Survive her illness?

So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.

Although open to interpretation, this short story jibes with the idea that Inara is dying.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

STORYMARK

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.

Matter of opinion. Simon always bored me, and was the one character I was actually kinda hoping would die in Serenity (not that I wanted him to die - but knowing someone was going to, he's the one I coulda lost with no problem).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.

Precisely a major reason why I love the BDM; it leaves the possibility of a happy ending for Mal & Inara open.

The sappy Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:

Another poster wrote:
Quote:

I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.

The story doesn't "warrant" anything.
The story is a blank slate until the writer writes it.

Yes, and sometimes the death of a character is a powerful storytelling device, both in terms of how it effects plot, and more importantly, the characters.

To say no one should ever die on a show you like - EVER - just sounds a bit simplistic.

Quote:
Maybe "Cheers" would have been better off if they had killed a character off now and then.

Gee, were the characters on Cheers smugglers and fugitives living incredibly dangerous lives on a frontier? Asinine comparison.

Quote:
Or maybe "Gunsmoke" coulda killed off Marshal Dillion so we could have seen how Miss Kitty would have run things...
Naw, I call BS.
Those shows lasted FOREVER because viewers tuned in to see characters they loved,
not to see who the creators would "kill off".

Yes, lets ignore the changes in culture, norms in entertainment, writing styles, acceptable levels of content and style.... everything is still just like it was in the 50's. Meanwhile, the most successful dramas of TODAY, never ever ever kill anyone - oh, wait, that's not even remotely true.

Quote:

While I recognize there are people who find entertainment in stories ABOUT killing people
(like the SAW movies or suspense flicks)
that's not what drove Firefly.

Seriously? You are comparing NOT flipping out over a character death to being a SAW fan? Such a facile generalization.

Quote:
Killing those beloved characters doesn't make Firefly more real OR better,
only...less...

Yep, the characters being immortal is more realistic. Wait... Nevermind, fanatics don't take kindly to reason....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

GWEK

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.

Matter of opinion. Simon always bored me, and was the one character I was actually kinda hoping would die in Serenity.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Yes, it's a matter of opinion. That's part of why I prefaced it with "I think..."

Your point is?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM

EDIT: Ah, nevermind, someone got this before me.

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 13, 2010 6:08 PM

Quote:
A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off. The Wesley comparison is a valid one. Throughout the series, Mal makes the important decisions, but Simon often makes the hard ones. That dichotomy should buy Simon his survival. Further, if we look at the crew as a family with Mal as the father, Simon is often the rebel son. His arc, I think would have been to "grow up" and leave the ship at some point, possibly to become a captain in his own right or go on to do something great. If executed successfully, that would allow both River and Simon to grow significantly as characters.

Hmm. Aside from the "rebel son" thing, I don't see this at all.

Simon's main issue during the series is that he has split loyalty between the crew and his sister. And the decisions he makes, including the initial decision that's gotten him in hot water, is not so much hard or easy but rather "what benefits River?"

Simon's secret wish to return to the life he left behind is his character flaw at the time of the series, and so if he were to have an arc I'd say it's letting go of those selfish desires he's buried deep down. This makes Simon a better caretaker to River, and also leads either to Simon eventually coming to accept the life he's found himself in, or might eventually lead Simon to become more generally heroic (not just to River). Simon isn't actually male lead material in his own right, this isn't a verse that's friendly to idealistic doctor healing types, it's a verse where you have to fight to keep from losing what little you have. BUT, Simon is very likely to become a driving force behind Mal's return to heroism, and Simon's actions, such as saving River and bringing her aboard, have already started Mal (reluctantly) down this road.

A Wesley character is a scrappy character. Simon wasn't heading for Mary Sue territory.

Your Book and Mal scenario would also suggest that for the rebellious son to rise up against the father, they would have to kill the father. Despite Mal's ethically questionable decision to use River in a bank heist in the movie, and the fallout with Simon over it, I don't forsee Simon killing Mal to protect River, as Mal would have to kill Book to protect River/crew.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Friday, August 13, 2010 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
SNIP
just sounds a bit simplistic
Asinine comparison
Yes, lets ignore
that's not even remotely true
Such a facile generalization.
Wait... Nevermind, fanatics don't take kindly to reason....

DUDE!
I'm just posting what I look for in escapist entertainment.
I appreciate that others don't feel the same way.

Your response to my post was like something out of the Real World Discussions.

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 13, 2010 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

In "Crystals" (or is it "Shards"?), River tells Inara that she has two questions, and that the answer to one--and only one--of them is "yes." I believe Inara places a "face" on each question, one being hers, the other Mal's.

Although the questions are never asked, the context, to me at least, implies that they are along the lines of:

1) Will Inara have a relationship with Mal?
2) Will Inara live a long life/Survive her illness?

So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.

Although open to interpretation, this short story jibes with the idea that Inara is dying.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

Almost. River's answer to Inara's two questions are "yes and no," and Inara's two reactions (very happy or very sad) are dependent upon the order they address the questions.

Loveless but a long life, or having Mal but dying young are neither of them a purely positive or a purely negative outcome. You asked the wrong question.

However, if you ask, "Will I die, will I get to be with Mal," the resulting answers fit the appropriate emotional reaction. No, you won't die, yes, you get to be with Mal (happy state), Yes, you die, no, you don't get to be with Mal (sad state).

From this we can infer that if Inara lives, she will get to be with Mal, as Inara dying makes her not being with Mal a foregone conclusion.

I also note that "dying" is not the same thing as "will die." In the sense of story-writing, this is fairly noncommittal.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE