Investigating the Death of 'Agent Dubson'
POSTED BY: TheSomnambulist
UPDATED: Friday, October 15, 2010 23:25
VIEWED: 18428
PAGE 3 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
My point.
And so was Dobson dead at the end of Serenity (pilot).
Select to view spoiler:
Tara
Cordy
Wesley
Fred
Jenny
Joyce
Do I really need to go on ? This IS Joss, after all.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.
Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).
Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.
I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.
I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.
I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.
Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).
Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.
I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.
I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.
I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?
Well, as you yourself mentioned, it ratcheted up the tension and the stakes, making the final act of the film much more intense than it would have been if they all got away.
Which is good storytelling - making the most out of the story at hand, bringing the greatest emotional punch. It's not just about giving everyone a happy ending so that no one goes away sad.
"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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've heard Firefly called the Anti-Star Trek, but I believe Joss Whedon could learn storytelling tricks from Gene Roddenberry. There has to be reasons, which Joss Whedon can control, why Star Trek movies and TV were big commercial successes while Serenity and Firefly were not.
What follows is a transcript of 5 actors (Jonathan Frakes, Host Whoopi Goldberg, Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, Patrick Stewart) explaining why Trek was successful. It is from Star Trek The Captains Summit - [2009]. I dream there is some ingredient in Trek that Joss doesn't use enough of in his own shows. I know that is the same as believing in happily ever after fairy tales. Were it that easy, every show would be a commercial success.
www.subtitlesource.org/title/tt1394315
www.subtitlesource.org/subs/62212/Star.Trek.The.Captains.Summit.720p.B
luRay.DD2.0.x264
The best thing that ever happened to me in terms of contacts, as we're being serious now, was a letter I got from a police sergeant in the Las Vegas police force. And he'd said that he enjoyed the show, but most particularly he said, "There are bad days in the job that I do, really bad days when my view of humanity and of the world is low. I see some awful things. When that happens, when that day comes to an end, my response to it is to go home and put in a tape of Star Trek. And I feel that things will get better."
Yeah, that's great.
Is that Gene [Roddenberry's] legacy? That he actually left us with something, some great possibility of what mankind could be?
He had a great belief in mankind's capabilities. He had great...
He had real belief that the future was going to be the way Star Trek was.
Yeah, he had a great vision.
His vision of hope was exactly what drove... You know, when we started doing this show, there were stories about the Chariots of the Gods, the whole concept that maybe we have been visited by a previous incarnation of some kind and had built the pyramids and then gone away or whatever, and he said, "That's rubbish." He said, "These wonderful things were all done by mankind, not by any ancient astronauts that came here from some other planet. They were all done by mankind and mankind should take the credit for it and move forward and continue to do wonderful things."
I'm sure that's true about Gene. But also there is a real commercial aspect to that view. And that is when I was doing a show involving EMTs and it was called Rescue 911, we found and ultimately built on that, that the shows that were most successful were the ones where people were saved. You had a positive note. Here comes the EMTs, and you're gonna be okay. Whereas in fact about 80% of the calls result in death, but we didn't dramatize those.
How awful it was, it is. And subsequently it was proved by another show that Gene did, was if the view of the future was bad, people didn't wanna see that. But to know that we would exist 300 years from now, that we will overcome this environmental crisis that we're facing, this catastrophe that we're all hurtling towards, that will be cured by the very technology that is doing it. To know that that is true and to know that people will evolve and become better, even though there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary, that's a positive note and people want to see that.
Because, ultimately, we all want to have faith.
It's fundamentally the reason for the success of the series.
-Don't you think? That argument.
-Absolutely.
I think people are inspired by the anti-sexism and anti-racism that was practiced on all the shows for the last 40 years. And the hope of that possibility, given what's going on in the world. I hear it from people every day. The same thing that you hear from this Vegas cop. That when things go bad, I go back to the show where something...
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:
I've heard Firefly called the Anti-Star Trek, but I believe Joss Whedon could learn storytelling tricks from Gene Roddenberry. There has to be reasons, which Joss Whedon can control, why Star Trek movies and TV were big commercial successes while Serenity and Firefly were not.
Challenging material is rarely widely popular. The term "lowest common denominator" exists for a reason, beyond math.
"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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Star Trek has it's place and all, but it's not an even remotely believable future IMO. Firefly made the point that even in the future we are still humans with the same basic problems we face today. That seems spot on to me. It made the show seem grounded in a way that Trek just doesn't.
Talk of changing something to make it more like Trek sounds like what Fox executives were probably thinking. "Can we get 20% more klingons?" We already have Star Trek. Can't hurt to try something new.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I've been in this argument before, and I also found Wash's death gratuitous and unnecessary. It's not about oh no, he died, a story can't end SAD. People really need to stop making this accusation, it's a strawman. Some of my favourite stories are tragedies. I'm not upset because Wash died, frankly I didn't identify much with Wash as a character, and wasn't affected by his death.
My complaint is that Wash's death was poorly executed in my opinion PERIOD. It's about the impact and the use of the death as a story telling device. Even Zoe isn't allowed much of a reaction over his death. Are we supposed to be feeling this? Because I didn't feel it.
Select to view spoiler:
Quick comparison: I felt more of a reaction over Ballard's death in Dollhouse because of Echo's speech afterwards than I did Wash's death... And I HATED Ballard, and I HATED the Ballard/Echo pairing. Joss can do a good death scene, but he copped out with Wash.
Also, I argue Joss is regretting it now, because all the comic books so far have been written so Wash can still be in them. Wash was the author avatar, after all, the character Joss could channel his sense of humour and commentary on situations into. Writing yourself into a CORNER is a mistake, not good storytelling. Wash's death added nothing to the movie, and it probably didn't do the franchise any favours.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
I'd also note that I'm surprised ya'll are trying to hold a spoiler-free discussion about a franchise that is 5 to 8 years old.
My oh my. QFT, needs to be signature quoted.
Regarding the original TV series Star Trek: it was not successful, it cancellation was attempted during and after it's first season, but was fought against by the studio head which produced TOS (Desilu Studios). At that time, Lucille Ball was one of the most powerful women in Television.
TOS was eventually cancelled after the third season, due to perpetually dismal ratings.
Try not to reinvent history, that's what the looney lefties do in RWED.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I have a question.
During Firefly, was there ever mention of an investigation for finding Lawrence Dubson's body and or his killers after the initial episode - I can't quite remember? And when the crew are questioned during Bushwacked by the Alliance officer should there not have been mention that the last known where abouts of Agent Dobson was aboard a Firefly class ship....?
Even in the film when the Operative views Mal's files -should his name not have lit up all sorts of lights saying 'possible involvement in the death of a federal agent!' or sume such?
Just wondering....?
Back to the original question, assuming the discussion is still desired.
1. Dobson's assignment was to tail River and bring in the Alliance. Therefore, if Dobson was known to have disappeared in connection to Mal or Serenity, then the show would have ended by the second episode - unlikely in Joss' scripts. It then follows that the Alliance did not have knowledge that Dobson was connected with Mal or Serenity. Not to give out spoilers, but this means that Alliance did not know which ship Dobson departed Eavesdown Docks on, did not get enough of his signal from Serenity before Wash scrambled it, and/or did not get an ID on Serenity before she rabbited right after KayLee was shot, and did not know Dobsons last expected repository on Whitefall.
Maybe that is the only point I'll make.
But in support of it, Dobson was under cover, so not in constant communication with his unit.
You also forget that they went to an Alliance ship in Safe, to save Book.
However, that does remind me of a problem I keep forgetting.
How does Serenity outrun The Alliance ship(s) after KayLee is shot? It's a slow ancient transport ship. They knew during the Salvage job for Badger, that they needed the decoys deployed in order fort he Alliance to choose to not chase them. Whenever they go up against the Alliance directly, they need the decoys or other tricks. Cry Baby, Pulse Beacon, multiple Nav Beacons, they know they cannot outrun Alliance ships in their 14-year-old medium cargo ship.
When Simon directs they rabbit after kayLee is shot, they have no props pre-set, so how do they evade the Alliance.
Anybody know?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
ow does Serenity outrun The Alliance ship(s) after KayLee is shot? It's a slow ancient transport ship. They knew during the Salvage job for Badger, that they needed the decoys deployed in order fort he Alliance to choose to not chase them. Whenever they go up against the Alliance directly, they need the decoys or other tricks. Cry Baby, Pulse Beacon, multiple Nav Beacons, they know they cannot outrun Alliance ships in their 14-year-old medium cargo ship.
When Simon directs they rabbit after kayLee is shot, they have no props pre-set, so how do they evade the Alliance.
Anybody know?
During the salvage operation when they use the crybaby to distract the Alliance cruise, that's to get them to redirect the compliment of much faster ASREVs waiting in the hanger.
Cruisers are very slow. ASREVs deployed in the defense of cruisers and interception are not.
An ASREV was the ship that the corrupt Fed Womack was chasing Serenity with in The Message.
My assumption is the cruiser was not yet close enough to get a good bearing off Serenity to deploy it's ASREVs to the location. Not good enough triangulation = miles off the mark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME