Investigating the Death of 'Agent Dubson'

POSTED BY: TheSomnambulist
UPDATED: Friday, October 15, 2010 23:25
VIEWED: 18428
PAGE 7 of 14

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Uh, there have been plenty of points made as to why people think it works, and very few have anything to do with telling Joss what to do.

You seem a wee bit disingenuous there.

Actually, twice now people have reminded me that "it's Joss' story." I don't need the reminder, and I'm fine with Joss doing what he wants to. It's possible on a public forum to have a conversation with more than one person, meaning, that wasn't directed at you, or I would have quoted you.

Thanks for the disingenuous comment, though.

Quote:

Um.... okay. I'd say you are imagining things, but whatever.

Yeah, because calling me disingenuous over a conversation about the use of death in literature and film is entirely deserved.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Actually, twice now people have reminded me that "it's Joss' story." Really. I don't need the reminder, and I'm fine with Joss doing what he wants to.

Thanks for the disingenuous comment, though. It's remarkably illustrative.

I didn't say NO ONE made that point, just that there had been plenty of others made, which you want to ignore and attribute it all to one, simply dismissed point.

That's the disingenuous part. Saying it's all about one thing, when that is quite obviously not the case. And now "correcting" me that people did say it, when I never disputed that notion. Dong ma?

Quote:

Yeah, because calling me disingenuous over a conversation about the use of death in literature and film is entirely deserved.

It is, when you pretend that it is the only point that's been made, and dismiss the others.

Actually discussing those other points would be that discussion you claim to want.

"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."

THESOMNAMBULIST

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
logically, they'd be lucky if ANY of them lived,

Well, Jayne might have...

*SNORT*

Nice one Chris! I chuckled at that

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:09 PM

Quote:
I still don't see how it's any more than emotional. You didn't want him to die, cool.

but his dying did serve a story purpose, even if you didn't care for it.

His living, would have served no direct story purpose, other than to not make some folks sad.

Again with the strawmanning. No. It's not emotional, it's not because I wanted a happy ending with no sadness, because hey, BOOK DIED, and I defended that. I just told you I don't particularly care about Wash as a character, which you ignored.

My dislike of the use of the Anyone Can Die trope is broader than this one case, but in this case I have two specific objections.

1) It seems like Joss Whedon is having trouble writing more Firefly because he now regrets killing Wash off.

Wash living has a direct storytelling result in that Joss Whedon still has an Author Avatar character and would want to keep writing Firefly.

2) Wash dying did not have a story purpose, it did not further the story line in any way, as it wasn't part of any sort of plot development. It did potentially have an effect on the MOOD OF THE SCENE, but at the possible detriment of the further storyline (see #1 above).

The effect on the mood for some people (myself) however, was minimal, which made the sacrifice of further storylines not worth it. Arguably, even if the mood had been sufficiently affected, the sacrifice would STILL not be worth it.

ZEEK

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by two:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
The Reavers were aiming at him and firing a projectile with no course correcting capabilities. It pretty much had to be a straight shot. If Wash couldn't see them then they couldn't see Wash and it would have been a random shot that just happened to hit the pilot dead in the chest. That seems much worse than just having Wash strapped in and unable to react in time.

Basically I think by the time the shot was fired it was too late. I think he turned his head anyway IIRC. He probably didn't even see the shot.
There was 3 pairs of eyes in the cockpit, all facing the Reavers. Wash not seeing? Okay, have it your way. Mal or Zoe could have seen the Reavers if only Joss hadn't made them blind to what was happening outside the window. If the Reaver's wooden projectile can get into the window then Zoe or Mal can see it coming. Unless you assume the projectile made a 90 degree turn in mid-air and seemed to come out of nowhere.

No I'm talking about having the Reaver ship off to the side. That wouldn't make sense because then the Reavers wouldn't be able to see Wash. They have to be able to see each other or there wouldn't be an attack. The Reavers are aiming at Wash. Not just a lucky pot shot.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:13 PM

Hey it's interesting the way this debate has gone, but I wish folk wouldn't become so aggrivated at each other. Fact is we're all here for a little jibber-jabber and a healthy dose of Firefly re-living and that's what's been going on. Pats on
the back all round for having some nifty thoughts on the subject.
I love the fact we all see this wonderful show called FIREFLY from different points of view. Means it's a great deal broader than I ever thought and possibly broader than some of you thought... So that has to be good... Right?

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:14 PM

Quote:
I didn't say NO ONE made that point, just that there had been plenty of others made, which you want to ignore and attribute it all to one, simply dismissed point.

I never made it about that one point! YOU DID!

I've been responding to everyone's arguments here, responses which you've been ignoring, all while dismissing MY points with repeated accusations of me being childish and immature. Don't you think I realize what you're really saying when you suggest that I just don't appreciate an in-story death because I want a happy ending? I do get the implication.

Quote:
It is, when you pretend that it is the only point that's been made, and dismiss the others.

I DIDN'T. :( You write a short post snarking at me, in response to a post that WASN'T directed at you (but was also snark - Sorry Chris), and then when I address the points in that post (while I've been addressing other points elsewhere) you accuse me of this?

Bad form.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Wash dying did not have a story purpose, it did not further the story line in any way,

Byte, I just don't agree. It served the story in that it reminded us that our BDH's aren't impervious. It was unexpected, like a roadside bomb in Iraq. It was a little bit of reality in a fantasy environment. Like Story said, logically, NO ONE should have survived. I'm just glad that as many that DID, did.

The laughing Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
I didn't say NO ONE made that point, just that there had been plenty of others made, which you want to ignore and attribute it all to one, simply dismissed point.

I never made it about that one point! YOU DID!

I made it all about one point.... by pointing out there were others.

Ooooh......kay.

Quote:
I've been responding to everyone's arguments here, responses which you've been ignoring, all while dismissing MY points with repeated accusations of me being childish and immature. Don't you think I realize what you're really saying when you suggest that I just don't appreciate an in-story death because I want a happy ending? I do get the gorramn implication.

As I've said, I see nothing that doesn't boil down to "I didn't want him to die". I've explained my rationale, and asked for yours. Grr, mean old me.

Quote:

I DIDN'T. :( You write a short post snarking at me, in response to a post that WASN'T directed at you (but was also snark - Sorry Chris), and then when I address the points in that post (while I've been addressing other points elsewhere) you accuse me of this?

Bad form.

Gee, sorry for joining a conversation.

But I don't see how you've really addressed the points, other than to say, over and over, that the death of a character serves no purpose, and there was no heightened tension. Which may be true for you, but is not universal, and thus doesn't address how it bad storytelling - it just speaks to how it's not the story YOU wanted to see. Sorry is my drawing such distinctions is so upsetting.

You keep saying it didn't further the story, that it was unnecessary, etc - but you don't get into the WHY, as the rest of us have. Which is why your arguments come off as grounded in emotion. And that's cool. If you just hate the scene because you're pissed he killed Wash - FINE. But own it.

Or, if you have stronger reasoning, share it. But don't act like you're getting beat up on because your say-so isn't compelling for the rest of us.

"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."

THESOMNAMBULIST

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:31 PM

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:
Agreed, however, I don't think the movie Serenity was the story he wanted to tell. He wanted to tell a 7-year series, where secrets about Wash and Book would have come out before they died (and they would have, I have enough faith in Joss to acknowledge he probably did plan to kill them).

Compressed into the time frame of the movie, Joss didn't get to tell us things about the characters he wanted to. He was trying to wrap things up, and in the end he did something that it now seems like he regrets, but can't admit he regrets because of artistic integrity.

I'm not sure where I saw it but I do recall an interview with Joss where he comments that he basically put everything into Serenity because artistically you have to. You can't design it with a follow up in mind because it will tarnish the product. That said the world of art is full of artists who are constantly at odds with what they have produced. I think's it's just the rub of being creative. I'm sure he does have regrets about Serenity, but he has made the product and it would have been with him for some time, and it was obviously the tale he wanted to tell at the time, and I'm inclined to respect that.

I personally am unaffected by the death of Wash and Book (in the longterm) because for me it made the last act that much more tense, and there by design helped the film. I went in seeing SERENITY with a sense that Joss was probably not going to get a chance to do the seven season arc he wanted with Firefly and therefore what I was watching there and then with the film was Joss giving it everything - At one point I honestly thought they might all die! Except River because she was the reason for the endeavour. But that last act... Well it had me. It had me all the way to the credits and Wash and Books death allowed that. Otherwise I think I would have thought a great deal less of the film.

Quote:
The movie was just not the most optimal setting to tell the story Joss wanted to tell.

Possibly not. Difficult to contest that, to a certian extent as the characters were designed around a TV show, but I felt it flowed very well cinematically, and the two hour format was filled with plenty of content and only a little contrivance.

Bytemite - you and I have had a fair few healthy exchanges regarding Firefly in the past and I'd like to think we'll go on having many more and always with a healthy dose of mutual respcect. I hope you're not sore at my points. I direct none of them with hostility.

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE