Shepherd's Tale discussion (for them that's read it only)
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, May 27, 2011 04:31
VIEWED: 34214
PAGE 5 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Wash's death is just an insult.
Wash's death was a necessary means to an end.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by KalEl:Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Wash's death is just an insult.
Wash's death was a necessary means to an end.
As a fictional character, Wash's death wasn't "necessary", and the "end" wasn't necessary or even useful.
But that discussion,
(about which I've posted pages)
belongs in another thread.
My main point was that I see trying to rationalize the "Shepherd's Tale" timeline
as pure fan wank,
as is my "Wash Lives" BDM outcome.
Every fan has the right to enjoy the object of our fandom as we see fit,
but we won't always agree on how to play that out.
I would also say, I liked the way Book found faith in a bowl of soup,
in part because such an existentialist observation led to a Christian walk.
Mike
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, for the love of--
Why does any thread that goes over a certain number of posts have to eventually devolve into lamenting poor lamentable Wash?
Wash is dead. Dead.
Joss said Wash is dead. He said Wash was always slated to die (likely fairly early in the TV series). Alan Tudyk has said the same thing.
Just because some folk don't understand (or agree with) what Joss was trying to accomplish with his writing doesn't negate it.
Sorry for the rant and diversion.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Oh, for the love of--
Why does any thread that goes over a certain number of posts
have to eventually devolve into lamenting poor lamentable Wash?
Because killing Wash was a bad idea.
Because killing Wash was bad writing.
Because killing Wash was bad for Firefly.
Because many fans prefered FOX's input for more upbeat Firefly,
and downer Serenity/dead Wash took away from that.
Because killing Wash (arguably) hurt Serenity's box office.
Hey, don't get mad at me...
...you asked!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wash's senseless death saddened me. But so did Joyce's on Buffy, and my Mom's in real life.
Like the Predator said, SHITT APPENZZ.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry I'm late to this thread, but I just recently read the comic. And after reading it, I developed a question for you guys:
Comparing Shepherd's life story here with Anakin Skywalker's or Captain Kirk's in the '09 Star Trek Flick,How do you think Book's story adds up? Do you think this is the format that all life stories should be told in Sci-Fi OR Do you think it needs a couple of tweaks?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Don't get me wrong, I get the point. Just didn't think it was demonstrated in a particularly compelling way.
Different strokes.
Finally read it. I have to say, every time I get to return to the Firefly universe (short stories, comics, whatever) it is an almost spiritual experience. Maybe because I was only 16 when the show first aired and when it disappeared, I didn't find the browncoats right away and just felt like I'd lost something great with zero explanation.
That said, I have to agree with GWEK. Good backstory but poor execution. Zack claims to have written this based on an outline from Joss, but it seems to be that he took that outline, turned it in reverse and said, "done." It was great to finally learn what happened with Book and it had all the unexpected turns that I've come to expect from Joss, but I can't help but think that this would have been executed better as an episode of the show where we see the flashbacks Lost style: integrated into a current conflict and shown to the audience without Book sitting down for story time with the crew. If you're not familiar with Lost, think Out of Gas.
-----------------------------
I pray for one last landing,
on the globe that gave me birth.
Let me rest my eyes on the fleecy skies
and the cool, green hills of Earth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BlackRobedBook:
Sorry I'm late to this thread, but I just recently read the comic. And after reading it, I developed a question for you guys:
Comparing Shepherd's life story here with Anakin Skywalker's or Captain Kirk's in the '09 Star Trek Flick,How do you think Book's story adds up? Do you think this is the format that all life stories should be told in Sci-Fi OR Do you think it needs a couple of tweaks?
Not sure what you're getting at here. How do Anakin Skywalker and Captain Kirk relate? Book's story was where he went from being an evil man to a good man. Anakin did the opposite with a touch (or a throw rather) of good at the very end. And Kirk is just... Kirk. The only things I see in common are troubled childhoods, though Anakin's wasn't that bad.
-----------------------------
I pray for one last landing,
on the globe that gave me birth.
Let me rest my eyes on the fleecy skies
and the cool, green hills of Earth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DMI:Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Don't get me wrong, I get the point. Just didn't think it was demonstrated in a particularly compelling way.
Different strokes.
That said, I have to agree with GWEK. Good backstory but poor execution. Zack claims to have written this based on an outline from Joss, but it seems to be that he took that outline, turned it in reverse and said, "done." It was great to finally learn what happened with Book and it had all the unexpected turns that I've come to expect from Joss, but I can't help but think that this would have been executed better as an episode of the show where we see the flashbacks Lost style: integrated into a current conflict and shown to the audience without Book sitting down for story time with the crew. If you're not familiar with Lost, think Out of Gas.
I kind of agree with you. Zach's short that he did for USA Today online channeled the show and characters a lot better IMO. But it was nice to get some closure with Book anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to get in on this now, might as well.
Quote:
Book was working for the Independents.
Why would he mastermind an operation that would begin the war?
Why not try and subvert from inside to prevent the war?
Agreed, and once again, the big operation to end the war that failed feels like something undertaken early in the Unification War.
The attack wasn't staged to prove the Independents' abilities;
it was launched to eliminate the Independents.
The Independents, in the alternative, viewed it as a chance to make squelching the Independence movement prohibitivly costly for the Alliance.
He was working for the Independents, but he was also working for the Alliance, considering he was part of an Alliance operation launched to eliminate the Independents.
He looks pretty shocked and horrified by the destruction he caused, suggesting that wasn't what he intended to happen. We don't know what he intended to happen. He may have expected a stalemate and a withdrawal. He may have forgotten about his eyepiece and unwittingly revealed the operation to the Independents (resulting in beat down). He may have switched allegiances completely and not expected the Independents to muster enough forces to fight them back, even with any information or misinformation he fed them.
He was playing both sides, and we don't know his true allegiance. What his motivations were we don't know. He may not have even had motivations, and was mostly scrabbling to stay above water the whole time. When confronted by the consequences of his own actions, which later, when being chewed out by his Alliance superior, he could not justify what he had done.
We can all agree on two things, Book regretted the outcome of his actions, and whether the fight was before the war or during it, the only outcome of the operation, intended to crush the Independents, was to pour more fuel on the fire.
So interpreting it as an escalation that might have led to the start of the war, or an escalation during the war are both equally valid possibilities, especially with the given unknowns or inconsistencies in the timeline.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME